How are you arm wrestling with a bad back?
Game changer at the DCC
- Thread starter pt109
- Start date
Don't really anymore.
I think I saw that too and was baffled at what he was doing. I had never before seen anyone intentionally take the 15 ball penalty.
In about 1997, I was gambling cheap with PBT professional Jeff Carter at straight pool, who was in NY visiting Tony Robles. If memory serves, he spotted me 50 balls on 125. When he took an intentional third foul on me, I told him that nobody had ever paid me a greater compliment over the glorious green felt. I also told him that he might have my game overrated! I actually won that game, though not by much. I think the bet was $20.
Last edited:
Plus the two balls before the -15.... then a rerack and you break.
He did this schtick twice? Who was the other guy? Any speculation as to whether Lassiter was spotting or ducking?
He was just making the correct play at the time, twice! I forget who he was playing, but at JC they were all good players. He won that match, running a 90+ to get out. It seemed like he ran 90 or more in every 14.1 match he played, and these were no exhibitions.
Yes, definitely still broken. "To prevent" requires assessing the players intent, which is basically impossible and legally ambiguous. As you stated previously, "near" is also ambiguous and should not be used in the rules.
The rule really needs to be based on what physically occurred. If an object ball jumps off the table, it should get spotted and the shot is deemed a scratch [no "near" rule]. If the cue ball jumps off the table it is a scratch, but if an object ball is pocketed in the opponent's pocket, it counts for the opponent.
In the 1975 US Open (14.1) in Chicago, Lassiter was playing Dick Lane. Lassiter won the 150-point match. In the process, Lassiter took three fouls three times. Since each set of three fouls is a total of -18 points, and there were other fouls along the way, Lassiter scored over 200 points to win. That included a run of 103. The match took three and a half hours, which was considered at the time to be a very long time for 150 points.
And there are actually people that think 14.1 would make a good streamable pro event. Think 9ball is a tough sell to sports fans? Might as well have professional paint drying. 14.1 is a great game for purists. General public wouldn't watch it for five minutes.
I agree, whenever you make a rule that requires a new rule to justify, you just made 2 dumbass rules for nothing.
I like offsetting fouls canceling out in the interest of speeding up the game. I saw a video of Scott Frost and some other guy years ago where Frost was at one point like -12 or something, went on forever. To enhance that rule though in the interest of speeding up the game, just implement an 8 ahead rule, meaning,,,,,, if at a point in the game 1 player is 8 points ahead, say a score of 6 to -2, GAME OVER. That would certainly speed things up, without really changing the game.
I watch matches of 14.1 often, on the other hand I won't watch 5 minutes of 9 or 10 ball. There is no suspence in 9 and 10 ball, if a guy shoots in the 5 I am not hanging on the edge of my seat wondering what he will try next,,,,,,EVERYBODY KNOWS,,,,,,,,, he's swinging for the 6 ball.
Like i said, 14.1 is for purists who follow the game. I get that. Its never going to be mainstream in any way was/is my point. As for 9ball, of course you know what ball is next but just how is the guy/gal going to get out?? I'd much rather watch rotation just for that reason. The reason the Filipinos are so good is they grow up playing,and gambling at, full rack rotation. Other than a couple events a year 14.1 is virtually dead these days. I know it has a pretty big following in Germany but that's about it.
I suppose some might say that for snooker where in some frames no ball is potted for half an hour. I think it's all in how it's presented.
That having been said, I doubt that 14.1 will be the choice of broadcasters in the next 20 years. After that, you'll have to see.
As for the original topic, it seems to me like a very minor change. About the same effect as a 1-diamond vs. an 18-inch break box at nine ball.
A larger change happened a couple of decades ago. It used to be that knocking an object ball onto the floor was not a foul. That allowed you to take out a hung ball without losing a ball yourself, if you could keep the cue ball on the table. There were also a few other situations where a ball onto the floor was useful.
A larger change happened a couple of decades ago. It used to be that knocking an object ball onto the floor was not a foul. That allowed you to take out a hung ball without losing a ball yourself, if you could keep the cue ball on the table. There were also a few other situations where a ball onto the floor was useful.
Jeez, WTF! You guys always hackin on the bangers, but they know how to deal with this shit. Ball on floor, round for the house.
I love the idea of 8 points ahead, this would make for far less intentional fouls and surely speed up the game.