A new ball on the break rule maybe?

[u12armresl]

So there are all kinds of variations of rules for the break.
No 9 in the bottom 2 pockets.
Get 3 balls past side pocket or 2nd diamond.
Break from the box.
Wooden rack.
Template rack.

I do not like breaking and having the one float to the same pocket every time, and the 2 going up table perfect. To me that is not pool, and it's being used by very talented players which further widens the gap between the player levels.

So, what about a rule that wing balls don't count, just like the nine doesn't count, or the 8 doesn't count.
I know they can play for the 2nd ball to go in the side, but it's not automatic.

What are your thoughts please?

 

[hang-the-9]

So there are all kinds of variations of rules for the break.
No 9 in the bottom 2 pockets.
Get 3 balls past side pocket or 2nd diamond.
Break from the box.
Wooden rack.
Template rack.

I do not like breaking and having the one float to the same pocket every time, and the 2 going up table perfect. To me that is not pool, and it's being used by very talented players which further widens the gap between the player levels.

So, what about a rule that wing balls don't count, just like the nine doesn't count, or the 8 doesn't count.
I know they can play for the 2nd ball to go in the side, but it's not automatic.

What are your thoughts please?

If we need to get to that point we may as well just scrap 9 ball and everyone play 10 ball. Which is probably the only way to "fix" 9 ball break. I feel like 9 ball is on it's 3rd marriage like an alcoholic millionaire with a 23 yr old bimbo addicted to pills. We all know it's no good, but we just keep smiling and wishing them well.

Template racks got rid of the 9 shooting towards a corner pocket for an easy win but just replaced it with other things like a much more predictable rack. Moving to the spot brought up the 1 in the side more and corner ball with a cut break. 3 point rule punishes unlucky breaks as much as it prevents soft breaking. It's like a nuclear war, there are no winners. War Games was really about the 9 ball break.

At least the major issue is at the pro or close to pro level play. Us middle of the road players have more issues with playing 9 ball than making a ball on the break or not.

 

[ChrisinNC]

So there are all kinds of variations of rules for the break.
No 9 in the bottom 2 pockets.
Get 3 balls past side pocket or 2nd diamond.
Break from the box.
Wooden rack.
Template rack.

I do not like breaking and having the one float to the same pocket every time, and the 2 going up table perfect. To me that is not pool, and it's being used by very talented players which further widens the gap between the player levels.

So, what about a rule that wing balls don't count, just like the nine doesn't count, or the 8 doesn't count.
I know they can play for the 2nd ball to go in the side, but it's not automatic.

What are your thoughts please?

With a template rack, it’s the head 1-ball that goes in the side for skilled players who know how to do it, particularly with the 9-ball on the spot rack location. Maybe with the 1-ball on the spot rack location with a template, it’s harder to make it in the side.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I wish I was good enough that the rack made any difference to my game

 

[Paul Schofield]

So there are all kinds of variations of rules for the break.
No 9 in the bottom 2 pockets.
Get 3 balls past side pocket or 2nd diamond.
Break from the box.
Wooden rack.
Template rack.

I do not like breaking and having the one float to the same pocket every time, and the 2 going up table perfect. To me that is not pool, and it's being used by very talented players which further widens the gap between the player levels.

So, what about a rule that wing balls don't count, just like the nine doesn't count, or the 8 doesn't count.
I know they can play for the 2nd ball to go in the side, but it's not automatic.

What are your thoughts please?

Here are my thoughts: This is pool. You can play by any rules that you and your opponent can negotiate and can agree upon. You can also sponsor a tournament with any rules that you can think up. Go for it!

 

[u12armresl]

Here are my thoughts: This is pool. You can play by any rules that you and your opponent can negotiate and can agree upon. You can also sponsor a tournament with any rules that you can think up. Go for it!

Those aren't really thoughts as much as the ole "take your money and start a tour" type comment.
However, I do appreciate you replying.

 

[straightline]

In an alternate universe where the population is um, smart, Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave crack the mysteries of the pool break. They appropriately name this, The Small Bang and soon realize that different rack shapes are required. They work tirelessly to discover what is to be known (in that world) as The Fair Shapes. Brilliantly combining this tack with ball randomizing algorithms they publish a work so great, pool becomes accessible to every single human. Toddlers and grandmothers, alike revel in the equality and pool becomes a small but inexorable element in human evolution. Yay Bob and Dave11!1111!!!!

Frankly I think this makes more sense than bonus ball and would be easier to sell.

