Another Tournament with "No Conflict Rules"

Paul Schofield

Paul Schofield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
We are holding our 19th quarterly regional Nine-Ball Tournament (Tri-State Series) with the "No Conflict Rules" on August 30th. The field is full two weeks in advance (64 players from 5 states). We have a number of players participating that have competed in the US Open and Turningstone. Our Calcuttas are generally between 5 and 10 thousand. I am posting the event in the Main Forum rather than the Tournament Announcement section so that the unusual rules can get a good look:

Regulation 9 Foot Gold Crowns
"No Conflict Rules" for Racking & Breaking.
No short games. 9-ball spots either end (shooters choice) and no 3 foul rule.
Fouls on all balls. No refferees.
No conceding games.
 

Attachments

  • 2014 Summer Event.jpeg
    2014 Summer Event.jpeg
    94 KB · Views: 1,746
Last edited:
TCIndepMo said:
What does "no conflict rules" mean?

Please explain.
Click to expand...

Means you play by Paul's rules and don't ***** apparently... I would be in conflict and *****ing if I was closer....

He has a great room and good tournament regardless of the rules.... Apparently he has lost to guys that broke better... Plus guys who 3 fouled him... Plus guys who were good at combinations...

He made rules where he leveled the field so players like himslef would have a chance.... He just never knew the tried and fast rule... The good players may give you what you ask for in a spot... but they will never give you what you need.....

Chris......
 
I personally love Paul's tournament, it's brings great pool in the doors, and money... I've never spoke to anyone who has played in this event and had issues with the rules. Everyone entitled to there own opinion but I'm just saying? Great events, great pool, big money... IMHO
 
The Renfro said:
Means you play by Paul's rules and don't ***** apparently... I would be in conflict and *****ing if I was closer....

He has a great room and good tournament regardless of the rules.... Apparently he has lost to guys that broke better... Plus guys who 3 fouled him... Plus guys who were good at combinations...

He made rules where he leveled the field so players like himslef would have a chance.... He just never knew the tried and fast rule... The good players may give you what you ask for in a spot... but they will never give you what you need.....

Chris......
Click to expand...

Chris,

Did you have a bad day yesterday? It would seem so to berate Paul's event format. I've played in many with some success.

The racking rule breaks the back of a rack mechanic. The racker does not get the opportunity to set the ball pattern. Nearly every rack is different.

The racker doesn't have to make a ball to continue to shoot. Unless you scratch or foul on the break, you get the first shot. The format is alternate break. Does this favor the weaker player? Probably not. The breaker still has to get out of the rack. Still in the best players favor.

No short games. The nine has to go in last. Who does that favor?

No three fouls. No hit on the correct object ball, the opponent still gets cue ball in hand. Better player still wins.

In the end, Paul gets a 64 player full field for each event. The entire tournament plays out in ONE day. Try that with "rack your own" and the opponent checking each rack. We both know how long that takes.

The format may not be for you. I do however challenge you to show up and play. Then you can complain about the format.

Incidentally Chris, Paul played pretty sporty in his younger days. Ask around. Paul developed these rules because (in his opinion) the game became a series of trick shots.

Lyn
 
Indeed, Lyn! I met Paul back in the day. He's nothing but a class guy, no need to dis his format if you've never played in it. I can tell you this, you would play by the rules or you wouldn't play!
 
If players like it and he fills up his field, more power to him. Reading the rules left me scratching my head and wondering, "wtf?" I would choose (if was in the area) not to play due to those rules. But like I said, if he fills up his field, good for him! To each his own.
 
cardiac kid said:
Chris,

Did you have a bad day yesterday? It would seem so to berate Paul's event format. I've played in many with some success.

The racking rule breaks the back of a rack mechanic. The racker does not get the opportunity to set the ball pattern. Nearly every rack is different.

The racker doesn't have to make a ball to continue to shoot. Unless you scratch or foul on the break, you get the first shot. The format is alternate break. Does this favor the weaker player? Probably not. The breaker still has to get out of the rack. Still in the best players favor.

No short games. The nine has to go in last. Who does that favor?

No three fouls. No hit on the correct object ball, the opponent still gets cue ball in hand. Better player still wins.

In the end, Paul gets a 64 player full field for each event. The entire tournament plays out in ONE day. Try that with "rack your own" and the opponent checking each rack. We both know how long that takes.

The format may not be for you. I do however challenge you to show up and play. Then you can complain about the format.

Incidentally Chris, Paul played pretty sporty in his younger days. Ask around. Paul developed these rules because (in his opinion) the game became a series of trick shots.

Lyn
Click to expand...

Like I said good room and tournaments.. I am glad people like Paul do things to keep the game going in their area. I am also sure they fill up in spite of the rules and they would have as many players if they had normal rulesets... 64 players in 1day... How many tables? Whats the race length? I used to run a Thursday night 9-ball handicapped with some players going to 9 that got done in 8 hours if we had 48 using 12 tables....

