Change in 1p

[Lucasi53]

Guessing most will disagree, but I believe a change needs to be made in the 1p rule of losing 1 ball on all fouls. As I watch and learn from taped matches, players simply "push" or "touch" when they get into trouble. The cost of losing 1 ball is minimal. In addition, the incoming player must now decide to 1) shoot, or 2) also take a foul (also losing a ball). This continues until the 3 foul rule comes-into-play. We have all seen where players owe several balls. This format favors the better shooter and drags the game along for the fans.

I believe the rule should be all fouls = lose 1 ball + incoming player has choice to shoot or give table back. In essence, the shooter has decided to "push", so the incoming player should be allowed the option to choose without penalty. Once the shooter realizes he may be shooting again, he will need to make a different decision.

I also believe 1p is growing in popularity compared to rotation games (or perhaps it is because I am getting older). To favor the fans, the games need to keep moving - which can lead to thoughts about a shot clock and the Grady Rule. I'll leave that for others.

To those that disagree, I ask how much different 9-ball and 10-ball would be if a player can "push" at anytime during the game?

 

[garczar]

Guessing most will disagree, but I believe a change needs to be made in the 1p rule of losing 1 ball on all fouls. As I watch and learn from taped matches, players simply "push" or "touch" when they get into trouble. The cost of losing 1 ball is minimal. In addition, the incoming player must now decide to 1) shoot, or 2) also take a foul (also losing a ball). This continues until the 3 foul rule comes-into-play. We have all seen where players owe several balls. This format favors the better shooter and drags the game along for the fans.

I believe the rule should be all fouls = lose 1 ball + incoming player has choice to shoot or give table back. In essence, the shooter has decided to "push", so the incoming player should be allowed the option to choose without penalty. Once the shooter realizes he may be shooting again, he will need to make a different decision.

I also believe 1p is growing in popularity compared to rotation games (or perhaps it is because I am getting older). To favor the fans, the games need to keep moving - which can lead to thoughts about a shot clock and the Grady Rule. I'll leave that for others.

To those that disagree, I ask how much different 9-ball and 10-ball would be if a player can "push" at anytime during the game?

I've never played one-hole with the 3-foul rule. Your idea has some merit. I hate the touch fouls. Should have to make a stroke attempt on the cue ball.

 

[darmoose]

Guessing most will disagree, but I believe a change needs to be made in the 1p rule of losing 1 ball on all fouls. As I watch and learn from taped matches, players simply "push" or "touch" when they get into trouble. The cost of losing 1 ball is minimal. In addition, the incoming player must now decide to 1) shoot, or 2) also take a foul (also losing a ball). This continues until the 3 foul rule comes-into-play. We have all seen where players owe several balls. This format favors the better shooter and drags the game along for the fans.

I believe the rule should be all fouls = lose 1 ball + incoming player has choice to shoot or give table back. In essence, the shooter has decided to "push", so the incoming player should be allowed the option to choose without penalty. Once the shooter realizes he may be shooting again, he will need to make a different decision.

I also believe 1p is growing in popularity compared to rotation games (or perhaps it is because I am getting older). To favor the fans, the games need to keep moving - which can lead to thoughts about a shot clock and the Grady Rule. I'll leave that for others.

To those that disagree, I ask how much different 9-ball and 10-ball would be if a player can "push" at anytime during the game?

I play one pocket exclusively and perhaps 3 or 4 times a week, and have been playing for 20 years or so. Have you visited onepocket.org? We have discussed numerous ideas like this many times.

I like your idea. Intentional fouls allow better players to change the game to their favor like going from 9/7 to 11/9.

I have suggested, because I think fouls are undervalued, and because I think the game could be shortened a bit (especially for tournamrnts):

Instead of paying or spotting a ball when you commit a foul, you should give a ball to you opponent. This would keep the game moving forward and never backward. The only exception would be at the end game, if one player hung his game ball the opponent would be allowed to play the current rule, which allows him to pocket the ball and scratch, then put two balls on the spot. This keeps the game from being won by merely hanging the game ball.

This rule would also keep players from using intentionals much, cause each foul puts opponent closer to win.

 

[Z-Nole]

I couldn't disagree more. There's tactical advantage to taking fouls. For example, if I'm spotting you 10-6 you spotting a ball means more than if I have to spot one. And if I'm better at taking the foul and can push to a better spot and keep you in a tight spot it's another tool for me to take an advantage. One pocket has nothing to do with rotation games so comparing fouls is Apple's and oranges.

 

[pdcue]

I couldn't disagree more. There's tactical advantage to taking fouls. For example, if I'm spotting you 10-6 you spotting a ball means more than if I have to spot one. And if I'm better at taking the foul and can push to a better spot and keep you in a tight spot it's another tool for me to take an advantage. One pocket has nothing to do with rotation games so comparing fouls is Apple's and oranges.

Thank you.

Till I read your post I was seriously considering making some wisea$$ comment like:

great, let's make One Pocket MORE like 9 Ball.

A humble suggestion to the OP and others.

One Pocket is a game for gambling. it has no other social redeeming value. It is my favorite game to play,
but watching one pocket, if you are not betting on the outcome is about as much
fun as solitary confinement.

