9 ball racking ?

[flyrv9]

I was watching some youtube matches yesterday and on this one (link below) they were racking with the 9 ball on the foot spot instead of the 1 ball. This obviously moved the whole rack forward half the distance of the rack. I've never seen this before. Is this new?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvWPuHUd7_k&t=156s

 

[Icon of Sin]

No. Tournaments have been doing this for a while to combat the soft break and constant making of the wing ball.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I was watching some youtube matches yesterday and on this one (link below) they were racking with the 9 ball on the foot spot instead of the 1 ball. This obviously moved the whole rack forward half the distance of the rack. I've never seen this before. Is this new?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvWPuHUd7_k&t=156s

The current World Standardized Rules have a provisional rule that requires racking the 9 on the spot. It is an attempt to deal with the break problem at nine ball. The 3-point rule is also included in many tournaments.

 

[flyrv9]

Ok, that explains it then - thanks.

 

[Ekojasiloop]

No. Tournaments have been doing this for a while to combat the soft break and constant making of the wing ball.

This may be an entire thread topic, but why do we need to stop people from making a ball on the break?

 

[maha]

no pool game should be heavily determined by how good you can break the balls.

 

[hang-the-9]

This may be an entire thread topic, but why do we need to stop people from making a ball on the break?

Do you want to see one-sided matches based on whoever breaks first? With the template and tapped in racks making a ball on the break is child's play. Plus you got the soft breakers where the game is contained in 1/2 the table and you line up a 2-9 or 3-9 combo each time with the wing ball going in 99% of the time.

That is why they are messing around with forcing hard breaks and moving the break location. It started with no side rail breaks, then went to no soft breaks, then moving the 9 ball over, then went to forcing a side rail break in 8 ball for the Appleton tournaments LOL

Really the fix to the break in 9 ball is to play 10 ball in pro events and leave 9 ball to local tournaments and leagues. Alternate breaks are OK also, but then lead to other issues like being able to mount a comeback or seeing a player run a package which is always exiting and fun to watch. Every solution introduces other issues which may or may not be worth it. For example the 3 balls past the line caused some good hard breaks with a ball made on the break be "illegal" passing the table to the other player.

 

[Ekojasiloop]

Do you want to see one-sided matches based on whoever breaks first? With the template and tapped in racks making a ball on the break is child's play. Plus you got the soft breakers where the game is contained in 1/2 the table and you line up a 2-9 or 3-9 combo each time with the wing ball going in 99% of the time.

That is why they are messing around with forcing hard breaks and moving the break location. It started with no side rail breaks, then went to no soft breaks, then moving the 9 ball over, then went to forcing a side rail break in 8 ball for the Appleton tournaments LOL

Really the fix to the break in 9 ball is to play 10 ball in pro events and leave 9 ball to local tournaments and leagues. Alternate breaks are OK also, but then lead to other issues like being able to mount a comeback or seeing a player run a package which is always exiting and fun to watch. Every solution introduces other issues which may or may not be worth it. For example the 3 balls past the line caused some good hard breaks with a ball made on the break be "illegal" passing the table to the other player.

Yes, I would be fine with seeing that. That is the game so I'm not sure why I would not be ok watching it. If I wanted to watch something different, I'd watch one pocket. Plus, you can just change to alternate break.

And please, people always act like every single game will be decided on the break if the corner ball goes every time. That's ridiculous.

I still don't see a good argument as to why the corner ball going every time is bad. That's the game of nine ball, deal with it or change to ten ball or whatever. Besides "do you want to see guys play perfect pool?" Is a sort of strange argument to me. I just don't get it. Sure, I'd love to see Bergman put an 11 pack on orcollo because he won the flip. I'm just entirely unsure why I would not want to see that if what I knew when I went in was I'd be watching a 9 ball tournament.

Just because we had loose racks for the entire history of nine ball doesn't make you right. Racking is better now, breaking is more consistent, as it should be, so change games or deal with the fact that the best players in the world are going to run a few racks now and then. Hit me with a real argument, please, and I'll get back to you.

 

[sammylane12]

no pool game should be heavily determined by how good you can break the balls.

Respectfully disagree.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Yes, I would be fine with seeing that. That is the game so I'm not sure why I would not be ok watching it. If I wanted to watch something different, I'd watch one pocket. Plus, you can just change to alternate break.

And please, people always act like every single game will be decided on the break if the corner ball goes every time. That's ridiculous.

I still don't see a good argument as to why the corner ball going every time is bad. That's the game of nine ball, deal with it or change to ten ball or whatever. Besides "do you want to see guys play perfect pool?" Is a sort of strange argument to me. I just don't get it. Sure, I'd love to see Bergman put an 11 pack on orcollo because he won the flip. I'm just entirely unsure why I would not want to see that if what I knew when I went in was I'd be watching a 9 ball tournament.

Just because we had loose racks for the entire history of nine ball doesn't make you right. Racking is better now, breaking is more consistent, as it should be, so change games or deal with the fact that the best players in the world are going to run a few racks now and then. Hit me with a real argument, please, and I'll get back to you.

