8, 9, 10 ball racking & breaking conflict resolved

[DogsPlayingPool]

I'm not sure I get why some seem to think this negates all the hard work that some have put in to developing their break shots, or that this proposed breaking format somehow negates the advantage of those that possess a superior break shot.

So, a ball doesn't have to be made on the break - so what? If you have a great break and are capable of sinking 2, 3 or 4 balls on the break every time, are you trying to tell me that you will no longer use that break just because you don't HAVE to sink a ball?

Not me. I'd still break the snot out of them and be facing 5, 6 or 7 ball runs while my opponent is facing 8 or 9 ball runs on his breaks. I'd say that my better break STILL provides me a distinct advantage even in this format. If only I possessed such a break. :frown:

This is an interesting format and I like new possible ideas for solving old problems. It certainly has created an interesting dialogue.

 

[TheBook]

I can see the loss of at least two products with this format. Break cues and high tech racks.

Good concept. Can see faster games and less wear on the tables.

 

[Celtic]

So, a ball doesn't have to be made on the break - so what? If you have a great break and are capable of sinking 2, 3 or 4 balls on the break every time, are you trying to tell me that you will no longer use that break just because you don't HAVE to sink a ball?

Not me. I'd still break the snot out of them and be facing 5, 6 or 7 ball runs while my opponent is facing 8 or 9 ball runs on his breaks. I'd say that my better break STILL provides me a distinct advantage even in this format. If only I possessed such a break. :frown:

And you would lose. If you don't have to make a ball and you keep shooting the percentage play is to control the cueball, that becomes 100% of your focus whereas to date controlling the cueball AND making a ball has been the focus and created a focus on power AND control. If you take away the need for making a ball the pros will without fail focus the bulk of their attention specifically on the control of the cueball as a scratch on your break will still give up control of the table.

 

[mullyman]

I'm sick and tired of hearing people talking about the break being an art form. Let me choose a ball for you and then you pocket it off the break, in a called pocket of course. If you can do that then I'll give you props.
MULLY
Yeah, I'll let you choose the pocket

 

[woody_968]

After playing with a magic rack for the first time today, Id say if you use one of them you dont need the suggested rules. It is amazing what a difference really having all the balls froze makes. But if you use one with top players you better play alternating break LOL.

We played 4 sets today, races to 9. Only twice did a ball not go on the break! And with a tight rack there is no need to hit em 25mph. It was no longer about hitting them as hard as you can and hoping a ball went in. It was about playing shape on the one ball, as long as it doesnt go in the side!

It made racking MUCH faster. Which solves one of the growing problems with tournament play.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

And you would lose. If you don't have to make a ball and you keep shooting the percentage play is to control the cueball, that becomes 100% of your focus whereas to date controlling the cueball AND making a ball has been the focus and created a focus on power AND control. If you take away the need for making a ball the pros will without fail focus the bulk of their attention specifically on the control of the cueball as a scratch on your break will still give up control of the table.

Well, I'm not a pro, and I rarely compete against them, but I understand what you are saying and perhaps you are correct in that at the highest level of the game the percentage play may be to go with the control of the soft break rather than making 2-3 balls on the break. But in the vast majority of weekly pool hall tournaments across the land, I doubt that is completely true. I would imagine a lot of guys would still rather be playing six ball while their opponent is playing nine ball.

I perceived this thread as a discussion on a tournament format for nine ball in general, not just limited to what we as spectators or fans think about this format for the pros and pro only tournaments.

 

[Pushout]

I'd like to see Joe Tucker chime in here.

 

[Clark_the_Shark]

I too would like to Joe Tucker on this... I think I'll email him tomorrow and ask him to chime in.

Let's not focus all the discussion on 9-ball, because I think the largest advantage is definitely in 8ball. I HATE the making a ball on the break rule in that game with a passion.

 

[ShootingArts]

a few problems

Pat,

It is very nice to see you posting and I hate to seem to be singling you out to "welcome" you but your video's reveal several weaknesses of this idea. First, I have seen one of the top pro's reach in and create gaps right on your video's when the game was rack your own. When a rack can't be inspected or protested then angling the rack and creating gaps can't be dealt with. Another issue is a random rack is only random if the person putting the balls in or rolling them ahead wants it to be. Even if you only position two or three balls it is an advantage.

