Corey's 10-Ball soft break

[Sloppy Pockets]

I agree, part of the game is to rack for your opponent where they can't make a ball legally.

I don't get it. Do you mean you think it's OK to use pattern racking and gaps in the rack to set up a slug rack for your opponent so you have an advantage? Sounds like tricks from the road, not exactly what I want to see during a tournament.

But, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying.

I really liked last night's match between Archer and Shaw. The ref took over the racking duties and seemed quite capable of getting a satisfactory rack with the occasional use of a deft tap on the proper balls to get a tight rack. It would be great to get experienced refs to take over this job, at least at the quarter-final stage of a big tourney. That would take a lot of the bickering out of things.

IMO everyone should be entitled to a tight and neutral rack. But, if pattern racking is the order of the day, the only way to achieve equality is to follow suit.

 

[AtLarge]

... I really liked last night's match between Archer and Shaw. The ref took over the racking duties and seemed quite capable of getting a satisfactory rack with the occasional use of a deft tap on the proper balls to get a tight rack. It would be great to get experienced refs to take over this job, at least at the quarter-final stage of a big tourney. That would take a lot of the bickering out of things. ...

Was Carswell "Cosmo" Ransome the ref?

 

[Black-Balled]

I don't get it. Do you mean you think it's OK to use pattern racking and gaps in the rack to set up a slug rack for your opponent so you have an advantage? Sounds like tricks from the road, not exactly what I want to see during a tournament.

But, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying..

You did misread, IMO.

The sad face was inferring that he did not like the fact that, 'part of the game is to rack for your opponent where they can't make a ball legally.'

What he should have written is '...part of the game has become to rack for your opponent where he can't make a ball legally.

 

[CSykes24]

It's interesting to think about.

I saw Corey do that a couple times (I only watched for a few minutes) and it didn't make any sense to me at the time, but I don't know what the score was when he did it.

After thinking about it for a bit, the only scenario I can come up with, where it would make sense would be when you are in a match where you are just not able to pocket a ball on the break. Maybe your opponent is now on the hill and you are breaking and you don't want to just give him a wide open table. Here breaking safe may seem enticing, but still I would think the breaker would be at a disadvantage from this position.

Other than that I can't see it being a very effective technique. Bottom line is, if you can't pocket a ball on the break at ten ball -- you aren't going to win a professional tournament.

He was down 3-7 and came back to win 8-7.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Mr. Jewett, what is your take on the idea that it is within the racker's rights to attempt to rack in such a fashion that it makes it difficult on the breaker?

Ken

According to the standard rules, it's cheating. So is pattern racking if it's rack-your-own. The rules require the balls to be placed randomly (unless the specific tournament rules require, for example, the two ball in a specific location), and as tightly as possible. Deliberately violating the racking rules to gain an advantage is unsportsmanlike conduct. Of course if the racking rule for a tournament is "screw your opponent as badly as possible and if you're racking your own, make a ball dead", then all's fair, but it ought to be made clear in the players' meeting and written down in the list of exceptions to the standard rules.

I suspect the rack stuff will be moot after "first shot must be a push out" becomes the standard rule.

 

[Okie]

According to the standard rules, it's cheating. So is pattern racking if it's rack-your-own. The rules require the balls to be placed randomly (unless the specific tournament rules require, for example, the two ball in a specific location), and as tightly as possible. Deliberately violating the racking rules to gain an advantage is unsportsmanlike conduct. Of course if the racking rule for a tournament is "screw your opponent as badly as possible and if you're racking your own, make a ball dead", then all's fair, but it ought to be made clear in the players' meeting and written down in the list of exceptions to the standard rules.

I suspect the rack stuff will be moot after "first shot must be a push out" becomes the standard rule.

I am glad we agree! I have seen so many tournament directors act as if these type of rules are just a nuisance. I like your add about if the rules say screw your opponent then it is ok! They might as well since that is what most do anyway. Or the alternative....enforce existing rules.

Thanks for the reply!

Ken

 

[AtLarge]

He was down 3-7 and came back to win 8-7.

I don't know what match you are thinking about, but that's not what happened in the Deuel/Kiamco match that is the subject of this thread.

Deuel used his soft break only in the second set. That set was tied at every number -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Kiamco won 8-7.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Was Carswell "Cosmo" Ransome the ref?

Yes. Didn't know of him before, but I thought he did a fantastic job.

 

[AtLarge]

Yes. Didn't know of him before, but I thought he did a fantastic job.

He's a long-time and highly experienced ref.

 

[alstl]

I agree, part of the game is to rack for your opponent where they can't make a ball legally.

The emphasis on the break and rack these days are taking away from the strong parts of the Game. It's now just a "watered down" version.....no wonder the streams aren't getting much activity.

Maybe we need a pool version of the pin setter in bowling where a machine does it all. Somebody could make a nice chunk of change if they could design that.

In the meantime, the magic rack with opponent racking makes sense to me. You get a tight rack with no pattern racking.

 

[CJ Wiley]

this isn't our "first rodeo" and I'm sure it won't be our last. 'The Game is Teacher'

Maybe we need a pool version of the pin setter in bowling where a machine does it all. Somebody could make a nice chunk of change if they could design that.

