I know that in order to legally score a a point the ball pocketed must hit a rail first. But does that mean that I can just aim straight for the pocket and have the object ball hit a rail on the way there?
Bank Pool rules question
- Thread starter Cameron Smith
- Start date
then what if I call the pocket, double bank back into the side pocket? In that case one of the rails contacted is connected to a pocket.
Furthermore what constitutes a bank? Is it that it must go across the table, whether it be vertically or horizontally, at least twice? Or is it simply that a ball must contact a cushion? The reason i ask is because one of you said, "Its called BANK pool for a reason".
Furthermore what constitutes a bank? Is it that it must go across the table, whether it be vertically or horizontally, at least twice? Or is it simply that a ball must contact a cushion? The reason i ask is because one of you said, "Its called BANK pool for a reason".
Last edited:
SkippyFL said:
Im sorry is there something wrong with being inquisitive? If I wasn't actually curious I would never have asked in the first place. Sometimes the obvious is not as obvious as you think. We live in a society where we take customs and commonly held ideas as truths without questioning any of it. Many of them, when you think about it, are either illogical or no longer have any function in our society.
So, before you accuse me of being a jerk to someone perhaps it would be prudent to actually consider what I am saying. Especially since I have never flamed anyone on this board and have actually chastized people for bullying.
If I sound somewhat harsh I apologize, but I didn't appreciate that.
Last edited:
Well, I agree with Cameron. If it hit a bank before entering the pocket (even sliding it in), it 'technicallly' could be a successful shot.
I don't however believe this is the intent of 'bank pool' so I'm sure there is a rule (either documented or unwritten) that says that shot is no good.
I don't however believe this is the intent of 'bank pool' so I'm sure there is a rule (either documented or unwritten) that says that shot is no good.
Forgive me if I also am left scratching my head.
But..., the rules of banks are mostly clear concerning any of the questions you've asked. But, then again, since you're asking, they mustn't be clear, assuming you've read the rules.
From the World Standardized Rules:
" Bank: A shot in which an object ball is driven to one or more cushions before it is pocketed. Incidental contact as a ball moves along and adjacent to a cushion does not qualify as a cushion or bank. It is not an obvious shot and must be called in games requiring called shots."
Now, if there are other questions on "what constitutes a bank," then the answer is more than likely negative. People have taken great pains to try to wordsmith the rules to make sure that players don't try to get away with a wording technicality.
That being said, players can agree amongst themselves whether they will accept certain non-standard banks. e.g., a ball that's kicked into a cushion and then pocketed.
Fred
But..., the rules of banks are mostly clear concerning any of the questions you've asked. But, then again, since you're asking, they mustn't be clear, assuming you've read the rules.
From the World Standardized Rules:
" Bank: A shot in which an object ball is driven to one or more cushions before it is pocketed. Incidental contact as a ball moves along and adjacent to a cushion does not qualify as a cushion or bank. It is not an obvious shot and must be called in games requiring called shots."
Now, if there are other questions on "what constitutes a bank," then the answer is more than likely negative. People have taken great pains to try to wordsmith the rules to make sure that players don't try to get away with a wording technicality.
That being said, players can agree amongst themselves whether they will accept certain non-standard banks. e.g., a ball that's kicked into a cushion and then pocketed.
Fred
I put together a draft of expanded rules for Bank Pook following the Derby City earlier this year. I posted them here, as well as on OnePocket.org for comment, and generally got positive response. Those are probably the more detailed rules you saw. They are available here:pdcue said:
Expanded Bank Pool Rules
I am still interested in any comments that might improve these rules.
Cameron Smith said:
As long as the ball contacts at least one rail that is not adjacent to the pocket before going in, it's a bank. So the double bank counts because the other rail you hit is not adjacent.
And I think that guy that called you a jerk for asking this question was way out of line.
-Andrew
I didn't ever think you could do the shot I described but I was curious if it was a loop hole, as I had never noticed anything that stated otherwise. Even the quote provided by Fred does not clearly state that you can not do the shot I described (At least in my mind and I don't want to argue it).
The thing is, I ask questions and I don't take anything for granted as fact. As a trained historian thats what I do. I'm sorry if I sound ignorant to some of you.
The thing is, I ask questions and I don't take anything for granted as fact. As a trained historian thats what I do. I'm sorry if I sound ignorant to some of you.
Andrew Manning said:
Thank you.
If it walks like a duck
So, as I suspected, you knew the answer to the "questions" you posed all along, you just wanted to obsess on the wording of the rules.
Why not simply say something like:
"what do you think about this wording...?"
instead of pretending to not understand
This is particularly disturbing in a forum where many new players
actually do ask questions wanting to learn
you also ducked answering me when I asked if that was your true agenda.
sounds like a jerk to me.
Dale(seein 'em and callin em)
Cameron Smith said:
So, as I suspected, you knew the answer to the "questions" you posed all along, you just wanted to obsess on the wording of the rules.
Why not simply say something like:
"what do you think about this wording...?"
instead of pretending to not understand
This is particularly disturbing in a forum where many new players
actually do ask questions wanting to learn
you also ducked answering me when I asked if that was your true agenda.
sounds like a jerk to me.
Dale(seein 'em and callin em)
Cameron Smith said:
That explains it then, it wasn't the question you asked but the tone you asked it in that made you sound like a jerk. As a "trained historian" you must be an inquisitive and pretentious jerk in order perform properly at your job. In the future, you may want to get out of jerk mode before posting on this board. You were asking obvious questions for the sake of argument and then trying to belittle people for saying it was obvious.
The proper way to go about it would have been like this: "Hi guys, does anyone else think the Bank Pool rules are a tad ambiguous?" Then you would probably recieve thoughtful answers/dialogue for your question. Instead you chose to ask a simple question than instantly attack anyone who answered to your seemingly elementary question. The way you went about this would be like me coming on here and asking "How do I use email?" and then correcting every response. I bet someone would call me out on being a jerk like I did to you.
Last edited:
pdcue said:
Yep I've been planning this thread for YEARS!!!
Seriously though, I just asked a question you make it sound like it was some evil hidden agenda lol.pdcue said:
I was curious, like I said before. Besides, If I believe something to be true, and it turns out to be true, it does not follow that I knew it to be so. That's why I asked. I asked a simple question.
pdcue said:
Sorry, I didn't care. I wasn't aware that I needed to respond to every inane question sent my way.
Oops my first internet insult.
SkippyFL said:
What are you, five? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are trying to get a rise out of me. Sorry dude, it ain't gonna happen. When I posted before I was already annoyed for reasons that have nothing to do with this board. I really don't care what you or pdcue think about me. Trust me.
Secondly there is no way I could instantly attack anybody on this forum, my computer is far too slow for that. Nevertheless I can't remember where I attacked anybody, I think I have been too busy defending myself. But if your defintion of attacking is providing rebuttals towards arguements, then everybody does that. That's what happens on discussion forums.
Sorry man, the only people attacking are yourself and pdcue.
not just a jerk...
but a clumsy, inept liar
on the plus side, obviously never a hustler - way too transparent
PD
Cameron Smith said:Yep I've been planning this thread for YEARS!!!
I was curious, like I said before. Besides, If I believe something to be true, and it turns out to be true, it does not follow that I knew it to be so. That's why I asked. I asked a simple question.
Sorry, I didn't care. I wasn't aware that I needed to respond to every inane question sent my way.
Oops my first internet insult.
but a clumsy, inept liar
on the plus side, obviously never a hustler - way too transparent
PD