The solution to random racking issues is simple. Pattern racking with two official patterns, one pattern and the mirror image of that same pattern for breaking from either side of the table.

The next issue is the rack itself and that is certainly the thornier issue. One thing I have wondered about for a few years and might be possible with something similar to a magic rack or a specially designed rack of a more standard nature is a deliberately spaced rack. What if we had a deliberate spacing of 3/16" or a quarter inch between the balls? A little difference in the exact spacing wouldn't be near as much of a factor as balls frozen or having even 1/32" gap.

If we go to breaker shoots again regardless, is it time to go to twelve or full fifteen ball rotation?

I'm a strong advocate of a fixed standard pattern rack for all rotation games. The other things are just some thoughts, I don't know if they are workable ideas or not until and unless they are tried.

Hu

Some comments from Pat Fleming:

With all due respect to those who oppose and those who embrace Paul Schofield’s new rules concept, allow me to make these comments about three of the most significant rules: the break shot, alternating the break, and racking the balls:

A player who has spent countless hours practicing his break shot probably will not like this format. If I had a great break, I wouldn’t either.

A promoter who has had great success with the traditional rules probably would not try this format. If I was that promoter, I wouldn’t either.

But I do think that we can all agree that after spending countless hours practicing, and a painful amount of money for entry fees, lodging, travel, and food, all that a contestant wants is a fair chance to show his skills.

Who hasn’t heard these complaints, even if they aren’t entirely true?
“Every time he made a ball on the break, he was dead out and every time I made a ball on the break, I was hooked.”
OR
“Every time I missed, he had an easy out, and every time he missed, I never had anything.”

The breaker shooting after the break and alternating the break can make that expensive trip more palatable.

A common complaint by nearly everyone is that it takes too long to rack the balls in 9-ball. Allowing the breaker to rack speeds up that process.

Nearly everyone likes close matches. Alternating the break promotes close matches.

Schofield’s format is merely an option. It’s does not have to replace the traditional rules of 9-ball. It is another option. In time, there will be adequate trials to determine if this format is viable. If Schofield’s format is embraced by some promoters, trust me, it will get sorted out very quickly, and only the strong (formats) will survive. Time will provide all of the answers.

In closing, personally, I think Paul’s new rules are in the game’s best interest. Given a chance, I think his format will bring more players into the tournament arena. Time will tell, but I’m betting on it.

Pat Fleming
Accu-Stats Video Productions

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Hu, I've a question about fixed pattern racks in say, 9 ball. If the idea of pattern racking is that balls in certain positions tend to go to certain areas of the table, then how, with the same fixed pattern every game, do you overcome every layout being similar game after game, with players playing very similar patterns again and again? That is, the same groups of balls end up down table or up table, depending on their location in the rack.

I've thought about your idea having seen it in other threads, but isn't the above situation somewhat problematical (i.e. boring)? Perhaps, as usual, there is something I'm not considering. :embarrassed2:

Thanks.

 

[D-Rock]

I say if the breaker gets to shoot again regardless of making a ball, how about we just ditch the break shot completely!..just throw them out on the table and let him shoot. ridiculous

 

[ShootingArts]

you are right of course

Hu, I've a question about fixed pattern racks in say, 9 ball. If the idea of pattern racking is that balls in certain positions tend to go to certain areas of the table, then how, with the same fixed pattern every game, do you overcome every layout being similar game after game, with players playing very similar patterns again and again? That is, the same groups of balls end up down table or up table, depending on their location in the rack.

I've thought about your idea having seen it in other threads, but isn't the above situation somewhat problematical (i.e. boring)? Perhaps, as usual, there is something I'm not considering. :embarrassed2:

Thanks.

You are right of course, the table layouts will be somewhat more predictable. However, a more boring game is a major improvement over a game that encourages and rewards cheating in my opinion. If you ask the competitors in the next tournament you are at what random racking means some will say that means you place the one and the money ball and let the rest of the balls fall wherever they fall. Others will say that means that you can put them anywhere you want to. Many of those that say you just put them wherever they fall do a bit of pattern racking anyway. I can gather the balls and toss them in the rack and get most of them where I want them just by luck while looking somewhere else. I can get lucky a lot like that as can anyone that spends a lot of time racking balls.

