9-Ball on the Snap

[Colin Colenso]

A professional sport ought to reduce the role of luck in the game as much as is reasonably possible I believe.

Hence, probably ought to get rid of 9's on the break, slop and maybe also limit or ban combinations to win. Perhaps make combo's for the win not count with BIH. I think it devalues the game when players get BIH and shoot the OB onto the 9.

 

[enzo]

yeah, i challenge anyone to give me one good and legitimate reason as to why you should win a game because you made the nine on the break (besides thed fact that it is in the rules).

To take it a step further, i don't think humans are challenged enough to simply play a game of nine ball without the 9 on the table. really, what is the big mystery here? if you make the nine on the break you keep shooting, now the 8 (or highest ball) is effectively the nine. this would stop a guy from being penalized after making the nine by tying up the nine with balls near the spot.

in short, it would be a great rule change.

 

[JAM]

I just wanted to mention that the Florida Pro Tour is actually a 10-ball tour. Many of the people in this thread have been talking about switching to 10-ball instead of 9-ball. However this doesn't prevent the money ball from being made on the break. Both are good games, but either way if you play rack-your-own and the 9/10 ball does count on the break, I feel like you often have to pay attention to your opponents racks. Making the 9/10 ball not count on the break should solve a lot of problems. I don't mind my opponent making the corner ball and running out. That was the reason for the switch from rotation to 9-ball, to speed up the game and make it more exciting. And of course, I have the opportunity to do the same thing on my break. I just wish they would make the switch to the 9/10 ball not counting so that there would be less arguments over the rack and people could just play pool and enjoy the game.

Glad to see you posting, Mike! Your input on MANY topics would add a great deal of insight to readers of this forum. Keep 'em coming!

About the continuing racking dilemma, which has plagued many a player whether it's the incoming breaker or his/her racker, I really do like this idea of spotting the "money ball." It avoids the arguments.

If the wing ball and/or 1-ball do get pocketed on the break, even on a consistent basis due to rack mechanics AND/OR racking professionals, at least the game will have been won by RUNNING OUT and utilizing one's skills set. I truly think this is a great rule change at this juncture. However, reading the posts from others on this thread gives me some more food for thought. There sure are some knowledgeable folks on this forum.

Of course, when I look at the game of 9-ball as a whole, I would like nothing better than to see the game changed to two-shot/push-out, much like the format of the Trump's Marina 10-Ball Challenge won by Danny Hewitt several years ago. This is the way the game of 9-ball used to be played, until it was changed. I think this format would give some of today's players a little run for their money!

JAM

 

[StormHotRod300]

The only problem i would see comming around is, people complaining about having to spot the 9ball if they make it on the break, and end up with CB behind the 9, for thier first shot.

Just like SJM mentions about Jeanette Lee having this problem.

Obviously it probably wouldnt be so much a problem with Top notch players because of CB control on the break. But it would suck if you make the 9 and the 1ball or whatever, and have to spot the 9ball right in front of the OB your shooting at.

As for switching to 10ball, i honestly didnt see much of a difference in difficulty. And I myself seemed to make more balls on the break lol, consistently. And as for balls clustering, up more, i didnt notice it.

dave

 

[JAM]

When I'm playing, I would rather be beaten by a guy who is running out the racks, not by making 9-balls on the break. At least that way I can see some great shooting. Given the short races in these local tournaments and relatively high entry fee, I want to get the most enjoyment out of my contribution. Watching someone make several 9-balls on the break in a short race to 7 is not enjoyable. So, I vote to spot up the 9-ball.

While we're talking about this, I also vote against seeding of top players. Tour directors should know that 2/3 of the players (I'm among them) are playing with the HOPE, not EXPECTATION, that they will get into the money. One-third of the players expect to get into the money and indeed, usually do. For example, scan the list of money earners in the Planet Pool stops for the last 3 years (prior to seeding) and you will see the same names consistently rising to the top. Now with seeding, it makes it much more difficult for the two-thirds who HOPE to make it to the money since a top 10 player is guaranteed to be in every part of the bracket, or automatically advanced via byes. Don't make it easier for the people who get into the money anyway! The semi-pros and pros don't like to play each other early in the tournament, so why should the other two-thirds of the tour (=two-thirds of the tour income) be stuck playing them early? I vote to let the luck of the draw determine this.

Beetle, I hope you have recovered too from the all-night-long Midnight Madness the other night! BTW, I hope to run into you soon because I want to ask you about another topic which is definitely your bailywick.