Dale

 

[lfigueroa]

Thank you.

Till I read your post I was seriously considering making some wisea$$ comment like:

great, let's make One Pocket MORE like 9 Ball.

A humble suggestion to the OP and others.

One Pocket is a game for gambling. it has no other social redeeming value. It is my favorite game to play,
but watching one pocket, if you are not betting on the outcome is about as much
fun as solitary confinement.

Dale

Well Said.

Someone asked me to play 1pocket for nuthin' the other day and I likened that to playing poker for nothing.

What's the point?

Lou Figueroa

 

[GoldCrown]

Leave the rules alone is my vote.
I do not gamble. Play strictly for fun and love of the game. Would you believe I have as much fun as the guys that play for cash. And I'll bet on that.

 

[daphish1]

Guessing most will disagree, but I believe a change needs to be made in the 1p rule of losing 1 ball on all fouls. As I watch and learn from taped matches, players simply "push" or "touch" when they get into trouble. The cost of losing 1 ball is minimal. In addition, the incoming player must now decide to 1) shoot, or 2) also take a foul (also losing a ball). This continues until the 3 foul rule comes-into-play. We have all seen where players owe several balls. This format favors the better shooter and drags the game along for the fans.

I believe the rule should be all fouls = lose 1 ball + incoming player has choice to shoot or give table back. In essence, the shooter has decided to "push", so the incoming player should be allowed the option to choose without penalty. Once the shooter realizes he may be shooting again, he will need to make a different decision.

I also believe 1p is growing in popularity compared to rotation games (or perhaps it is because I am getting older). To favor the fans, the games need to keep moving - which can lead to thoughts about a shot clock and the Grady Rule. I'll leave that for others.

To those that disagree, I ask how much different 9-ball and 10-ball would be if a player can "push" at anytime during the game?

One pocket is not a spectator game. It's terrible to watch. The good thing if you make a game with someone you can negotiate whatever rules you want to play by.

 

[Z-Nole]

One pocket is not a spectator game. It's terrible to watch. The good thing if you make a game with someone you can negotiate whatever rules you want to play by.

I disagree. I travel a good bit for work. I've got quite a few discs of some great 1P matches and can waste away hours watching them. Makes a 7 hour flight just wiz by. I just wish I could remember the lessons when I get home.

 

[BobTfromIL]

Don't agree at all with changing the touch foul rule, very important part of the game as it also is in straight pool. Also personally don't agree that one pocket is boring to watch, particularly now that some of the stronger players are a bit more agressive, like Scott F.and Tony C.

 

[daphish1]

I disagree. I travel a good bit for work. I've got quite a few discs of some great 1P matches and can waste away hours watching them. Makes a 7 hour flight just wiz by. I just wish I could remember the lessons when I get home.

OK maybe a better statement is it's a niche game and the masses find it boring. Pool is a terrible spectator sport, sometimes over an hour to watch one match of 9 ball, with one pocket there's been games that have taken an hour. Only people who like one pocket matches enjoy the nuances of one pocket. The general public wants to see people breaking and running not a fabulous 4 rail bank shot followed by bunting balls around for 15 minutes

 

[lucasi1]

As I get older, I find myself not having the patience for the game. I could see the foul penalty being more severe, such as 2,5 balls for the first two fouls (or any number bigger than 1) and/or possibly loss of game on 3rd foul. A shot clock could also be a possibility.

 

[GoldCrown]

Anything but boring. Rather exciting & fascinating to a 1Pocket fan.

The Opera and Classical music is boring...or is it.

 

[Renegade_56]

I think 1 pocket is a great game because so far the rules have not been changed to fit it into espn timeslots.

 

[Bank it]

Hell just make up a game, your game, your rules, whatever suits you. Past that, leave 1 pocket alone. Find it boring to watch, don't watch. Don't like the rules, don't play.

Take up darts FFS.

 

[billiardthought]

Feel free to change the rules, just change the name along with it. One pocket, and the rules that go along with it are fine.

 

[pooljockey]

Leave the game alone it is perfect just the way it is !!!!

 

[deanoc]

the rules are better left alone
those of us who have played for years have enjoyed the game the way it is played

 

[Renegade_56]

I don't particularly care to watch basketball, so maybe we can change the rules of that to be more like maybe baseball and football combined.

 

[Bob Jewett]

As I get older, I find myself not having the patience for the game. I could see the foul penalty being more severe, such as 2,5 balls for the first two fouls (or any number bigger than 1) and/or possibly loss of game on 3rd foul. A shot clock could also be a possibility.

I find I have more patience as I get older. Also, when I stick my opponent with an impossible situation at 1P and he takes 5 minutes to decide on a wrong shot, I get to rest and drink my coffee. Sometime I remember which pocket is mine when it's finally my turn to shoot. As for watchability, it depends on the player. If a player starts to move all the balls up the table as soon as he's ahead 1-0 on ball count, it's not so interesting to watch. On the other hand, if my opponent refuses to shoot at his pocket, I like the game.

Mostly, I agree with the others -- you may want to find a different game.