 

[sjm]

There are eight different places you can put the one ball in the rack. In a race to nine, place the one in each of these possible places once and then on the spot again when you're on the hill. The three point rule is in use. The nine always counts on the break and the breaker begins the rack by hitting the front ball, regardless of what it is, and then the game proceeds as usual.

With rack your own or rack for opponent, this, more or less, eliminates pattern racking, and eliminates much of the repetition to which we've, sadly, learned to live with, in which the breaker plays the same shape off of the break over and over.

 

[straightline]

Even one in the middle could be accommodated by special rules. Simply tossing the balls out - with a standardized ball tosser of course, could be made to work.

 

[garczar]

So there are all kinds of variations of rules for the break.
No 9 in the bottom 2 pockets.
Get 3 balls past side pocket or 2nd diamond.
Break from the box.
Wooden rack.
Template rack.

I do not like breaking and having the one float to the same pocket every time, and the 2 going up table perfect. To me that is not pool, and it's being used by very talented players which further widens the gap between the player levels.

So, what about a rule that wing balls don't count, just like the nine doesn't count, or the 8 doesn't count.
I know they can play for the 2nd ball to go in the side, but it's not automatic.

What are your thoughts please?

My thoughts? Play 10ball. 9ball for hi-level play is a joke. I like the WPA 10b rules with one exception: the ability to carom/combo the 10b for a win. I think 10b last is a terrible rule.

 

[David in FL]

There are eight different places you can put the one ball in the rack. In a race to nine, place the one in each of these possible places once and then on the spot again when you're on the hill. The three point rule is in use. The nine always counts on the break and the breaker begins the rack by hitting the front ball, regardless of what it is, and then the game proceeds as usual.

With rack your own or rack for opponent, this, more or less, eliminates pattern racking, and eliminates much of the repetition to which we've, sadly, learned to live with, in which the breaker plays the same shape off of the break over and over.

Hell, I have trouble keeping track of ”alternate break”...

 

[Dan_B]

I'm telling ya, playing duck ugly on the one is the way to go.

 

[Tin Man]

The first question that needs to be answered is this: How much of a role should the break have in the outcome of a match at the championship level? If we cannot agree on that then we will never agree on the rules we use to accomplish that desired outcome.

I believe that the break should have a role, but that it shouldn't be decisive. It should be one of a checklist of skills that can give a player an edge. For example, a player having a breaking edge should be one plus, but something that could be offset if the opponent had a shooting edge or a moving edge.

In today's game at the highest level I don't believe that is the case. If a top player has a breaking edge against his opponent than it is almost decisive. For example if two top players are racing to 100 in 10 ball and you ask "Does one of them have a breaking edge?", if the answer is "Yes" then that is the end of the analysis. Bet on that player. Only if they both break similar do we go to other skills to determine the betting favorite.

So while I think it should play a role in the outcome, I don't think it should be the number one factor.

I think most (not all) of us agree on these two things, but for some reason tournament promoters do not. I'm honestly curious why? Lately I've been playing virtual tournaments (the VG10, CSI pool, etc) and the break became even more important, to the point it was as close to an actual breaking contest as I've seen. 10 ball doesn't solve anything, top players have that break down where it is much easier than 9 ball on the spot. But that's been around long enough that with templates the top breakers still have not an advantage but an almost insurmountable edge. So my question is why is it just us on AZB debating this, and why aren't the actual tournament promoters making any changes?

It's not for TV, there is no audience to speak about. Only die hard pool fans that seem to feel the same way we do here. I really am at a loss to why we allow this to continue. Is it to speed up matches? I mean you could always shorten the sets and have more multiple inning games. Is it because they thing stringing huge packages is the way to achieve fan engagement?

There must be some massive force driving tournament directors to increase run outs. It would be too easy to fix. Everyone here can come up with dozens of easy to implement ideas that would put a stop to this. So even if we all agree the role of the break is too weighted, unless we identify that force nothing will change. I don't think it's a lack of agreement from us, or a lack of ideas, but some incentive/pressure on the TDs that is keeping this game so unbalanced.

 

[Chili Palmer]

There are eight different places you can put the one ball in the rack. In a race to nine, place the one in each of these possible places once and then on the spot again when you're on the hill. The three point rule is in use. The nine always counts on the break and the breaker begins the rack by hitting the front ball, regardless of what it is, and then the game proceeds as usual.