About the seeding, I hear 'ya and empathize with your stance, but for another reason. I do not like the way some high-profile tournaments are seeded, for a reason which is purely pool politics, but I do not know a way to remedy it. Truth be told, I hope that if and when the IPT becomes a full-fledged tour that it will be the vehicle used for seeding at all future events as opposed to the current governing body of professional pool. There are some players who have no business being seeded in today's events, IMHO, but because they paid 100 bucks, they are afforded this perk.

At any rate, Beetle, you're in good company because Keith thinks they should throw all of the names in a hat, pick 'em out at random, and may the best player win. Ronnie Wiseman is another player who agrees with this opinion about seeding.

JAM

 

[JAM]

Jennie
Hope to see Keith playing at VF next week.
Jack
www.johnmaddencues.com

Hey, Jack, we hope to see you there. Right now, it's a matter of juggling my work schedule, hoping we can afford to make the trek. I have a date with Uncle Sam on April 15th.

I truly do enjoy the SBE, but unfortunately, in today's pool world, it doesn't pay the bills, and I am forever "saving Tara." I absolutely adore these pool get-togethers and everything they have to offer. However, having a roof over my head is paramount before we venture out onto the tournament trail.

JAM

 

[JAM]

This is always an interesting and tricky topic, but I don't like this rule change. I know the players don't like the nine going in on the break, but as a fan, I think it's one of the most exciting occurrences in the game....

I can see your point for sure. It is very exciting when the money ball flies in the hole for the instant win. With today's rack riggers -- and there are some players who will rack to position cracks as opposed to a perfect rack sans cracks -- I think a rule change would be welcome by some players.

I recall that at the 2004 Women's Challenge of Champions, this rule probably decided a set. Jeanette Lee broke at double hill against Allison Fisher in the first set of the two set final and made a ball, spread them well, and left an easy shot on the one. Looked to me like Jeanette would probably run out for the set. I didn't realize, however, that the ball Jeanette had made on the break was the nine! The rule you have referred to was in effect, and it was truly painful watching referee Tipton spot the nine right in front of the cue ball. Lee was now snookered from the one and had to push, and a couple of turns later, Allison Fisher won the set, and she went on to win the winner take all event....

Man, that must have been really brutal for Jeanette Lee. What a way to lose a finals, having fought your way up the charts.

If there's a rule I'd change with respect to the nine ball break, it's that ball in hand would have to be taken in the kitchen if the breaker scratches. A scratch on the break might not be the instant loss that it is now at top levels of play.

Now, that is one great alternative. I like this idea a whole bunch!

JAM

 

[JAM]

I like the rule change. I think most players would.

Coming from a player, this is great input. The topic may be worthy of an AzBilliards poll. I mean, after all, we have a very diversified family of members, i.e., fans, railbirds, enthusiasts, industry members, and, of course, the players themselves like you, Jimmy.

One thing to consider is that all tables play differently. On the tournament trail, one usually is competing on pristine equipment with brand-new cloth in some instances.

However, any veteran on the tournament trail has most definitely encountered equipment which is less than perfect. The table, its condition, can definitely make or break you [pun intended]!

JAM

 

[JAM]

Here is how I would like to see the game played -

1 - No nine ball breaks

2 - no slop

3 - Early nine combos/caroms still allowed. Adds interesting aspect to the game...

I never understood why slop was accepted...

Another very good suggestion. I'd definitely like to see a tournament with this format, but with call POCKET and not call SHOT, just to avoid the arguments.

JAM

 

[JAM]

I have always felt that instead of the 9 being spotted up, it should just stay down, and the next highest ball becomes the game winning ball.

I think that if someone fouls on the break, they should definately be penalized for it. I have viewed some old matches where if a player scratched on the break, and made a ball or two, they would be spotted up and the incoming player would have ball in hand behind the line. Often they really wouldn't have a decent safety. So in actuality, making balls on the break and scratching on the break benefitted the player who scratched more often than not.

I love it, Cuetechasaurus. There's quite a few old-school players who would agree with you 100 percent, and your suggestion would definitely be a remedy for the 9-on-the-snap dilemma, at least as it pertains to the rack riggers, IMHO.

JAM

 

[Jimmy M.]

One thing to consider is that all tables play differently. On the tournament trail, one usually is competing on pristine equipment with brand-new cloth in some instances.

However, any veteran on the tournament trail has most definitely encountered equipment which is less than perfect. The table, its condition, can definitely make or break you [pun intended]!

