ESPN"ocho"
Registered
I agree with this. .. its also about consistent percentages. . If you have players consistently winning 9/12 session after session for instance. .. Then it's kinda of a no brainer
APA team question
- Thread starter CreeDo
- Start date
I agree with this. .. its also about consistent percentages. . If you have players consistently winning 9/12 session after session for instance. .. Then it's kinda of a no brainer
He made it sound as if I don't blast them it's a foul in an earlier post... I'm saying as long as I make 4 balls hit a rail good luck calling that foul
I said I wanted to see that rule . I don't give a f$&$ about Apa enough to read every letter of the rule book lol I go because my wife loves it. The second she loses interest I'm out lol I still maintain if I make 4 balls hit a rail ... And I've seen people break and 4 balls hit a rail and the rest is a big cluster in the middle ....your not calling me for not breaking hard. You made it sound earlier like if I don't step into it and break as hard as I can your calling a foul. Maybe I misread it but that was how it sounded.
Last edited:
I wouldn't call that a foul. I'd call it a defensive shot and mark it accordingly.
I agree with this analysis. Even an 8 has limited value for the same reason; they eat up a lot of skill points for a 50-60% win percentage and only an occasional big win. Once you get down to 7, there usually isn't a numbers problem anymore. I just find it unfortunate that there is a gap from 8 through weak 9 where a player that is good by APA standards loses their value to their team and sometimes even becomes more of a liability.
The type of players you are talking about are good enough to compete in open tournaments with the pros. I've played with Fuller quite a bit and know that he shoots much better than I do, but we're still the same skill level in APA.
I'm not concerned with the speed of your break, nor am I concerned with calling a foul. I was simply pointing out that the rule specifically says "Breaking SAFE
or soft is not allowed". If you are breaking with the intent of not making a ball, you are breaking safe. Because it's a judgement call, you're right, it would be hard to call someone on it without a referee present. Lots of people cheat and get away with it. For someone that doesn't "give a f$&$ about Apa enough to read every letter of the rule book", I would think that the incentive to cheat would be even lower.
It's hard to pull off a sneaky safe break if you're a male, I think better than hitting super soft might be just to cut break with control and send the cue ball to the side rail and then the middle of the foot rail. If they're not hooked they're probably looking at an ugly long 1b.
With the magic rack I only go probably 9 mph, and if I get used to it and forget we're playing without it,
It looks like the world's stupidest safety break, a soft stop shot that makes nothing and sells out the 1.
With the magic rack I only go probably 9 mph, and if I get used to it and forget we're playing without it,
It looks like the world's stupidest safety break, a soft stop shot that makes nothing and sells out the 1.
I started this whole "safety break" sidebar that really should be its own thread, as Creedo’s original question is probably pretty clear. I probably was erroneous on the words that I used but that is ok it spawned some interesting debate.
1. I should have said controlled break as opposed to safety break - the rules do not indicate what determines controlling the cue ball. It is not cheating at ALL to control that cue ball and put it wherever I want. I do not have to hit the rack soft to accomplish this feat. I compared it to 1P not so much as speed, but in spirit. I can control to a large extent the quality of the shot on the 1 ball. I can probably play better safe on the 1 than my opponent unless they are similar skill level. This controlled break only has validity when you are playing down quite a bit of skill levels and cannot afford to lose 4 or more balls per break if the table isn’t cooperating for B&Rs.
2. I cannot understand why anyone would pay league fees, deal with the pain of keeping score (which is *not* fun), and not be competitive. I can teach any time and whileas being a “coach” has a unique opportunity – I also became a PBIA instructor because I love to teach, but we also want to have accomplishments to coincide with the improvements. I have heard many people say the following phrase, "If it we were just here for fun, we wouldn't keep score and wouldn't have to pay to play". It costs roughly $100 per team in league fees and I play on 3 teams, which translates to just under $1,000 a year to play. This is not including the cost of the games, or my personal expenses (food/drink/etc) while at league. The APA expects everyone to try to win and be competitive, within the context of having sportsmanship as well. They want players to improve, go up in skill levels, and recruit their friends to fill in the gaps to make more teams.