With rack your own or rack for opponent, this, more or less, eliminates pattern racking, and eliminates much of the repetition to which we've, sadly, learned to live with, in which the breaker plays the same shape off of the break over and over.

That would be interesting, you could add a mandatory pushout after the break also.

 

[Maniac]

The first question that needs to be answered is this: How much of a role should the break have in the outcome of a match at the championship level? If we cannot agree on that then we will never agree on the rules we use to accomplish that desired outcome.




Is it because they thing stringing huge packages is the way to achieve fan engagement?

As to the first part: Dude, this is AZB...common sense isn't allowed here.

As to the second part: JMHO, but stringing multiple racks just shows me how ridiculously easy the game of 9-ball can be for many a professional. When I saw Kaci run eight racks-and-out of 10-ball against Pagulayan, that impressed me.

Personally, I think shorter races of full-rack rotation would separate the wheat from the chaff.

Maniac

 

[sjm]

That would be interesting, you could add a mandatory pushout after the break also.

I don't really like the mandatory pushout after the break version of nine ball, other than in a race to one, where I'm fine with it. The Accu-stats game show used this format and managed to conduct what I think was a sixteen player single elimination tournament in under two hours at Derby City one year.

 

[sjm]

The first question that needs to be answered is this: How much of a role should the break have in the outcome of a match at the championship level? If we cannot agree on that then we will never agree on the rules we use to accomplish that desired outcome.

I believe that the break should have a role, but that it shouldn't be decisive. It should be one of a checklist of skills that can give a player an edge. For example, a player having a breaking edge should be one plus, but something that could be offset if the opponent had a shooting edge or a moving edge.

In today's game at the highest level I don't believe that is the case. If a top player has a breaking edge against his opponent than it is almost decisive. For example if two top players are racing to 100 in 10 ball and you ask "Does one of them have a breaking edge?", if the answer is "Yes" then that is the end of the analysis. Bet on that player. Only if they both break similar do we go to other skills to determine the betting favorite.

So while I think it should play a role in the outcome, I don't think it should be the number one factor.

I think most (not all) of us agree on these two things, but for some reason tournament promoters do not. I'm honestly curious why? Lately I've been playing virtual tournaments (the VG10, CSI pool, etc) and the break became even more important, to the point it was as close to an actual breaking contest as I've seen. 10 ball doesn't solve anything, top players have that break down where it is much easier than 9 ball on the spot. But that's been around long enough that with templates the top breakers still have not an advantage but an almost insurmountable edge. So my question is why is it just us on AZB debating this, and why aren't the actual tournament promoters making any changes?

It's not for TV, there is no audience to speak about. Only die hard pool fans that seem to feel the same way we do here. I really am at a loss to why we allow this to continue. Is it to speed up matches? I mean you could always shorten the sets and have more multiple inning games. Is it because they thing stringing huge packages is the way to achieve fan engagement?

There must be some massive force driving tournament directors to increase run outs. It would be too easy to fix. Everyone here can come up with dozens of easy to implement ideas that would put a stop to this. So even if we all agree the role of the break is too weighted, unless we identify that force nothing will change. I don't think it's a lack of agreement from us, or a lack of ideas, but some incentive/pressure on the TDs that is keeping this game so unbalanced.

Agree with much of this, and the break should definitely be an important skill in winning. That said, making the game more exciting isn't the goal of most tournament producers. Only Matchroom seems to fully understand that a golden break is one of the things that most excites the fans at a nine ball event. Tournament directors who choose not to count the nine on the break are pandering to the whims of the players at the expense of the fans.

Call shot games are yet another way of disenfranchising the fans, who often have no idea what shot is being attempted. I think call shot figured in the death of the straight pool era. Call shot with call safe is even worse, eliminating many of the multi-purpose shots that fans enjoy, and is the ultimate insult to an onlooking fan.

On another note, Matchroom understands that the fans want variety, not pattern racking, which is why they have neutral rackers at the Mosconi, the World Pool Masters, the World Cup of Pool, and in the single elimination portion of the US Open. I'm glad to see that Pat Fleming has followed suit at the International 9-ball, with a neutral racker on the stream table at all times.

 

[The_JV]

The best 9 ball breaking schema I have seen to date is the 9 on the spot, 3 point rule, and CB in the kitchen.

Is there still a dead ball still makeable...?..., yep. ...but you have to hit it hard and the necessary cut break makes the CB a flier.

Combine that with alternate break, and there you go. The skill behind the break is even more improtant, and you can't run away with a set.