DCC one pocket speed-up rule
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
this is too much. time limit / shot clock is ok, but they already had that?
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
I'm not sure why additional rules are necessary considering the 4 hour max for matches.
If we are going to make some crazy rules I have a real humdinger to propose.
45 min PER GAME max. Get up 5-0 and shove them up table wedge em, whatever it's all part of the game but that game ends at 45 minutes no matter what. Play whatever strategy/style you want. If a player gets to at least 5 balls(with the lead) and the time runs out then they win that game. If nobody gets to 5, the game is a tie. All matches play 5 games unless someone wins 3 of them.
Matches will be over in a maximum of 3:45 but that's only if all games end "incomplete" which is HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely(but possible I guess).
Will never happen but at least the overall strategy wouldn't be great impacted by the rules. With the exception of a player POTENTIALLY whacking at the wedge formed in the upper corner hoping to luck one in his hole with 3 min left on the clock in a game.
If we are going to make some crazy rules I have a real humdinger to propose.
45 min PER GAME max. Get up 5-0 and shove them up table wedge em, whatever it's all part of the game but that game ends at 45 minutes no matter what. Play whatever strategy/style you want. If a player gets to at least 5 balls(with the lead) and the time runs out then they win that game. If nobody gets to 5, the game is a tie. All matches play 5 games unless someone wins 3 of them.
Matches will be over in a maximum of 3:45 but that's only if all games end "incomplete" which is HIGHLY HIGHLY unlikely(but possible I guess).
Will never happen but at least the overall strategy wouldn't be great impacted by the rules. With the exception of a player POTENTIALLY whacking at the wedge formed in the upper corner hoping to luck one in his hole with 3 min left on the clock in a game.
Did a pool player come up with this rule? Is it sacrilegious to go weird like 4 3/8” or 4 1/2” (I know, right) pockets… or will that give the ‘lesser players’ too much of a punchers chance should the top dogs make too many uncharacteristic mistakes in a match. It’s ALMOST like the chief priests of the pool world solved a ‘problem’ with a problem. Does this mean the ‘stop f-ing around with the pockets’ crowd was right all along??!?? Surely you jest. To quote John Goodman “the pockets are not the issue here, dude.” … or are they? I’ll say it again for the millionth time, run out pool is good for the game.
Capping the amount of players makes way too much sense if you don’t think about the lost revenue angle.
Are they that hard up for spectators that they have to have a gigantic field in order to stay out of the red, or is it just greed?
Capping the amount of players makes way too much sense if you don’t think about the lost revenue angle.
Are they that hard up for spectators that they have to have a gigantic field in order to stay out of the red, or is it just greed?
pockets are 4.5". capping the field is the obvious answer. and courting some more sponsors..
Somebody is going to find a way to exploit this and there will be controversy... I don't know how... but they will.Direct from the Derby City Classic website, here is the new speed-up rule for one pocket. I think it will speed up the game.
A Maximum of 4 Object Balls Allowed Above the Head-StringAt the end of a players inning, if more than 4 object balls remain above the head-string, all object balls above the head-string will spot immediately. A ball is considered above the head-string if any part of the ball is touching the head-string. (Edge of ball determines)This will enable some new tactics. Maybe players will work to leave object balls between the kitchen and side pockets rather than sending them farther up-table.
I think a cap of 350 players would be easily enough to solve things. I'm also fine with the four-hour match time limit.
Ronnie Allen played one ball one pocket for significant money.
4 ball one pocket could be interesting. Well of course keep the shot clock but shorten it. Short Rack Short Clock.
(Has a good rhythm, but can You Dance to it?)Make sure to enunciat the l in clock.
Make it a 3 ball one pocket league, to qualify for entry. Give 'm 9 balls. Final 16 get the full rack. Darn Meds.
Darn Meds.
Cecil and Cole played 7 games in 35 minutes, with the breaker runing out in the second inning.