Actually it is a real argument.

Any competent pool player can make the wing ball 90% of the time using a soft break and template rack with the one on the spot.

It's not a skill yet players get rewarded as such.

The goal should be to make the break difficult without being impossible.

 

[captainjko]

This is how a lot of people see what happens when you change the way 9 ball is racked to prevent ball being pocketed on break..... Explosive break...... No ball goes in...... Wide open table..... Incoming player runs out...... Only thing that changed was who ran out......

 

[BeiberLvr]

This is how a lot of people see what happens when you change the way 9 ball is racked to prevent ball being pocketed on break..... Explosive break...... No ball goes in...... Wide open table..... Incoming player runs out...... Only thing that changed was who ran out......

I would say that's not entirely true.

My guess is that the runout percentage is much higher for the breaker when using templates, one on the spot, and allowing soft breaks. Then it is for the non-breaker when NOT using templates, NOT putting the one on the spot, and NOT allowing soft breaks.

Maybe AtLarge can confirm for us.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Again with the "it's too easy" argument. If you're not stringing racks all the time, it's not too easy. How hard could that possibly be to understand? I bet the people saying it are the same ones who say pockets are too large. I refer you to the second sentence in this post.

The problem is actually in playing pool games that are all about luck of the break anyway. The 9 ball break got figured out, and now it's constantly being changed to make it crapshoot again. I can't even count how many times the break rules have been changed at my club: Magic rack/no magic rack, Breakbox/no breakbox (and every possible type of breakbox, even a break "spot", 9 on spot, 1 on spot, 3 point rule, no 3 point rule and every combination of the above. Even a mandatory safe break was tried for a week. Guess what, the winners are pretty much the same people anyway...

There is one solution to this: Leave 9 ball alone. If 9 ball is too easy for you, play 10 ball. If 10 ball is too easy for you, play straight rotation. If that is too easy, play snooker. If that is too easy, play 3 cushion. If that is too easy...try something else, like becoming a qualified brain surgeon in 2 years. That should be a challenge. Of course you could try a pool game where the break is not about chance....You know the ones I mean

If you insist on keeping 9 ball and making the break as random as possible, how about having a computer randomly select ball positions, then placing them by hand. If that's too much work, you could put the balls in a bucket and throw them out over the table. It's fair and equal to all.

 

[GideonF]

This is how a lot of people see what happens when you change the way 9 ball is racked to prevent ball being pocketed on break..... Explosive break...... No ball goes in...... Wide open table..... Incoming player runs out...... Only thing that changed was who ran out......

My issue with the template and the 1b on the spot is not that the wing ball goes every time for a moderately skilled player (because that player still isn't going to run out consistently), it is that the wing ball goes with a soft break, allowing the very skilled players to play position on the balls during the break. You (and others) may take a different view, but I did not enjoy watching the US Open for a while after Corey perfected the soft break and everyone copied it.

We do need AtLarge to come in with the stats to prove the effects, but when the 9b is on the spot, a standard break is to make the 1b in the side pocket. That requires hitting the balls harder and that randomizes the location of the remaining balls. I think at the pro level you either need the 1b on the spot or a 3 point rule. For most amateur players, I don't think it matters.

Obviously playing 10b is one solution to the problem, although at the super elite level the break becomes pretty reliable.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Again with the "it's too easy" argument. If you're not stringing racks all the time, it's not too easy. How hard could that possibly be to understand? I bet the people saying it are the same ones who say pockets are too large. I refer you to the second sentence in this post.

The problem is actually in playing pool games that are all about luck of the break anyway. The 9 ball break got figured out, and now it's constantly being changed to make it crapshoot again. I can't even count how many times the break rules have been changed at my club: Magic rack/no magic rack, Breakbox/no breakbox (and every possible type of breakbox, even a break "spot", 9 on spot, 1 on spot, 3 point rule, no 3 point rule and every combination of the above. Even a mandatory safe break was tried for a week. Guess what, the winners are pretty much the same people anyway...

There is one solution to this: Leave 9 ball alone. If 9 ball is too easy for you, play 10 ball. If 10 ball is too easy for you, play straight rotation. If that is too easy, play snooker. If that is too easy, play 3 cushion. If that is too easy...try something else, like becoming a qualified brain surgeon in 2 years. That should be a challenge. Of course you could try a pool game where the break is not about chance....You know the ones I mean

If you insist on keeping 9 ball and making the break as random as possible, how about having a computer randomly select ball positions, then placing them by hand. If that's too much work, you could put the balls in a bucket and throw them out over the table. It's fair and equal to all.

Way to make a giant leap.

When someone it's too easy they are generally referring to the pros. No game is too easy for us amateurs.

And if you disagree then think about these two scenarios.

A. Shane playing the 9 ball ghost race to 15. Template rack. One on the spot. Soft break allowed.

B. Same. Wooden triangle. 9 on the spot. No soft break.


Which of those scenarios are you more likely to wager your life savings on Shane?