Sometimes you can't get those back balls to rack right so the 9 comes shooting out no matter what you do. I like the rack-your-own/9 spots combination. That solves pretty much all the problems, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't solve the wing ball problem, I guess. If that really is a problem, then breaking from the 'D' could be implemented as well (of course, switching to 10-ball solves that as well). I don't know how much it matters now though since everyone is about to become 8-ball players here real quick. It'll be interesting to see if 8-ball starts being played in non-IPT tournaments as well.

 

[JAM]

Sometimes you can't get those back balls to rack right so the 9 comes shooting out no matter what you do....

That's so true, Jimmy M. Some tables have dents in them and the balls don't seem to set right in the racks.

About 2 years ago, I think it was, at the Super Billiards Expo in Valley Forge, there was a tournament held for those who got knocked out of the Pro event. I think it was called the Last Chance Tournament, if memory serves me right, and it was on the bar box.

It began in the wee hours of the morning, which happened to be a very early 10:00 a.m., not a golden hour for some players. The conference center was unusually quiet as most were catching up on their Z's from enjoying the festivities from the night before.

The tournament was in progress, and lo and behold, there was an awful loud staccato noise, sounding much like a machine gun. It echoed throughout the room. Everyone stopped playing and froze, looking to see what in the world had happened. Rodney Morris was racking the balls and couldn't get a perfect rack, and it is the first time I have ever see him with a scowl on his face. Out of frustration, he banged each ball in the wooden rack, but I don't think he realized how hard he was hitting 'em.

When everybody looked his way, he immediately stopped banging, but it was evident that he was only trying to get the balls to cooperate, poor fellow. To this day, I have NEVER seen Rodney angry. He is one of the most easy-going players on the tournament trail, who always has a very pleasant demeanor.

In these instances of racking problems, the Sardo has come to the rescue, but, of course, there's an ongoing debate about the pros and cons of the Sardo rack, too, unfortunately.

JAM

 

[Donovan]

I think a reasonable alteration to that rule would be that the incoming player would have the option to pass the shot back to the breaker. I've suggested this rule before.

First off, I don't take credit for the 10-ball idea. I first heard it as most of you have from Joe Tucker. Once again, since the set up of the rack, 10-ball prevents the messiness of making the 10 consistently. I wonder how many 10-ball breaks there have been in a row. I'm sure it is much less than the 9-ball breaks.

Second, I can't believe no one commented about this one yet. I like this idea tremendously. Spot the nine and the incoming player gets a "Push or Pass" option. Funny how that sounds like a poker term and is kind of catchy sounding. "Oh, you gotta Push or Pass baby!" I think this makes for some real thinking in this game. I feel 9-ball isn't a very heavy thinking game and this really would add a great occasional heavier thinking element to this.

 

[DelaWho???]

Rules Are Rules

I spend most of my table time in a bar ....... dealing with bar bangers and "Bush" rules.......ie slop counts BIH for any fouls and the 8 doesn't have to go clean....(you can kiss it off an opponent ball).......

When I'm in the pool hall with friends we play call pocket cue ball in the kitchen on scratch or foul.... I play "Bush" like I'm in the pool hall. I've got a ball and pocket in mind when I get down to shoot.... the only difference is that if I miss and get a lucky roll I keep shooting like everyone else. My goal is to play my game and avoid giving up BIH......of course it the bar I don't take my BIH from the kitchen either....

The point is that as long as everyone knows the rules going in then the playing field is even....I think the least intrusive change would be simply to alternate breaks and rack for your opponent or have a neutral third party rack...

The 9 on the break might be predictable and consistently repeatable if you're racking your own and you know how to set them...but I don't think you can consistently do it if I'm racking for you.....

As a fan of the game the 9 on the break adds an element of excitement because it's unexpected.....pocketing the one or a wing ball consistently just shows you have a solid break and you can hit the rack in the same place repeatedly....

Oh and seeding of tournaments is a bad thing from every perspective. If I struggle through the brackets into the semi's or the finals I deserve to be there whether or not I'm super unknown like I am or I'm Johnny Archer.....If I struggle up through the brackets only to have to face a top player who is rested and fresh......well that's just not fair play......If you're such a top pro fight up through the brackets with the rest of us and prove you have what it takes.....

But then again this is just one banger's opinion

 

[JAM]

First off, I don't take credit for the 10-ball idea. I first heard it as most of you have from Joe Tucker. Once again, since the set up of the rack, 10-ball prevents the messiness of making the 10 consistently. I wonder how many 10-ball breaks there have been in a row. I'm sure it is much less than the 9-ball breaks....

