I am lazy, someone help me with this one so I don't have to read all the rules. I miss the 10 and tit hook? They can pass back to me?
10-Ball Rules Question
- Thread starter mooseman
- Start date
Jason:
Yes. If you called the 10-ball, and then missed, your opponent has the option to look at the table, decide if he/she likes or doesn't like what you left him/her, and giving it back to you. So yes, if you missed the 10-ball and the result is not an easily pocketable shot, you might not want to go back to your seat just yet, for your opponent is more than likely going to make you shoot again.
-Sean
Love this rule... that puts the pressure on now!
Again, maybe in some tours/tourneys but not under current WSR.
WSR 9.8: "...If the shooter fails to pocket the called ball or fouls, play passes to the other player, and if no foul was committed, the incoming player must play the cue ball from the position left by the other player."
Buddy
Jason:
Yep, as I summarized my experience in post #38, I *LOVE* this rule! It forces you to make the ball, not relax with an "oh well, I'll just smack it hard enough so that if it doesn't go in, it'll just go up table against the rail, leaving my opponent tough." None of this two-way-shot funny business.
In fact, during my match with Tony Robles, I was running out a rack and in the process of pocketing the 9-ball, I overran my position on the 10-ball (which was on the head string, about a diamond away from the long cushion). I drew-back from the 9-ball a little too hard (the draw I was getting with that Red Circle cue ball surprised me), and the cue ball stopped in the kitchen, about one ball's width behind the head spot. I hung my head in embarrassment at what I just did -- ran the rack with some great shots, and screwed myself on the 10-ball. I knew that if I played a safety on that 10-ball (e.g. tapping the 10-ball straight into the rail and try to keep the cue ball perpendicular to it), Tony was going to turn the shot back to me. I *had* to make that 10-ball. I had the option of either A.) banking it, B.) cutting it all the way down table (nearly a 90-degree cut, for a distance of 6 feet, possibly hanging it in the pocket for an easy win for Tony), or try to cut it in the side pocket. Having practiced lots of steep-angled cut shots into the side pocket, I chose the latter. I successfully cut that 10-ball into the side pocket, avoided the scratch in the opposite corner pocket (to my right), with hoots, cue tapping, and accolades from Tony and several that were watching the match. And yes, a little fist pump with a MacCauley Culkins' "Home Alone"-style "Yesssss!" from me.
Pure pool, pure shotmaking, pure strategy!
-Sean
Buddy:
I believe Jason was asking for clarification about the rule for this specific tour. (Jason, correct me if I misunderstood your question?)
-Sean
Please accept my apologies - juggling a lot of stuff today...
Thank you Sean for the positive feedback and I'm really happy that you enjoyed yourself so much ... It was a twisted bit of fate that you would draw Tony first but you played like a rockstar and aside from the orange skittles, you were playing at his speed. KUDOS!
And thanks for acknowledging the player and crowd agreement to the new rules.
Jason, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a match won by a terribly ball roll like your example. Those situations were the fuel to Tony's rule changes. (He got a kick out of your response above, LOL)
PS - Tony, Fin and I decided that we will be making it call 9-ball for the ABCD event! The players spoke and we're listening
And thanks for acknowledging the player and crowd agreement to the new rules.
Jason, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a match won by a terribly ball roll like your example. Those situations were the fuel to Tony's rule changes. (He got a kick out of your response above, LOL)
PS - Tony, Fin and I decided that we will be making it call 9-ball for the ABCD event! The players spoke and we're listening
Last edited:
That's a different set of rules. The WPA rules, which are very similar to that on the PCA tour many years ago, absolutely will force players to call balls they never intended to pocket. If there is no penalty for not pocketing a called ball, but there is a penalty for pocketing a ball that is not called, balls will constantly be called when they are not intended to be pocketed just in case they happen to fall, especially on kick shots.
The rules you are referring to will make players play safe when they would ordinarily fire away. Is that what we want, more safe play and fewer runouts? Is one pocket the most popular pool game on TV?
The rules on the Camel Tour were no exception, they were the standard rules regardless of revisionist history on wikipedia.
unknownpro:
This was absolutely NOT those old PCA tour rules. It doesn't make sense to keep bringing up those PCA tour rules, because they do not apply here. The only good comparing Tony's rules to the PCA rules would do, is for contrast purposes only; not comparison/equation purposes. I agree that forcing a player to call a shot, no matter how silly, unlikely, or "just in case it happens to go in" is not professionally played pool.
And, Wikipedia is not a good resource for "de facto" historical analysis -- like you mention/allude-to, Wikipedia is a publicly-contributed information source, and cannot be considered a reliable information source other than just merely "what's considered correct for today." I wish the BCA or other rules committees made their past-years' rulesets available as part of a watermarked "obsolete archive" that one could reference to see what a rule "was" in year's past. That would end a lot of this debate as to how 10-ball was officially played ("officially" being the key operative word) in year's past. But all this talk is an instance of "woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn't, therefore can't."
And, as for your "most popular game on TV being one pocket" analogy, I think you took that one far beyond a natural conclusion, to the extremist's point of view. My rebuttal to you is, "do we have to let 9-ball dictate to us how all cue games should be played, merely because it's the game everyone sees on TV?" For medicine-tasting reasons, allow me to offer an extremist's take on you -- "perhaps the snooker world should just forget all about that wonderful game and its strategy, because it's not as popular as 9-ball, and just televise 9-ball?"
Sorry, I don't buy it. This isn't a Henry Ford-esque, "you can have any color you want, as long as it's black" thing [related to whether a cue sport has to conform to what's televised].
Respectfully,
-Sean
Last edited:
I was just asking general rules. Last time I watched online they played like 9 ball. So, tit hooks in pred tour I can pass and WPA, I shoot?
