Exactly! I, for one, would love to see Darren run 150-200 and out even if SVB sits and racks.
14.1 not fair both players should be given a chance to run balls
- Thread starter naji
- Start date
Exactly! I, for one, would love to see Darren run 150-200 and out even if SVB sits and racks.
Just a question?
I have heard lots of people on this form complain about the 9 Ball format, complain that they want to see every player get a chance at the table, that no player should travel across the country to sit and watch his opponent run 9 racks and never get to the table..., so whats the diff?
I don't care to much for 14.1, but I don't think that a rule change is out of the question?
I have heard lots of people on this form complain about the 9 Ball format, complain that they want to see every player get a chance at the table, that no player should travel across the country to sit and watch his opponent run 9 racks and never get to the table..., so whats the diff?
I don't care to much for 14.1, but I don't think that a rule change is out of the question?
I have to agree with Mr. Incardona. It's about controlling the table and that includes the opening break. In any game if you are at the table you have an opportunity to take control and even a small error or unfortunate roll can give that control back to the other player. That is the game, not just an ability to score.
Sweet King, you the man! i bet you i can search AZB back and find those people argued in favor of alternate break; who knows could be same people arguing against 14.1 change on this post!
In rotation they alternate the break, Efren played POV man alternate break rotation a month a go if i remember correctly.
.
A change will bring a huge opportunity for streamers and fans would love to see the battle from both sides! i am sure international pros would welcome the chance for a shoot out who knows could have a treat and players have max runs on 1st attempts in one match!
To be honest with you i hate for Efren, or SVB, or Dennis, or all these good pros loose this way in 14.1 and never get a chance to show their skill!
We are talking completely shutout, Mika got to the table many times it is fair.. probably was winner's break (old style)
If you change the game, it will no longer be 14.1 continuous. Its just that simple. I never really liked the alternate breaking format in 9b/10b to be honest either. But those rules were changed for the fans. Here's the thing. A straight pool fan would NEVER want someone to change its format. The game is pure, so lets leave it alone. If a player doesn't get a chance in is match? Maybe next time he'll give a better opening break, or play a better safety, or even lag better. Its the game of champions, and it would be an injustice to alter it.
2014 US Open 9 Ball rules, winner breaks. That's just the way the game is played and, if you polled the international players, I doubt they would agree with you.
It is really different era nowadays! pool is no longer played in your back yard pool hall, pros are traveling all over the world for a chance at the prize. With the high travel and lodging cost they want to at least guarantee a kind of a tournament where they can show their skill, and will walk away from tournaments where the toss or lag determines their fate, let alone the draw; they opt to Vegas might have better odds for them!!
There is huge difference between rotation games, and straight pool, in rotation you are playing single ball position, in straight pool, 8 ball games you are playing multiple balls position except for the last shot in the inning. The chance for a complete shutout in rotation is slim and will not happen, in straight pool it happens frequent enough.
Most major tournaments are played with alternate break these days, except the USA open, which is really a draw back IMO to getting full field,
Old Nine Baller
Banned
Every month there are hundreds of imbecilic threads started in this forum. This one is in the top 5, at least in my recent memory.
Why would anybody even reply to the OP? None of you can change anything in the rules so why bother?
ONB
Why would anybody even reply to the OP? None of you can change anything in the rules so why bother?
ONB
Well the rules have been changed many times to please the audience. I for one don't feel they should have. I love watching the big runs. 200 by Darren in the final last year, beautiful to watch. 9 ball went to alternate breaks, one scratch ball in hand. Billy Incardona favored this format for the viewers, they get to see both players at the table....He was right, the viewers liked it. BUT, if you polled the players they would all want one major change to tournaments....longer races. This would apply to 9 ball, 10 ball, 1 pocket, ect. But this doesn't work for TV or a large field of 120 plus players....time constraints, or a flight to catch by Ralph...why did I say that.Anyway, I would love to see longer races in at least the final 3 or 4 matches of any enent.
naji is opposed to pool matches that are "not fair." I agree.
If a match starts with a coin flip, i.e., a matter of pure chance, and the player who wins that coin flip runs out the match, that is not fair (even though the coin flip was "fair"). That is, it is not fair to lose a sports competition without ever participating in it. I know of no other events in the sports world where such an occurrence is possible. But in winner-breaks pool matches that start with a coin flip, that is possible.
The easy solution, of course, is to eliminate coin flips and determine the start of a match with a traditional lag. That is a skill shot. If you lose the lag and your opponent runs out a winner-breaks set of 9-ball or 10-ball, too bad; you had your fair chance.
Similarly, in 14.1, if it starts with a lag, all is fair. The winner of the lag decides who will make the opening break shot, which can be offensive or defensive. If the opening breaker goes offensive and somehow makes a called shot and runs out, that was fair. If the opening breaker makes the traditional defensive break shot and the incoming player then runs out, that was fair.
Fairness is absent only without a skill shot to set the match in motion.
Of course "luck" can still play a huge role in who wins, even with an opening lag. But that is different from fairness.
If a match starts with a coin flip, i.e., a matter of pure chance, and the player who wins that coin flip runs out the match, that is not fair (even though the coin flip was "fair"). That is, it is not fair to lose a sports competition without ever participating in it. I know of no other events in the sports world where such an occurrence is possible. But in winner-breaks pool matches that start with a coin flip, that is possible.
The easy solution, of course, is to eliminate coin flips and determine the start of a match with a traditional lag. That is a skill shot. If you lose the lag and your opponent runs out a winner-breaks set of 9-ball or 10-ball, too bad; you had your fair chance.
Similarly, in 14.1, if it starts with a lag, all is fair. The winner of the lag decides who will make the opening break shot, which can be offensive or defensive. If the opening breaker goes offensive and somehow makes a called shot and runs out, that was fair. If the opening breaker makes the traditional defensive break shot and the incoming player then runs out, that was fair.
Fairness is absent only without a skill shot to set the match in motion.
Of course "luck" can still play a huge role in who wins, even with an opening lag. But that is different from fairness.
No reason why longer matches can't work like they do in snooker. In a 9 ball race to 30, for example they could always break the match up into segments of say 15 racks, another match starts in the table and the players get a break and come back on after that match has played out 15 games. It also opens up the opportunity to increase ticket sales. Tickets for a match would not be for the entire match, but instead for just 15 racks of archer vs svb for example. It would pump more money into the sport and make tickets cheaper for the viewers.