I don't understand why the DCC immediately goes to implementing ridiculous rules before trying more sensible options. A few sensible options include:
1. Limit the entries as SJM suggested
2. Increase the entry fee by an amount that is enough to make some people think twice about entering and a smaller increase for the re-buy
3. Enforce existing other rules like the dress code
4. Implement all three of the changes above together.
Two years ago, my match started late, and the time police came to put us on the clock because our match was over the prohibited time (but we just started). We had explained this to the tournament desk, but I guess there was no communication between the desk and the enforcers (another charming aspect of the DCC). While the time debate ensued, I couldn't help but notice that my opponent was basically wearing pajamas and was blatantly in violation of the dress code that required a collared shirt or henley.
I plan on going this year, but this rule change does increase the probability that I will choose to take my pool playing money to some other event.
lfigueroa pointed this out to me on pocket sizes years ago, and he has said as much in this thread, but I want to say it the way he said it to me years ago. He pointed out that as pocket size decreases, it initially makes the game more difficult, but as the size continues to decrease, it has to change the game. It changes how players make decisions, and the game changes. At some point, it becomes a different game entirely.
The same goes here, and lfigueroa has pointed this out. This rule change is big enough, that DCC one pocket is some new game. It's not the game that one pocket players love.
kollegedave
1. Limit the entries as SJM suggested
2. Increase the entry fee by an amount that is enough to make some people think twice about entering and a smaller increase for the re-buy
3. Enforce existing other rules like the dress code
4. Implement all three of the changes above together.
Two years ago, my match started late, and the time police came to put us on the clock because our match was over the prohibited time (but we just started). We had explained this to the tournament desk, but I guess there was no communication between the desk and the enforcers (another charming aspect of the DCC). While the time debate ensued, I couldn't help but notice that my opponent was basically wearing pajamas and was blatantly in violation of the dress code that required a collared shirt or henley.
I plan on going this year, but this rule change does increase the probability that I will choose to take my pool playing money to some other event.
lfigueroa pointed this out to me on pocket sizes years ago, and he has said as much in this thread, but I want to say it the way he said it to me years ago. He pointed out that as pocket size decreases, it initially makes the game more difficult, but as the size continues to decrease, it has to change the game. It changes how players make decisions, and the game changes. At some point, it becomes a different game entirely.
The same goes here, and lfigueroa has pointed this out. This rule change is big enough, that DCC one pocket is some new game. It's not the game that one pocket players love.
kollegedave
Nothing to cry or worry about unless you participate at DCC.
If you dislike rules, don’t go to DCC.
If you dislike rules, don’t go to DCC.
i see your point but i think its time for the DCC 1p to be a 'elite' event and not just another 'dead money open'. say it was limited to 350, how many have a real chance ,say, of a top10-15? Not many. Most play in this just to say they did. Get 128 monsters and let 'em have at it. Even then you could probably name the top8 finishers right now.
TheRooster
New member
I’ve played some casual 1p games with a chess clock. I think this is the right solution.
UPDATE: Steve McD. at Diamond msg'd me back. What he said: at the end of an inning if more than four balls are in the kitchen ALL of them spot. He said its purely due to time constraints. He's fully aware that some purists are hot but that's how they're gonna do it. They want a more offensive/aggressive game to speed it up. I also asked about a clock and they looked it and came to conclusion that it wouldn't stop the up table play which was their main concern. Said the rule changes at the 2/3 hour point weren't doing enough. Nice guy, fast replies with well explained answers. He said they got together with numerous top 1p legends when doing these changes.
Last edited:
Right, I remember that.
I played at Comet Billiards in NJ many years ago where they had one table “for one pocket.” The pockets were absurdly tight but the locals insisted the tiny pockets were correct for the game. I had previous experience playing on similar equipment at a room in St Louis where I even won a 1pocket tournament, so I just switched gears to a different style and releaved said locals of some of their monies.
You can’t play regular 1pocket on stupid tight equipment.
As to other events to spend your pool dollars on, I’m with you. Right now I’m looking at the International Open in Nov. I understand you’ll actually be allowed to play one pocket at that event, lol.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
That’s not going to happen — DCC is all about the herd and filling up the hotel.
Lou Figueroa