Breaking rules...what am I missing here?

[Maniac]

I think I have come up with a good idea about breaking rules to eliminate all the tireless "rack checking" to help speed games/matches up.

Whether using a triangle rack or a template, let the loser (of lag or previous game) rack the balls. Then, the breaker checks the rack and either accepts the rack as it is or passes it off to his/her opponent. The opponent has no option of giving it back.

Does this sound like a good or goofy idea to speed the games up (and btw, I am a proponent of shot clocks in rotation games)? Am I missing something obvious here or does it make any sense?

IMHO, I think it would make matches a lot more interesting with all the variables it would create (and possibly somewhat eliminate "wired balls").

Comments?

Maniac

 

[logical]

So wouldn't a loser just always do funky racks so the winner would pass them to him? The loser may have his own funky rack but he's at least breaking.

If you don't have a neutral ravker, just use the template and move on. Good that you are thinking of ways to speed things up but I believe your way would make it even more full of shenanigans.

Sent from the future.

 

[Maniac]

So wouldn't a loser just always do funky racks so the winner would pass them to him? The loser may have his own funky rack but he's at least breaking.

If you don't have a neutral ravker, just use the template and move on. Good that you are thinking of ways to speed things up but I believe your way would make it even more full of shenanigans.

Sent from the future.

Good points, but a "funky" rack does not guarantee a wing ball, or 1-ball in the side (9-ball), or a corner ball in 10-ball. And I'm betting that no professional player would pass on a chance to break...unless the rack was absurdly bad.

So...we'd never have to watch a racker have to rack the balls several times or more for a single game.

IDK...I was just thinking out loud.

Maniac

 

[Bob Jewett]

So this will reward the clever students of racking who figure out new patterns of gaps that make an unexpected ball dead. They rack it, their opponent doesn't know the new cleverness and passes it back, and the racker pops one straight into the pocket.

How about: breaker must push out after a legal break.

 

[The ProRailbird]

I think I have come up with a good idea about breaking rules to eliminate all the tireless "rack checking" to help speed games/matches up.

Whether using a triangle rack or a template, let the loser (of lag or previous game) rack the balls. Then, the breaker checks the rack and either accepts the rack as it is or passes it off to his/her opponent. The opponent has no option of giving it back.

Does this sound like a good or goofy idea to speed the games up (and btw, I am a proponent of shot clocks in rotation games)? Am I missing something obvious here or does it make any sense?

IMHO, I think it would make matches a lot more interesting with all the variables it would create (and possibly somewhat eliminate "wired balls").

Comments?

Maniac

Good idea. But under that rule, I would hit that funky sukka with reckless abandon before I passed it up.

It would be a fun rule to try though.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Would be easier to get rid of the rule where 4 balls must hit rails (or one ball pocketed).

 

[Maniac]

How about: breaker must push out after a legal break.

I've always liked that idea. Only thing is...there would still be all of the nitpickin' about the racking.

Maniac

 

[logical]

You'd still have endless rack inspection, first to decide who hits it and then even more to decide the best way to hit the funky cluster.

Sent from the future.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

How about: breaker must push out after a legal break.

Is there any conventional wisdom about who has the advantage on a push out? I suppose it's the pusher, if he knows what he's doing.

pj
chgo

 

[Straightpool_99]

Magic rack. Rack your own, opponent has check option, problem solved.

 

[Maniac]

Magic rack. Rack your own, opponent has check option, problem solved.

Yeah. But you've gotta ask...why in the hell aren't they doing it this way in every tournament???

I think because it promotes the "wired" ball. IMO, the same ball going in on every break is boring to watch.

Maniac

 

[ChrisinNC]

Magic rack. Rack your own, opponent has check option, problem solved.

Can't rack your own without preventing pattern racking. My solution is winner breaks, loser racks with a magic/accu/turtle template and 9 ball is racked on the spot. The breaker can inspect the rack just to confirm if all the balls are frozen and if not, can ask for a re-rack to obtain a frozen rack.

 

[Maniac]

The breaker can inspect the rack just to confirm if all the balls are frozen and if not, can ask for a re-rack to obtain a frozen rack.

This is the kind of crap we are trying to eliminate in my OP.

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

Magic rack. Rack your own, opponent has check option, problem solved.

On second thought, I think this would be the best option so far, but as long as it is alternate break.

Maniac

 

[Buckzapper]

Can't rack your own without preventing pattern racking. My solution is winner breaks, loser racks with a magic/accu/turtle template and 9 ball is racked on the spot. The breaker can inspect the rack just to confirm if all the balls are frozen and if not, can ask for a re-rack to obtain a frozen rack.

Videos are out there of Dennis O. doing the pattern racking. I saw one of him playing Mika and all the balls went to the same place on every break. (rack your own)

The fix, is a neutral racker. If you inspect the rack, you lose one point. Get up there and break.

 

[orion21]

bad rack or not, if your'e at the table you have the advantage

 

[BRussell]

Is there any conventional wisdom about who has the advantage on a push out? I suppose it's the pusher, if he knows what he's doing.

pj
chgo

I would think pushees, because they get the choice.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would think pushees, because they get the choice.

The simple theory is that between equal players the pusher has to push to a place that is 50-50 for the pushee to take. Based on that, it's harder to push because you have to pick the right spot and execute correctly.

On the other hand, between unequal players, the pusher can push to a spot where he can play from a strength. He still has to execute the push well, but he should have an advantage.

Also, the pusher might see a tricky good play that the pushee overlooks when he passes the shot back, but the pusher runs the risk that the pushee will see the right shot.

 

[ChrisinNC]

The simple theory is that between equal players the pusher has to push to a place that is 50-50 for the pushee to take. Based on that, it's harder to push because you have to pick the right spot and execute correctly.

On the other hand, between unequal players, the pusher can push to a spot where he can play from a strength. He still has to execute the push well, but he should have an advantage.

Also, the pusher might see a tricky good play that the pushee overlooks when he passes the shot back, but the pusher runs the risk that the pushee will see the right shot.

The player pushing out should already have a plan for exactly what he will do if the shot is passed back to him, either the safety play or perhaps an attempt at a 2-way shot. The hope is that the opponent may not see or be as comfortable with those options, or might be baited in to attempting a low percentage shot. I agree, the first shooter who pushes out should have the advantage for those reasons.

 

[BRussell]

The simple theory is that between equal players the pusher has to push to a place that is 50-50 for the pushee to take. Based on that, it's harder to push because you have to pick the right spot and execute correctly.

On the other hand, between unequal players, the pusher can push to a spot where he can play from a strength. He still has to execute the push well, but he should have an advantage.

Also, the pusher might see a tricky good play that the pushee overlooks when he passes the shot back, but the pusher runs the risk that the pushee will see the right shot.

I see - if the pusher has some knowledge that the pushee doesn’t have, he can use that to his advantage.

It reminds me of a match where someone - I can’t remember who - pushed out to Alex Pagulayan’s (or another short player’s) left hand position behind a ball. To jump you’d either have to be tall or left-handed. Alex had to turn it back, and the other player came up to the table and made the easy (for him) jump shot. Does that sound familiar to anyone? I’d like to find it to see if that’s an example of what you’re talking about.