3. If someone were to pick up the balls and rack again - that is called forfeiture of the rack and I would have my scorekeeper write it down as a 10-0. Then there would be a debate between captains and end up calling the LO. At no time does the opponent have the ability to make judgment unless a referee has been called and mutually agreed his decision is final. The only exception to this is if the opponent is surrendering his shot or the game.
One last thought – the APA is over-constrained on rules to make sure the experience is enjoyable for everyone. Unless a rule is very specific, it should be considered more of a guideline. Guess what, every coach should last 60s. You should not talk about the game with your player when they are not at the table. I could continue but I don’t think I need to do so.
1. I should have said controlled break as opposed to safety break - the rules do not indicate what determines controlling the cue ball. It is not cheating at ALL to control that cue ball and put it wherever I want. I do not have to hit the rack soft to accomplish this feat. I compared it to 1P not so much as speed, but in spirit. I can control to a large extent the quality of the shot on the 1 ball. I can probably play better safe on the 1 than my opponent unless they are similar skill level. This controlled break only has validity when you are playing down quite a bit of skill levels and cannot afford to lose 4 or more balls per break if the table isn’t cooperating for B&Rs.
2. I cannot understand why anyone would pay league fees, deal with the pain of keeping score (which is *not* fun), and not be competitive. I can teach any time and whileas being a “coach” has a unique opportunity – I also became a PBIA instructor because I love to teach, but we also want to have accomplishments to coincide with the improvements. I have heard many people say the following phrase, "If it we were just here for fun, we wouldn't keep score and wouldn't have to pay to play". It costs roughly $100 per team in league fees and I play on 3 teams, which translates to just under $1,000 a year to play. This is not including the cost of the games, or my personal expenses (food/drink/etc) while at league. The APA expects everyone to try to win and be competitive, within the context of having sportsmanship as well. They want players to improve, go up in skill levels, and recruit their friends to fill in the gaps to make more teams.
3. If someone were to pick up the balls and rack again - that is called forfeiture of the rack and I would have my scorekeeper write it down as a 10-0. Then there would be a debate between captains and end up calling the LO. At no time does the opponent have the ability to make judgment unless a referee has been called and mutually agreed his decision is final. The only exception to this is if the opponent is surrendering his shot or the game.
One last thought – the APA is over-constrained on rules to make sure the experience is enjoyable for everyone. Unless a rule is very specific, it should be considered more of a guideline. Guess what, every coach should last 60s. You should not talk about the game with your player when they are not at the table. I could continue but I don’t think I need to do so.
I only asked to see the rule becAuse i never heard it before and it's not really how you made it sound . Like I said to me it sounded like if I'm not hitting them as hard as I can its a foul and by the way I read the actual rule that's not true. Just a misunderstanding. It wouldn't be an issue with me because as I said as much as I've worked on my soft break its still inconsistent at best. I can see why you would soft break in Apa considering you can't push out or jump. I lost to a 6 in the playoffs because my break went to shit. If I dropped a ball I couldn't see the one... If I didn't make a ballad would have a perfect shot lol caused me to have a lot of split racks and you can't win that way as 8 or 9 for sure.
I've been in this situation many times as the high skill level player and team captain. One one particular team, I was a SL7 and I couldn't play unless our SL2 played. I liked the guy, but he was terrible and rarely beat anybody, and he knew how bad he played.
I used to obsess over match-ups all the time. The only way you can get the best of it is to know the players in your division really well. You must know how strong or weak they play at their skill level. You have to know what takes certain players out of their comfort zones.
What it comes down to is that you have to find match-ups where your high skill level player is likely to win big (15-5 or better), and your low skill level player is likely to just barely lose (8-12, 7-13).