In the meantime, the magic rack with opponent racking makes sense to me. You get a tight rack with no pattern racking.

The answer is very simple, and it's what all other sports do - SUPPLY REFEREES ...this can be done very easily if it's managed properly. The issue is no one cares if there's pattern racking or committing "other" violations. Imagine is they allowed Boxing matches with no referees, or basketball, football, baseball, tennis, MMA, etc. It would be in poor taste.

I guess these days everyone is supposed to keep quiet and just allow it to happen, however, I believe if the Game could speak it would say "why do those that represent me allow this type of behavior when there's such a simple solution?"

Hmmm, maybe the Game does have a voice, it's through those of us that care about maintaining it's integrity and future well being.

'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[Bob Jewett]

The answer is very simple, and it's what all other sports do - SUPPLY REFEREES ...this can be done very easily if it's managed properly. ...

I disagree with the "done very easily" unless you are going to pay salary, room and board for competent referees and hire a head referee to organize them. Can you describe how you would do this, for example, at the US Open Nine Ball with 16 tables? In particular, how much would it cost?

 

[CJ Wiley]

Can I referee my own match? Oh, I almost forgot, we already do

I disagree with the "done very easily" unless you are going to pay salary, room and board for competent referees and hire a head referee to organize them. Can you describe how you would do this, for example, at the US Open Nine Ball with 16 tables? In particular, how much would it cost?

I offered to provide this service for free (and pay all my own expenses) and was politely turned down. There are fans and friends of the Game that really want to help Professional Pool, however, they are simply not ask, or allowed to give a "helping hand".

There are league and amateur players that would really like to be involved in helping (as Referees) run a professional tournament. I have friends that assist the Byron Nelson Golf Tournament here in Texas and the really enjoy it.

Like anything it takes management, however it's not that difficult to train and schedule referees for tournaments. If Barry wants help at the US OPEN I will offer him the same assistance, and I may even play in that tournament this year. Can I referee my own match? Oh, I almost forgot, we already do referee our own matches .....hmmm, hardly seems fair. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[Bob Jewett]

I offered to provide this service for free (and pay all my own expenses) and was politely turned down. There are fans and friends of the Game that really want to help Professional Pool, however, they are simply not ask, or allowed to give a "helping hand".

There are league and amateur players that would really like to be involved in helping (as Referees) run a professional tournament. I have friends that assist the Byron Nelson Golf Tournament here in Texas and they really enjoy it.

Like anything it takes management, however it's not that difficult to train and schedule referees for tournaments. ... '

Personally, I think it's pitiful that a showcase event like the US Open doesn't have a referee on every table. Maybe it isn't really difficult, but it does take a lot of effort and some money.

For 16 tables you need about 32 referees. The majority of the volunteers will not know the rules or have ever read the rules. They will come with a lot of bogus "rules" in their heads. For volunteers like that, you will need at least a day of training. If you are lucky you will get a few key referees who have already had training through the BCA/BCAPL/ACS programs. If you are not lucky, you will get APA players.

In the US Open format, the 16 tables are full for five days, so the volunteers will have to commit for the whole week. I think they need to get something in compensation other than a smile and a hearty hand shake. Free admission? Sandwiches and sodas in the referees' room? Free room in the hotel?

The last major event I organized had both referees and scorekeepers for every match. The referees had a day of training before the event. The catering -- the referees often did not have time to go out for lunch -- cost about $2500. The referees for the final 31 matches were all in matching tuxedos. The five key referees (who brought their own matching tuxedos) received a small travel allowance, their hotel rooms, and a small per diem.

 

[SakuJack]

I offered to provide this service for free (and pay all my own expenses) and was politely turned down.

For TAR, where they don't have racking issues and already have capable people to step in if it ever does become an issue.

Providing one referee for a challenge match is very different to providing who knows how many for a big tournament.

 

[Celtic]

Personally, I think it lends itself to the kind of finesse and complexity of safety play that is usually thought to exist primarily in 14.1.

Personally I think he would have NO CHANCE of ever beating a top quality breaker and shooter like SVB in a long session match with the soft break as he is giving up control of the table too much while his opponent and their hard break can generate huge packages that Corey's break cannot.

Corey would also not ever win a large major event like a World's 10-ball event where the huge breakers from China, Taiwan, and the Philipines compete because they too can string a large number of racks with their breaks and Corey's break is assured not to give him that type of offense and will let them at the table too many times.

I think it is VERY clear that SVB has shown the world how to properly break in 10-ball to generate the most success and become almost unbeatable, and the winning break is by no means soft and it does not give the opponent a chance to even get out of their chair.

Being able to outmove a player such a Corey can is not enough when the player has a huge break and alot of offense. See Alex (who can outmove SVB normally and did in their last TAR match) and the fact he lost to SVB due to SVB's 2 6 packs and a 7 pack and simply could not keep up with that break.

If Corey had put the same amount of time into perfecting a "hard" 10-ball break instead of dinking around with soft breaks then Corey would be alot closer to SVB levels of dominance today and might be the best player in North America.