Jason:
Yes, you have it correct -- in Predator tour, the incoming player can pass back to the previous shooter (if the shot was a called shot that was merely missed); in WPA, the incoming player has to accept the table as-is and shoot.
-Sean
Then you shouldn't quote my response to PCA/WPA type rules. Snooker is what we always played as an alternative to two shot push out 9 ball rules because they sucked. I love snooker. But we played it American style - you scratch/foul you lose your entire run.
Do you deny that the Predator/Robles rules favor safety play and discourage low percentage runouts?
Nobody really cares what BCA rules are, because the BCA (not the BCAPL) sponsored very few tournaments in the past, and none today as far as I know. The Camel tour had multiple $75,000 added events with only a $250 entry fee at ten ball and none were call shot.
Why shouldn't I quote your PCA/WPA rules? For one thing, the PCA didn't have called safeties, which the WPA rules do. So in those old PCA rules, one would have the situation you mention, where a player would call silly shots, "just in case they go in," which would not happen in WPA rules. That called safety option is a powerful tool, that in the hands of a competent player, reduce the "gamble" of whether a shot is high- or low-percentage.
Yes, I do. For one thing, a competent player always weighs whether a shot is a low-percentage makeable shot, or a higher-percentage safety. It doesn't matter whether we have Texas Express rules here or not -- the same decision is going to apply -- "do I fire at this low-percentage shot, or do I go for the higher percentage safety?" And, with the Predator/Robles rules, if there's only one or two balls left on the table that the shooter unfortunately left him/herself bad on, it forces the player to be offensive -- there's no safety play on that shot, because you're going to get the shot turned back to you. You *have* to make that ball -- the rules force offensive, not defensive, play.
Nobody really cares what the BCA rules are or were? So we go from balking at a world standard rules committee advocating call-shot/call-safety rules for a particular game, to not caring what that world standard rules committee says at all about that game? (WPA rules are derived from BCA rules.) No offense, but this seems very convenient -- hawk-up the world committee rules when they support one's beliefs, but then toss them aside when they don't.
-Sean
I think you are confused. The WPA rules (which again are very similar to the PCA rules) will lead to players calling shots they have no intention of pocketing. Where is the penalty for calling a shot that does not go in? The PCA did have called safeties. The point is there is zero incentive to call safe and every incentive to call a ball and pocket under WPA/PCA rules.
Under the alternative Predator/Robles rules, there is more incentive to play safe. When a player is determining shot selection, he will definitely factor in the possibility of missing the shot. If the incoming player can turn the shot back over and the missed shot is likely to leave tough position he will have more incentive to duck. I don't know why you'd say you are forced to go for a shot when your opponent cannot give the table back on a called safety but can give it back on a called and missed shot.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the BCA rules as far as I know were never call shot until the WPA made up these call shot rules.
unknownpro:
I don't know why we seem to be doing high-speed flybys past each other, but I think you might be confused. In the bolded sentence above, that has nothing to do with either the PCA or WPA rules. In PCA or WPA rules, there *is no* penalty for calling a shot that does not go in. ONLY in the Predator/Robles rules does this penalty apply -- and I thought that was the meat of this whole thread? Why are we back at square one still trying to clarify whose rule is whose? Is this the circular debate technique where you grab your opponent's tail and try to get him/her to bite/latch onto it and go round and round?
I see your point (and have seen it from the beginning) about the greater incentive to play safe, rather than "go for it." However, I'm here to tell you (as I did in post #38) that I did not see it in any of the matches. The safeties played were basic, smart safeties that one would find in any old Texas Express match. All I saw was traditional "low percentage shot vs. high percentage safety" decision making. Most of the time, with players of this caliber, they were going for the shot, because the rewards in this tourney were greater, unless the table was tied-up with clusters and therefore no reward for making the shot. I saw some pretty spectacular shot-making. Tony Robles' match with Frankie Hernandez was a good example -- Tony was going for (calling the pocket for) jump shots after Frankie played a nice kick-safe on him, and Tony was making them! It was like they were trading spectacular kick-safes, and one of them would call a shot out of them, and make it, bringing down the house. This was a lot more exciting pool than watching boring Cosmos (connect-the-dots runouts).
I disagree. But like I said earlier, unless someone with some archived history of BCA rules comes into this to dispell either you or me, this is a case of "woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn't, so can't."
Respectfully,
-Sean
I too found this to be the case and was surprised. I thought for sure the game would be a cat and mouse of safety battles, but at this level of play, it was awesome to watch these players utilize their full range of skill to combat their opponent both mentally and physically. It became a much more elevated level of play where the player's knowledge and experience on ALL levels were considered: Shot making, secured safeties, kicks, kick-safes, jumps and accurate assessment of high percentage vs. low percentage shot selection. The safeties that were played were the highest percentage shots so for the most part, they would have been the play in either Predator/Robles rules or Texas Express.
Now on the amateur level, I'd agree with "unknownpro" about the length and bore of the game because frankly there just aren't enough tools in our arsenal to manage the high skill involved in these rules. (I'm an amateur and I'm not ready for these rules. I love them, but I'm not ready. I'm not accurate or consistent enough nor do I possess enough skill sets in safety and kicking.) But for these high caliber players, this was a drill in skill, experience, talent & knowledge. Like I said before, the only thing missing was two-way shots. (Which personally I love but I'll sacrifice for the purity of the games that I witnessed.)
Unknownpro, just so you know, when Tony played in Grady's tournament all those years ago, everyone BUT HIM wanted these rules. He thought they were a terrible idea. It was only after he played with these exact rules during the tournament that he realized their quality. I don't know if you have ever played with these exact rules as the experiences you've listed in this thread seem to be with different call shot rules, but perhaps you might try them out yourself and see if maybe you like them?
Last edited: