9-ball rules: Pushout vs. 1-Foul; the Luck Factor; Are new rules needed?

[jsp]

- To play safe, the player must call "safety" before the shot. If no ball is made, but the intent to play safety wasn't declared, the opponent has the option to give the table back.

- If a safety is called but a ball goes in, the opponent has the option to give the table back.

Dang, you beat me to this thread. Yesterday night I was thinking about posting a thread this morning that would suggest exactly these two rules.

Though, I disagree with your other changes that 9ball be call shot or that you call a shot on the break. I think those changes are unnecessary. Also, I would eliminate the pushout rule after the break.

But I definitely agree in declaring safeties and the option of passing the shot back if a safety isn't declared.

sjm brought up an excellent point about the elimination of two-way shots if the above rules are implemented, which also crossed my mind as well. However, you have to think about how frequent throughout a course of a match does a player encounter a two-way shot scenario? Maybe 2-3 times max in a race to 11? Now, how many times does a player miss a shot and the incoming player is either hooked or has absolutely no or an extremely difficult shot or safety? I'd say, much more than 2-3 times in a race to 11.

I think calling safeties and the option of passing back (if a safety isn't declared) would greatly improve the game. Of course, nothing comes at a cost, since it would eliminate the two-way shot. But I think that's a small price to pay relative to the significant decrease in the total luck-factor in the game.

How about a compromise? Maybe you can also declare a "two-way" shot, such that if you make the shot you are still in control of the table, and if you miss the opponent can't pass it back to you. And that you can only call 1-2 two-way shots the entire match.

 

[ironman]

Where was this and when? Where I learned to play, one-foul-bih didn't get played all that much until the early '80s. That was in the North East. In 1978, I think it was Ray Martin, who told me "Any idiot can hide the cue ball."
I haven't given a lot of thought to the thread topic yet, but it's an interesting discussion.

LMAO at the quote.

I guess that this is my very argument. It seems to me that rules have been changed and changed to protect weaker shooters. No matter how you slice it or dice it, pool is won by pocketing balls. I still believe it is the hardest part of the game and always will be.

 

[jsp]

I think calling safeties and the option of passing back (if a safety isn't declared) would greatly improve the game...

Actually, I see another hole in doing it this way. After a successful snooker-safe is played (and a safety is declared), what options does the incoming player have?

If he calls a safe and kicks at the ball successfully and makes a ball, he gets penalized.

If he doesn't call a safe and kicks at the ball successfully and executes a return safe (although accidentally), he gets penalized.

Maybe shots immediately following a safety would automatically be considered a two-way shot (i.e. a normal shot in Texas Express), such that you can still be in control of the table if you make a shot and your opponent can't pass the shot back to you if play a successful return safe.

But then maybe things would start getting too complicated.

 

[3andstop]

Not wanting to hijack the other current discussion about Pushout rules, I decided to start a new thread.

If you could assign a percentage, how big of a factor do you think luck is in the current WPA 9-ball rules between two pros? 10% luck? 20% luck? What about the luck percentage in Pushout rules? 1%? 5%?

Next I ask, WHY were the rules changed from Pushout to Texas Express? To speed up the game? To equalize things to keep weaker players interested?

Is it worth trying to tweak the rules in an effort to combine the good things about the two rule sets? To me, being able to push out in the middle of a game seems like a very odd way to play pool, but I do understand that it reduces the luck. To love the idea of pushing in the middle of the game, perhaps "you just had to be there".

That said, could there be a better way to reduce the luck factor?

Here is one idea for an alternative rule set that I think would reduce the luck factor:

- Call pocket. If a ball is slopped in, the opponent can take the table, or give it back.

- Ball in hand on all fouls.

- To play safe, the player must call "safety" before the shot. If no ball is made, but the intent to play safety wasn't declared, the opponent has the option to give the table back.

- If a safety is called but a ball goes in, the opponent has the option to give the table back.

- Balls need not be called on the break shot. However, if the 9-ball is pocketed on the break, the breaker gets to choose between spotting the 9-ball and continuing his turn, or re-breaking.​

I would like to try these rules sometime if I can talk any of my friends into it. Do the rules sound good? Do you see any potential flaws? Would 9-ball be too boring without a luck factor? Is it pointless to think about rules so much?