When I was a SL7, against a certain team, I would always put myself up against one of their SL5 players. I knew, I'd beat him at least 15-5 every time I played him. I would duck their strong SL7, and try to match up a weaker player on him where their player would almost always win. I'd beat the weak 5 (16-4), for example, and their strong 7 would win 14-6, and we'd get the best of it.
When we had to put our weak SL2 up, I'd put him up against a SL4, SL5, or even SL6 on the other team. The opponent would be so nervous about the big handicap that they couldn't play at all. Our weak player would either barely lose (An 8-12 or 7-13 loss was like a win or us), or he would barely win sometimes and that was a bonus.
I used to obsess over match-ups all the time. The only way you can get the best of it is to know the players in your division really well. You must know how strong or weak they play at their skill level. You have to know what takes certain players out of their comfort zones.
What it comes down to is that you have to find match-ups where your high skill level player is likely to win big (15-5 or better), and your low skill level player is likely to just barely lose (8-12, 7-13).
When I was a SL7, against a certain team, I would always put myself up against one of their SL5 players. I knew, I'd beat him at least 15-5 every time I played him. I would duck their strong SL7, and try to match up a weaker player on him where their player would almost always win. I'd beat the weak 5 (16-4), for example, and their strong 7 would win 14-6, and we'd get the best of it.
When we had to put our weak SL2 up, I'd put him up against a SL4, SL5, or even SL6 on the other team. The opponent would be so nervous about the big handicap that they couldn't play at all. Our weak player would either barely lose (An 8-12 or 7-13 loss was like a win or us), or he would barely win sometimes and that was a bonus.
Not only is the safety break illegal, but it rarely works. I tried it. It's no good strategy-wise. The best thing to do is dead center break. Cue ball on the head string straight away from the 1-ball. This gives up maximum cue ball control. Take a little bit of speed off of the break. As long as you don't scratch, you've done your job.
Just some quick comments...
Playing devil's advocate for a second... not saying you or anyone else is doing this....
If your primary intention is to leave the opponent shitty on the 1 ball,
whether that involves breaking hard or soft...
isn't that intentionally breaking the rule that says breaking safe is not allowed?
To me, intentionally breaking rules and trying to hide that fact is cheating.
Doesn't matter if they cannot prove it.
Note: not talking about intentional fouls for strategic purposes where the foul is done in plain sight
and nobody's trying to hide it and avoid the penalty.
Agreed, raking the balls and saying "Sorry buddy, that was a safe break. No good." would be a dumb move.
The APA doesn't even let you pick up a single ball in hand without getting confirmation.
Trying to void an entire rack without asking is just begging for trouble.
I think they would prefer it that way too, but way too many arguments erupt... there are always a few
"League Lawyers" who will try to manufacture a foul out of thin air, or let their teammate get away with
an obvious one. The rule writers probably reluctantly add stuff like the "chalk width, shoot at 45 degrees,
or shoot away from the ball" because they get tired of handling disagreements and rule questions.
I don't fault the rule writers, instead I fault the players. I wish they understood the spirit
of the league and why they're there, and didn't try to exploit nitty rules like "you put your hand in the pocket.
I get all the balls on the table." or "you called a 2nd time out. Ball in hand."
hrm, disagree. You can control the cue ball breaking from any angle, as long as you hit the head ball square
from that particular angle. So the best break is whatever angle seems to be productive on that table. Every table has one.
Even if the table is unknown, you can play for 1 in the side...
and if you're really hardcore you can try to read the gaps to make the wing ball.
Playing devil's advocate for a second... not saying you or anyone else is doing this....
If your primary intention is to leave the opponent shitty on the 1 ball,
whether that involves breaking hard or soft...
isn't that intentionally breaking the rule that says breaking safe is not allowed?
To me, intentionally breaking rules and trying to hide that fact is cheating.
Doesn't matter if they cannot prove it.
Note: not talking about intentional fouls for strategic purposes where the foul is done in plain sight
and nobody's trying to hide it and avoid the penalty.
Agreed, raking the balls and saying "Sorry buddy, that was a safe break. No good." would be a dumb move.