When everyone is using the same pattern that part of the equation is equalized and there is nothing to argue about concerning who is pattern racking and who isn't. That doesn't address gaps or crooked racks though, it is only a solution to one issue. I'm not a fan of tapped tables but maybe that is the best option to address the other issues here with a mark on each dimple. If dimple marks show it is an illegal rack. As a final note on fixed pattern racking I have to point out that snooker is both hugely popular and until recently far more lucrative to play than pool across the water and the last six balls are often in exactly the same place every rack, you are basically running a drill to get out every rack once the red balls are gone. Perhaps a combination of a rack and some spotted balls would work for pool.

Unfortunately pool was originally conceived as a gentleman's game and I have yet to see a set of rules today that didn't in some respects rely on a player's integrity. In tournament play or gambling some people are short on integrity so we are forced to try to minimize the ways they can shave the odds or at least reduce the benefits of what they can do. That almost always comes at a cost of fun for the players or excitement for the spectators.

I have some ideas along different paths that I might be able to test someday. Some of the things I want to do I feel would be an improvement on today's games. Some are simply accepting today's realities. I have to admit I don't have all of the answers, I don't even begin to. The game needs to be fairly fast paced, fun, and fair. The toughest part seems to be that it shouldn't lend itself to manipulation.

Hu

 

[CreeDo]

Even though some players may play to pocket the head ball or second ball in the side or a wing ball in the corner, it is more often than not that an unintended ball in an unintended pocket is what enables the shooter to continue shooting after the break under the current rules. Slamming the balls with the hope of slopping a ball or two in, has little to do with playing good pool. At the same time, a control break, getting a good spread on the balls, controlling the cue ball, controlling the 1-ball, and getting that first shot, is what our game is all about and what ought to be rewarded, not slopping balls in.

I'm digging up a thread that's fixing to die but this part is relevant to something I asked recently on here. If I'm reading you right:

1. Hitting 'em as hard as you can (while squatting whitey and controlling the 1) is the break you're trying to promote, and usually any balls made are the result of unintended randomness.

2. Playing for a called ball in a called pocket is "slopping balls in"

Did I wake up in backwards land? Is it opposite day? Since when is playing for (and making) a planned shot called 'slopping balls in'? And since when is hitting 'em as hard as you can and hoping something drops in a random pocket 'what our game is all about'?

And for the record, both breaks involve squatting the cue ball and having a shot on the 1. That's part of the game whether you call a ball or not.

What this format does is actually the opposite of the hard controlled breaks you're looking for. Get a few pros to do this for a while and they will be soft breaking this to death and 100% focusing on banking the 1 near the corner. The average tournament guy might not try to manipulate the break this way but get a top player and tens of thousands of dollars involved and he will find a way to game the system.

At least with traditional breaking rules, the break is only a killer advantage for fairly high level players, those who are out if they see the 1 and have no clusters. For the rest of us, it's a coin flip whether the break helps anyones. But with a guaranteed shot after, it becomes a definitive advantage for regular players and a massive advantage for the pros.

Here's a test... earl hates wing balls going in as much as anyone and strongly endorses hit 'em hard. Imagine earl sitting quietly in his chair as the victim while ralf calmly soft breaks, draws the CB back a foot, banks the 1 near the corner and runs out the rack. Imagine this happening to him 5 times a set. Can you not see earl saying something like "this is a joke"?

 

[Clark_the_Shark]

1. Hitting 'em as hard as you can (while squatting whitey and controlling the 1) is the break you're trying to promote, and usually any balls made are the result of unintended randomness.

2. Playing for a called ball in a called pocket is "slopping balls in"

You are wrong on both accounts here. He specifically is looking for hitting them in a controlled manner that controls the 1 ball and whitey. He opposses "Slamming the balls with the hope of slopping a ball or two in"... read the very next sentance he wrote.

And two, he made no mention of "calling" any ball whatsoever.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

You are wrong on both accounts here. He specifically is looking for hitting them in a controlled manner that controls the 1 ball and whitey. He opposses "Slamming the balls with the hope of slopping a ball or two in"... read the very next sentance he wrote.