Heard somewhere Paul was having a 14.1 tournament next where you just run 15, break the next rack wide open and keep shooting... That 14.1 break shot requirement was just too open to having bad luck and ending a players run when it was no fault of their own.... Will be renamed 15.1 and added to the no conflict ruleset.... I worked pretty hard learning to break well enough to have an advantage against many players and hold my own against other it's a skill... I think learning the final 4 ball patterns in straight pool with key, break ball and angle is a skill some people don't have as well so we should do away with it in 14.1........

Chris
 
The Renfro said:
Heard somewhere Paul was having a 14.1 tournament next where you just run 15, break the next rack wide open and keep shooting... That 14.1 break shot requirement was just too open to having bad luck and ending a players run when it was no fault of their own.... Will be renamed 15.1 and added to the no conflict ruleset.... I worked pretty hard learning to break well enough to have an advantage against many players and hold my own against other it's a skill... I think learning the final 4 ball patterns in straight pool with key, break ball and angle is a skill some people don't have as well so we should do away with it in 14.1........

Chris
Click to expand...

No, that was Naji:wink:
 
The Renfro said:
Means you play by Paul's rules and don't ***** apparently... I would be in conflict and *****ing if I was closer....

Apparently he has lost to guys that broke better... Plus guys who 3 fouled him... Plus guys who were good at combinations...

He made rules where he leveled the field so players like himslef would have a chance....
Chris......
Click to expand...

Man-oh-man, Chris. You are awfully critical for not having even one experience with these rules.
 
Woh the breaker isn't required to make a ball on the break to keep shooting? That's..... Interesting
 
Paul Schofield said:
Man-oh-man, Chris. You are awfully critical for not having even one experience with these rules.
Click to expand...

Paul you are like the little engine who could.... You keep trying to get up the hill and I keep playing the part of gravity LOL... I doubt either of us give up anytime soon....

I respect you for what you do in your community and the fact you run a great room... Don't ever think I am personally attacking you... I just favor the normal break rules... I can go along with no 3 foul... I can go along with the respot money balls made out of turn.... I can and have gone along with no jump cues... But being willing to go along with doesn't mean I have to like it... And the break rules you use while seemingly fair to everyone really only level the field for the guys that don't break well...

This is where we have disagreed in the past and here we are again... Luck plays a part in the break even doing it your way... Skill aside from playing position on the one ball does go away...

Hitting the cueball at over 24mph in the center while maintaining the proper hit on the head ball to park whitey, to make a ball, and get position on the one doesn't just happen over and over by chance or luck... Chance or luck is what keeps it from happening every time if you have practiced the break to the extent many of us have...

If everyone could do that then you wouldn't even need your rules. As it is I know players who never work on the break and it shows.. You are in essence rewarding them by putting them on even footing after the break as the guys who developed the skill...

In golf what you would be doing is walking everyone off the tee out 325 yards to the center of the fairway on a tight par 5....

The random process you use could just as well require the same rack order be used by everyone... I think Joe Tucker has the racking orders for 9 and 10 ball on his DVDs that are the hardest to run because of the geometry of the break shot......

Good luck with the tournament... I am sure a good time will be had by all as always... I'll buy you a beer if you make the Open in Chesapeake.. We are both trying to make things fair.. You developed your ruleset and I designed the accu-rack templates.... Both are efforts to get rid of the racking shenanigans and mechanics... I am sure many who have played your ruleset might hate using templates.....

Chris
 
The Renfro said:
Paul you are like the little engine who could.... You keep trying to get up the hill and I keep playing the part of gravity LOL... I doubt either of us give up anytime soon....

I respect you for what you do in your community and the fact you run a great room... Don't ever think I am personally attacking you... I just favor the normal break rules... I can go along with no 3 foul... I can go along with the respot money balls made out of turn.... I can and have gone along with no jump cues... But being willing to go along with doesn't mean I have to like it... And the break rules you use while seemingly fair to everyone really only level the field for the guys that don't break well...

This is where we have disagreed in the past and here we are again... Luck plays a part in the break even doing it your way... Skill aside from playing position on the one ball does go away...

Hitting the cueball at over 24mph in the center while maintaining the proper hit on the head ball to park whitey, to make a ball, and get position on the one doesn't just happen over and over by chance or luck... Chance or luck is what keeps it from happening every time if you have practiced the break to the extent many of us have...

If everyone could do that then you wouldn't even need your rules. As it is I know players who never work on the break and it shows.. You are in essence rewarding them by putting them on even footing after the break as the guys who developed the skill...

In golf what you would be doing is walking everyone off the tee out 325 yards to the center of the fairway on a tight par 5....