The APA doesn't even let you pick up a single ball in hand without getting confirmation.
Trying to void an entire rack without asking is just begging for trouble.
I think they would prefer it that way too, but way too many arguments erupt... there are always a few
"League Lawyers" who will try to manufacture a foul out of thin air, or let their teammate get away with
an obvious one. The rule writers probably reluctantly add stuff like the "chalk width, shoot at 45 degrees,
or shoot away from the ball" because they get tired of handling disagreements and rule questions.
I don't fault the rule writers, instead I fault the players. I wish they understood the spirit
of the league and why they're there, and didn't try to exploit nitty rules like "you put your hand in the pocket.
I get all the balls on the table." or "you called a 2nd time out. Ball in hand."
hrm, disagree. You can control the cue ball breaking from any angle, as long as you hit the head ball square
from that particular angle. So the best break is whatever angle seems to be productive on that table. Every table has one.
Even if the table is unknown, you can play for 1 in the side...
and if you're really hardcore you can try to read the gaps to make the wing ball.
Devil's advocate is good! Let me ask this question in general
If I play a 2-way (also known as a offense/defense shot) should it be counted as a non-performance shot? I don't mean if I hit the ball hard and slop something in, but I am trying to make a shot but chose a tougher shot that can also leave the other player a tough shot in case I miss? Let me be clear, that I am expecting and hoping to make the shot in this instance.
Now consider this on the break, If the cue ball is shot to end up on the foot of the table and the one is likely moving up table - can that be considered a safety? If so, then all 2-way shots should always be considered defense. Like I said, they are trying to keep the game moving, and that is why they do not want "safety breaks" .
Controlling the game is the biggest advantage of breaking, if you cannot control it then on a tough table I will just foul twice and make them break on an inferior table!
I should probably add that I have not used this in competitive play - anyone could reach out to my LO in Evansville, IN to confirm. I have just understood there is a potential gap there that needs a solution. If the person racking the rack does a good job - the topic is also a non-issue but I would rather play the rack given than to sit and watch a new player rack and rack and rack until they give a frozen rack. Just something to think about...
Last edited:
In the APA, what constitutes a defensive shot is determined by intent. If you don't intend to make a ball, it's defense. The rules suggest that the shooter communicate that intent to the scorekeeper, but it's also up to the scorekeeper's discretion to mark other defensive shots. Since it's a judgement call in many cases, the APA says it's okay for the teams' score sheets to differ with regard to defensive shots.
In most cases, a 2-way shot includes the intent to make a ball, but I would call a 2-way shot where making the ball was a very low percentage shot (multi-rail banks, long caroms, etc.) defense.
Now, to take this back to the break discussion... If your intent is to make a ball on the break, it's not a safety break. If the intent is to put the cue ball and the 1 ball on opposite ends of the table and make a ball, it's not a safety break, but it would be tough to convince me that's what you are trying to do.
Basically, from any highly skilled player, I expect to see them trying to make the one in the side, the wing ball in a corner, or crushing the rack to scatter the balls as much as they can. In any of those cases, they are trying to make a ball, regardless of where the cue ball ends up. If I was playing someone that did none of those things and consistently left the cue ball at the foot rail away from the one, I would be suspicious.
Banks
Banned
Yeah, I was kinda thinking about the whole sticking of the CB at the foot thing. It's a bit double-sided in that I'm still trying to make a ball with my break, but playing the odds that my break is off. I don't mind as much getting stuck down there, since I can kick decently, but I'll be damned if I'm going to break rack after rack and set my opponent up golden on the 1b over and over. Trying to figure out if that's whole-heartedly defensive.. if so, I'll have to put an end to it. Actually, I'll just ask my LO in a sec and see what she says.