Ain't it the truth, Donovan. It would be interesting to hear from others as it pertains to the 10-ball on the snap. I'd imagine, subject to check, there aren't very many consecutive ones in competition.

Second, I can't believe no one commented about this one yet. I like this idea tremendously. Spot the nine and the incoming player gets a "Push or Pass" option. Funny how that sounds like a poker term and is kind of catchy sounding. "Oh, you gotta Push or Pass baby!" I think this makes for some real thinking in this game. I feel 9-ball isn't a very heavy thinking game and this really would add a great occasional heavier thinking element to this.

I think SJM touched on this option a bit in his post, and I think it would be a welcome rule change to many on the tournament trail as it pertains to 9-ball.

At the Trump's Marina 10-Ball Challenge held in Atlantic City several years ago, they utilized a derivative of the push-out format. The player could push out at any time during the game, to include after the break. However, if they did push out midstream and their opponent declined to shoot, then they MUST pocket the object ball. If they failed, their opponent got ball in hand.

This little rule nugget would force a player to push out to a place where they thought they could make a shot and their opponent could not. It adds another strategy to the game, IMHO.

JAM

 

[DelaWho???]

What is a Push Out????

A little off topic here........and showing my bangerness.....is that a word???? What is a Push Out I've seen this term here alot and don't know what it is......Maybe it's like porno I'd know it if I saw it......Can someone explain what a pushout is and when it's used???

Thanks

McCue....Banger McCue

 

[JAM]

I spend most of my table time in a bar ....... dealing with bar bangers and "Bush" rules.......ie slop counts BIH for any fouls and the 8 doesn't have to go clean....(you can kiss it off an opponent ball).......

Yikes, I don't like that rule one bit. FWIW, my pool roots come from being a bar banger myself, and ironically, I did compete on the Busch League 25-plus years ago. I hope you're talking about Busch and not President Bush. He's got his hands in enough cookie jars these days (LOL).

I used to be a 6, but today, Mike Davis can give me the 3-and-out, with all the breaks, and barbecue me.

When I'm in the pool hall with friends we play call pocket cue ball in the kitchen on scratch or foul.... I play "Bush" like I'm in the pool hall. I've got a ball and pocket in mind when I get down to shoot.... the only difference is that if I miss and get a lucky roll I keep shooting like everyone else. My goal is to play my game and avoid giving up BIH......of course it the bar I don't take my BIH from the kitchen either....

The point is that as long as everyone knows the rules going in then the playing field is even....I think the least intrusive change would be simply to alternate breaks and rack for your opponent or have a neutral third party rack...

Yes, yes, yes. I agree 100 percent, especially a neutral third party racking. Unfortunately, it's not cost effective at most high-profile events, except for maybe the finals.

The alternate breaks, too, is one format which is utilized at some events. However, there's a school of thought by some players who definitely do not like this rule. When they're on a roll, they want to keep shooting.

Buddy Hall told me once that he thought a loser-breaks format would be a good one. He stated this to me, though, at a winner-rack-your-own tournament, and I happened to agree with him. There were definitely rack riggers in the house, and Buddy saw the same thing I did.

The 9 on the break might be predictable and consistently repeatable if you're racking your own and you know how to set them...but I don't think you can consistently do it if I'm racking for you....

But, see, this is where the arguments occur. The incoming breaker doesn't like the looks of the rack. They have a back-and-forth debate, one stating the rack is perfect, the other stating it is not.

Sometimes, the arguments will occur on a hill-hill, as an example. The incoming breaker will attempt to put pressure on the racker, hoping to create a little negativity and get inside their head. The frequent travelers on the tournament trail know who the arguers are.

However, there are some players who rack the same way for themselves as they do their opponents, NEVER intentionally trying to give their opponent a bad rack. I do believe with all my heart that some players will object to a rack, even if it is perfect, to create tension.

I've seen Keith competing with Luc Salvas on many occasions, and the two of them NEVER have a problem racking for each other. However, they don't spend several minutes caressing, pressing and/or finger-licking the balls when racking, as some players are wont to do, especially the finger-licking of the 1-ball after the rack is removed.

I wish I had a picture of Mike Zuglan, the Joss Tour TD, racking the balls. When he goes to the table, he puts on his reading glasses in an effort to provide a perfect rack for his opponent. The only picture I have, of course, is of Keith doing the same (LOL).