Seems like some pretty practical rules. They have a wonderful game using many of those rules already and its been brushed under the carpet, set aside, and forgotten for the most part, in favor of quick slamming 9ball. You know,what I'm talking about........ straight pool.

I suggest, lets bring the game back up to its true art form and play 14.1 on TV and leave the banging alone for those who like it. I know, its just a pipe dream.

 

[Cuebacca]

I suggest you try learning to play the game better by the current rules, rather than trying to change the game to suit you.

Ouch, that was pretty cold. Of course, I am trying to learn to play better pool, regardless of the rules. Do you feel that anyone who discusses ideas on how the rules could potentially be better is trying to manipulate the game to their strengths because they are too lazy to work on their weaknesses? If everyone had that attitude, we'd all be carrying around 2-piece maces. Yes, my rules flopped, but so did your theory.

 

[unknownpro]

Where was this and when? Where I learned to play, one-foul-bih didn't get played all that much until the early '80s. That was in the North East. In 1978, I think it was Ray Martin, who told me "Any idiot can hide the cue ball."
I haven't given a lot of thought to the thread topic yet, but it's an interesting discussion.

Early 70's, Mississippi. We gambled at 9-ball, almost always shoot to make the ball, just like Rotation. Snooker was the only game you could play safe in, so it got a lot of the higher stakes gambling games. The good players played rotation, the bangers played 8-ball, and 9-ball was for ring games, kelly, and long gambling matches.

When you gambled at 9-ball you didn't play sets, you played by the game, and for a long time, to even out rolls and keep the "accidentally on purpose" safe playing from being a big factor. If you didn't play at least a hundred games you hadn't really played. There is no way with any rules to play short race 9-ball and not have luck be a factor. That's why the Action Challenge is such a great way to play, and I think will change the way people play and look at pool.

One-foul started in the late 70's here, and started without spotting balls made on fouls or the behind the head string on the break junk. That's when everybody started playing 9-ball.

As far as call shot rules, someone should post the old PCA rules to show how what seems like a good idea is not really practical for the game.

unknownpro

 

[unknownpro]

I found it interesting that at the U.S. Open this year, there were several players who scored in the mid .900 range and lost to their opponents who were in the mid .800 range according to the Accu-Stats ratings. What would cause that to happen, I wonder? Is it the balls on the break, less balls to run out, resulting in fewer mishaps? I don't get it.

JAM

The races are too short, people play the wrong shots, and Accu-Stats is not perfect. A well played safe may not lower your accu-stats but may lose your match.

unknownpro

 

[Pushout]

Ouch, that was pretty cold. Of course, I am trying to learn to play better pool, regardless of the rules. Do you feel that anyone who discusses ideas on how the rules could potentially be better is trying to manipulate the game to their strengths because they are too lazy to work on their weaknesses? If everyone had that attitude, we'd all be carrying around 2-piece maces. Yes, my rules flopped, but so did your theory.

Indeed. And, the implication is, that if you don't like the rules, you don't play well enough to play by the current rules. LOL!! I hate 8 ball, but that doesn't mean I can't play it. I've played more 8 ball in the last two or three years than in the last 25. The people I played thought I couldn't play the game because I don't like it. They didn't have to like it

 

[StormHotRod300]

Ok,

If nobody really likes the rules for 9ball, why not just use the derby city ring games rules? You shoot at everything no saftey play at all. And if there is a foul, the in-comming shooter has the option to give the shot back.

Or just do away with 9ball and goto 10ball.

 

[Neil]

Since we are talking about changing the rules, (not that it's going to happen ), what do you think of this-

-1 foul= ball in hand in the kitchen. If lowest ball is in the kitchen it gets spotted. Opponent has option to shoot it or pass it back.

2consecutive fouls= ball in hand anywhere on the table.

call pocket- don't think it would have much of an impact on the pros, but would on the amateurs. With the skill of the pros, why should they be rewarded for missing a ball? They rarely do it, but it could mean the set at their level of play.

-If you really want pure skill, how about this- before shooting the one, you also have to call where the next ball will go. When shooting any ball, you have to call the pocket for the next shot. If you can't make it where you called, you get to play safe. Could get interesting. Would surely bring out the position players to the top.