As for the other two issues, to me it sounded like he was doing a true soft break and even said that as long as he hits it hard enough to meet the ball/rail requirements, then it's tough ca-ca. Well, that's not good enough, because it's still soft breaking and if he knows what a soft break is, he knows what he's doing is 'not allowed'. I'm not going to bs about semantics and if somebody wants to call the LO and cry about me raking when they soft break, they can go right ahead. I've seen my LO call people on soft breaks. Funny how the people that "don't give a #$^*" are the ones pulling this crap, isn't it? I never once said he has to "blast" the rack like PK, I just showed him where it's not allowed and he started trying to weasel around it. I'd rake it if he kept trying it after I let him know that it's not allowed. As I said, he's free to call the LO and get straightened out, or he can play the game.
Controlling the game is the biggest advantage of breaking, if you cannot control it then on a tough table I will just foul twice and make them break on an inferior table!
We're all talking about APA here, right? How can you foul twice and "make them break"?
1.) There is no rule in the book that says after fouling twice, the break goes over to the other player, because.......
2.) .......no foul can occur until the rack has been struck.
How are you fouling twice??? If you say that you are hitting the rack soft enough that 4 balls do not make it to a rail, then after the first time, it is a sportsmanship violation (for soft-breaking), and after the second time, it should be loss of rack (because of a second unsportsmanship violation in a row concerning the very exact issue). If you are simply miscuing twice in a row (intentionally or not), then no foul has occured because the rack was never struck.
Why not just offer your opponent the opportunity to break? I bet they would take that opportunity almost every time.
Maniac
Banks
Banned
The closest thing would be to have an illegal break and scratch/foul, which gives over the break to the opponent. Still, I don't think I'd ever want to give up the break in 9.
Banks
Banned
His LO may have a local by-law for that to speed things up.
All I know is that my team needs a 2. :embarrassed2:
This conversation is pretty insightful I must say. The break is the most important shot in the game of 9ball, especially for skill levels say 6+.
I would like to get some feedback on the following scenario. I have never been in the scenario but my personality is one that likes to have a premeditated plan.
Player needs a 12-8 win for team to win LTC. Player is a SL9 who has broken without balls falling in 4 consecutive racks and needs 8 balls. Other player needs lets say 3. SL9 has been trying to make balls on every break - trying to runout racks (per the APA rules). If the SL9 identifies hey, I cannot break dry and leave them the 1 because I will likely get beat. They have a few options.
1. They break and hope to make a ball and get position to run their 8 pts. This puts the entire teams aspirations on the line of pocketing a ball on the break.
2. They break offense/defense hoping to make a ball but planning on playing safe given the long distance. Again this also has risks. I truly do not believe this is a form of cheating, but I will ask teh qu
3. Surrender their break and hope the poorly breaking table benefits them. Without looking at the rule book I believe you can surrender any shot and give opponent ball in hand, I would imagine you can also surrender your break or scratch intentionally twice to execute... I am not a rule junkie persey.
I just text my LO - I will provide an update tomorrow - our team has a tri-cup match tonight that if we win, we go to the LTC
Hope everyone has a successful and enjoyable weekend.
I would like to get some feedback on the following scenario. I have never been in the scenario but my personality is one that likes to have a premeditated plan.
Player needs a 12-8 win for team to win LTC. Player is a SL9 who has broken without balls falling in 4 consecutive racks and needs 8 balls. Other player needs lets say 3. SL9 has been trying to make balls on every break - trying to runout racks (per the APA rules). If the SL9 identifies hey, I cannot break dry and leave them the 1 because I will likely get beat. They have a few options.
1. They break and hope to make a ball and get position to run their 8 pts. This puts the entire teams aspirations on the line of pocketing a ball on the break.
2. They break offense/defense hoping to make a ball but planning on playing safe given the long distance. Again this also has risks. I truly do not believe this is a form of cheating, but I will ask teh qu
3. Surrender their break and hope the poorly breaking table benefits them. Without looking at the rule book I believe you can surrender any shot and give opponent ball in hand, I would imagine you can also surrender your break or scratch intentionally twice to execute... I am not a rule junkie persey.
I just text my LO - I will provide an update tomorrow - our team has a tri-cup match tonight that if we win, we go to the LTC
Hope everyone has a successful and enjoyable weekend.