The random process you use could just as well require the same rack order be used by everyone... I think Joe Tucker has the racking orders for 9 and 10 ball on his DVDs that are the hardest to run because of the geometry of the break shot......

Good luck with the tournament... I am sure a good time will be had by all as always... I'll buy you a beer if you make the Open in Chesapeake.. We are both trying to make things fair.. You developed your ruleset and I designed the accu-rack templates.... Both are efforts to get rid of the racking shenanigans and mechanics... I am sure many who have played your ruleset might hate using templates.....

Chris
Click to expand...

Well Chris, I read through this post and I see your focus on fine details, fairness, tradition, hard work and practice. As much as these attributes are admirable, and it all sounds so good and seems so reasonable, I think your efforts are misplaced.

My focus is on the human experience. Traditional rules create anger, frustration, and distrust amongst players. Not good. A good human experience trumps sport every time.

Furthermore, everything that I have done to the game is to the advantage the better player while setting the stage for a better experience.
 
Last edited:
OK, I just went to your provided link, read it and think the "no conflict" part is ridiculous. Just an opinion.
Players who fall for this will survive AND so will I. LOL.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Well Chris, I read through this post and I see your focus on fine details, fairness, tradition, hard work and practice. As much as these attributes are admirable, and it all sounds so good and seems so reasonable, I think your efforts are misplaced.

My focus is on the human experience. Traditional rules create anger, frustration, and distrust amongst players. Not good. A good human experience trumps sport every time.

Furthermore, everything that I have done to the game is to the advantage the better player while setting the stage for a better experience.
Click to expand...

If that is truly the focus I might be tempted to give it a whirl if I am ever in the area... If the rules are truly for the enjoyment of the players then I have no point or reason to criticize going forward.... Took a bunch of mud slinging both ways but in this light I say knock em dead Paul......

Chris
 
The Renfro said:
Hitting the cueball at over 24mph in the center while maintaining the proper hit on the head ball to park whitey, to make a ball, and get position on the one doesn't just happen over and over by chance or luck... Chance or luck is what keeps it from happening every time if you have practiced the break to the extent many of us have...

If everyone could do that then you wouldn't even need your rules. As it is I know players who never work on the break and it shows.. You are in essence rewarding them by putting them on even footing after the break as the guys who developed the skill...

The random process you use could just as well require the same rack order be used by everyone... I think Joe Tucker has the racking orders for 9 and 10 ball on his DVDs that are the hardest to run because of the geometry of the break shot......

We are both trying to make things fair.. You developed your ruleset and I designed the accu-rack templates. Both are efforts to get rid of the racking shenanigans and mechanics... I am sure many who have played your ruleset might hate using templates.....Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,

Just got done playing the BCAPL 9 Ball Challenge. Through the six matches I played, my guess is I failed to make a ball on the break less than 20% of the time. Worked real hard to check the speed so the one ball was in a place where I could make it or at least play safe off it. That event used the Magic Rack. I've used your rack and found I can achieve the same results in our pool room. I didn't win the event as I lost to players who ran racks (and played) much better than I did. Having said that, my best was a five pack off the break. Of course my opponent had just put a five pack on me. Wound up losing that match on the hill, race to seven.

The break shot is a trick shot. As a famous golfer stated, "the more I practice, the luckier I get". Joe's racking secrets are great for the serious players. Learned to manipulate a rack along with all the others. Know how to pattern rack as well. Because of that, me and my opponent could spend significant time checking and rechecking racks. Fail to do that and one of us will have an advantage going into the rack. Frankly, I'd prefer to play under Paul's rules. In the end, the best players still win regardless of the additional constraints placed on them.

My suggestion is for you to run an event or two using Paul's "No Conflict" rules then judge the results. You might be surprised at the players reactions. Whether you play winner breaks, loser breaks or alternate breaks, the better player wins a very high percentage of the time.

One final note. How do you think the results might have changed if the players at Smokin Aces were allowed to use your rack? Watched some of our best players go break after break with out making a ball. If they can't make a ball every rack with their knowledge, how can the average Joe do it? Remember, it was barbox 9 Ball on Valleys.

Lyn
 
Can someone explain the logic behind eliminating the 3 foul rule? I always thought that rule made sense in rotation games. 1. It's not that easy to do so it's not like there are a lot of racks ending that way 2. Stalemates (which can result if you don't have the rule) generally suck and takes up extra time for having to play the racks over.
 
StraightPoolIU said:
Can someone explain the logic behind eliminating the 3 foul rule? I always thought that rule made sense in rotation games. 1. It's not that easy to do so it's not like there are a lot of racks ending that way 2. Stalemates (which can result if you don't have the rule) generally suck and takes up extra time for having to play the racks over.
Click to expand...

The rule never made any sense to me, just a rule to be able to win without being offensive, which was never the intent in 9 ball before that rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top