And two, he made no mention of "calling" any ball whatsoever.

If I read Creedo right, his point isn't that the player is formally calling a shot (since there is no such requirement to do so in 9 Ball). I believe he is saying that the one in the side or wing in the corner is a result the player is intending to achieve and some players that have practiced this can make this intended shot a good percentage of the time (i.e. Donnie Mills V. SVB). This is an intended result rather than a slop in. Just substitute the word "intended" for "called".

 

[CreeDo]

Dogs is right, but clark is too. When I say called I mean making the usual planned wing ball on the break. The player doesn't actually call it.

But I did misread paul's thing, he was saying that under CURRENT rules... even if you play for a wing ball... usually the ball that gets sunk is not a planned ball. I equated that with the next line about slamming balls, like he was somehow saying the guys who play for a wing ball are hoping to slop something in. My apologies.

I'm guessing his reasoning for removing the ball-on-the-break requirements is to remove the luck in the break, and to him it's been mostly luck whether someone makes a ball on the 9 ball rack. But as bob j. pointed out... with perfect equipment and racking, it's very predictable and the pros can do it like 80% of the time. For them, that line in red doesn't apply. For the rest of us, maybe it does.

 

[timseal]

Oh, for goodness sake.

Nine-ball is a joke no matter what you do to it.

Just play ten-ball. Please.

 

[Paul Schofield]

conflict

To eliminate the conflict, the reasons for checking and approving the rack must to be voided out. This is done by ending the "ball on the break" requirement, and spotting the 9 (or 10).

Once you get beyond this, alternating breaks and racking your own becomes logical and makes it work.

The "four balls must hit a rail" can be replaced with a given number of balls passing through the center-string (or the head-string as done at the U.S. Open).

This does work and it works well (for all three games Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball).

 

[alinco]

Not a fan

I'm not a fan of this at all. Random thoughts that come to mind:

I think it equalizes the field. That's what handicapped leagues are for - not most tournaments. No doubt it is popular at any given tournament merely because 80% of the field doesn't have a realistic chance of winning the event. These rules would help that 80%. It's just like the issue of seeding players. Take a player vote and seeding would never happen.

It has been mentioned a few times, but at the pro level, this would be disastrous. Almost every pro would run their set out. Nobody would blast the rack. Having an easy shot on the one with 9 balls on the table would lead to a win over 95% of the time. Blasting the rack and maybe having a shot on the one with 7 balls on the table would reduce the win % to about 80%. Either way wouldn't be good.

Avoiding pattern racking is a good thing for 9 and 10 ball. However, the 2 ball is really the key to a pattern. You don't need to pattern rack every ball. As long as the 2 is predictable, the odds of running out are huge - especially if I don't have to make the 1 ball. I won't much care about handling the 3-9 if my 1 and 2 ball are easy. I'll have control of the table in the first 2 shots.

The 9 ball break being lucky discussion is absurd with a good rack. As Bob mentioned the wing ball goes in. I've broken 100 consecutive tight racks and made the wing 96. I missed a couple while I was over focusing on the 1 ball in the side (which went in 31 times). Speed of the break is immaterial for the wing ball and even 1 in the side. I made both several times breaking at about 12 miles per hour (just over stop shot speed on the break). In a tight rack the wing ball goes in based on where you hit the 1 ball.

Andy

 

[Paul Schofield]

You are right on the money

Just throwing this out there:

What about removing the ball on the break requirement but also using the three balls past the center string requirement? That way the breaker still has to play a power break while controlling the 1 and the cue ball. If pros could soft break and not have to make a ball, the runouts would be too easy. Requiring a hard break at least makes them use the whole table to run out.

I'm of the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality but wanted to see what people think of this.

Good thinking on your part and yes it is broke. The current rule requires four balls must hit rails on the break. It is difficult to discern whether four balls hit rails but it is relatively easy to confirm a given number of balls touch or come to rest past the center string.

Again, I am speaking about Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball. Eliminating the ball-on-the-break requirement while alternating breaks would vastly improve our games. Everything is "give and take". What would be gained weighs heavier than what would be lost. I am running my second event with the "no conflict rules" on April 10th. I will report the outcome.