JAM

 

[djkx1]

Another option to the 9 on the break situation would be to spot the 9 but allow the breaker BIH. This would reward them but still require talent to get the win and couldn't be seen as penalizing the breaker for making the 9. Just a thought...

 

[shanesinnott]

Last night, we went to a Midnight Madness tournament in Virginia, and I must admit that I had a great all-nighter, though today I'm running in slow gear.

UPA Touring Pro Mike Davis, fresh back from his great win in Reno, showed up, as did AzBilliard's Black-Balled, and some other local pool players. Egg McDogitt was in the house, and quite a few regulars at First Break Cafe. BTW, Black-Balled came in third place and is looking mightly sporty on a field of green.

As an aside, Keith asked Mike about his break cue, if it would be legal on the IPT tour, and Mike said that it would not because of the tip. I didn't realize that some of the current break cues won't be allowed because of the way they're made. Also, Mike said he really enjoyed his recent Reno trip, not only the win, but the whole tournament. He believes that his break was working brilliantly, especially on the bar boxes. Mike won a qualifier up in New England a while back, which paid for all of his expenses, travel and lodging. Way to go, Mike Davis! This kid really gives it his all at every event he attends, and he sure does get around, a real globe trotter these days.

It's always great to catch up on the pool smut with other tournament soldiers, and Mike Davis shared with me that the Florida Pro Tour took a vote in recent times and decided to change the rules that, if a 9-ball went in on the break, it would be spotted up. He also stated he suggested this rule to a TD of a regional tour in our area, which is currently being contemplated.

With the break being such a large component of one's 9-ball game, I was wondering if this rule change is, in fact, a good thing. It would put an emphasis on one's shooting skills set as opposed to their break. Any thoughts?

JAM

As Mike mentioned, the Florida Pro Tour is 10 Ball. I am guessing that the rule was put in effect because of the reasons behind switching to 10 Ball from 9 Ball.

In 9 Ball, the 9 Ball is made on the break MUCH more often than in 10 Ball. 10 Ball (by nature of the rack shape) is much harder to make a ball on the break and the money ball hardly ever goes. If the 10 ball goes straight in the corner, the rack was loose and IMO that means that the racker did not do their job (although some tables make doing the job of a tight rack very difficult)

10 Ball by design is much more of a break and run out game than 9 Ball. It is more difficult to make a ball on the break and when you do, you usually have more traffic to navigate around than in 9 Ball. Allowing the made 10 ball on the break to pay the winner for that is IMO wrong as it defeats the purpose of the game (break and run out) I would much rather see a player break and run out 8 racks than to see that player make the 10 ball 8 times on the break in a row.

Sardo rack has shown that when every ball is frozen in 9 Ball that the 9 Ball does not even move (unless kicked by another ball) I believe this is also the case with 10 Ball racked with a Sardo (although I have never seen or played 10 Ball with a Sardo, I presume this is the case)

I think the new rule on the FL tour is a very good one and should be applied to 9 ball and 8 ball also. Lets make the player earn the W with skill and not luck.

 

[Timberly]

If the wing ball and/or 1-ball do get pocketed on the break, even on a consistent basis due to rack mechanics AND/OR racking professionals, at least the game will have been won by RUNNING OUT and utilizing one's skills set.

This is common sense (which isn't too common anymore in most people ) Unfortunately, it's not reality.

In a rack your own enviornment I've seen a few 9 on the snap breaks and usually after the 1st one, the incoming player makes it a point to check the racks. Just going off memory & thinking quickly, I haven't seen any arguments about 9 on the snap breaks.

I've seen MANY arguments and lots & lots of complaining by other players because their opponent is making the wing ball.

If I still played in tournaments, I wouldn't mind the rule change to spotting the 9. Many yrs ago I played in an in house 8 ball league where the 8 was spotted if made on the break. It wasn't a big deal to me. It was just another rule in a different setting.

If you play enough pool, you're probably used to playing by different rules anyway. Anytime I put my quaters up at a bar, the first thing I ask while I'm racking is the rules. LOL, bangers that don't have the 1st clue about pool, that've never played in a league or tourney in their life, are very adamant about knowing the rules and they get very angry when you don't play by the rules. Add alcohol to that & it gets ugly!

Players should be able to adapt to whatever rules the tournament has....they should be used to it. I really don't see the rule change hindering anyone except for in the case that SJM talked about. That could be solved with a simple BIH if you make the 9.