Great News For Tournament Operators

The "no conflict rules" are interesting. To avoid any pattern racking issues, the racker should be blindfolded :thumbup:

Paul, are these rules something that in your opinion is best suited in tournaments for recreational players, or could it be used in a tournament with pros also?

I am not sure how your DE format is set up to save time, but I have seen variations of Double Elimination / Single Elimination tournaments where its possible to save time and rounds.

One solution I have seen is simply like this:
- The winners in round 1 goes east, the losers west.
- Next time you lose you are out. Some players will therefore be knocked out after one loss, some two.
- All players get at least two matches with this format
- The final is played between the winner of the east side vs the winner of the west side
- In weekly club tournament the winner of the east side gets 1 game start in the finals or similar as a bonus for going undefeated.
- Don't show round 1 draw to the players - to avoid east/west manipulation - two friends who doesn't want to meet in round 2 :wink:
 
pooladdict said:
One solution I have seen is simply like this:
- The winners in round 1 goes east, the losers west.
- Next time you lose you are out. Some players will therefore be knocked out after one loss, some two.
- All players get at least two matches with this format
- The final is played between the winner of the east side vs the winner of the west side
- In weekly club tournament the winner of the east side gets 1 game start in the finals or similar as a bonus for going undefeated.
- Don't show round 1 draw to the players - to avoid east/west manipulation - two friends who doesn't want to meet in round 2 :wink:
Click to expand...

I can see under this format where a clever player might dump in the first round to get into the presumed easier losers bracket since it doesn't really matter if you lose your first match other than a game on the wire if you make it to the final.
 
pooladdict said:
One solution I have seen is simply like this:
- The winners in round 1 goes east, the losers west.
- Next time you lose you are out. Some players will therefore be knocked out after one loss, some two.
- All players get at least two matches with this format
- The final is played between the winner of the east side vs the winner of the west side
- In weekly club tournament the winner of the east side gets 1 game start in the finals or similar as a bonus for going undefeated.
- Don't show round 1 draw to the players - to avoid east/west manipulation - two friends who doesn't want to meet in round 2 :wink:
Click to expand...

Oh no. This isn't our format at all. Ours has the good housekeeping seal of approval. It cures most minor ailments and removes stubborn stains and pet odors from almost all surfaces. It has been shown to reduce global warming and shows promise in lowering cholesterol and as an alternative fuel source. It's coveted in many societies as an aphrodisiac. It's really the worlds most interesting chart. Of course we couldn't hope to fully disclose it's nuances here without prerequisite PM courses. I hope that makes it all clear.
 
Last edited:
pooladdict said:
The "no conflict rules" are interesting. To avoid any pattern racking issues, the racker should be blindfolded :thumbup:

Paul, are these rules something that in your opinion is best suited in tournaments for recreational players, or could it be used in a tournament with pros also?
Click to expand...

Blindfolding works but it takes too long. Anything to stop the players from cheating and bickering.

The better the player, the more applicable the rules are. I have players that have played in the US Open, the Derby, and other notable events, that have no problem with the No Conflict Rules. Look: for weaker players, nothing really matters at the front end of the rack because they can't get out anyway. For the top players, the front end of the rack is everything because they CAN get out. The rules work especially well for them.

The Modified DE is faster and more equitable. I don't know how to give it a fair description on this forum. I am offering it to anyone who wants to try it.
 
Last edited:
the only issue I see with the "no conflict" rule is: why would someone who doesn't make a ball on the break , even if having 2 go uptable, be allowed to continue shooting.

Why not just randomly throw all the balls on the table then and let the breaker take ball in hand ?

1 question on modified DE. Do all entrants have to lose twice before being eliminated from the tourney ? If not, I wouldn't play.
 
2andOUT said:
the only issue I see with the "no conflict" rule is: why would someone who doesn't make a ball on the break , even if having 2 go uptable, be allowed to continue shooting.
Click to expand...

If you keep the ball-on-the-break, you get to keep all the crap that goes with it. Get rid of it and all the trouble goes away. (been through all this before but its worth it to say it again)

2andOUT said:
Why not just randomly throw all the balls on the table then and let the breaker take ball in hand ?
Click to expand...

The break is a highly skilled part of the game. Keep it. Control the cue ball, control the 1-ball, and getting a good spread is very difficult. Just get rid of the slopping and wiring of balls into pockets.


2andOUT said:
1 question on modified DE. Do all entrants have to lose twice before being eliminated from the tourney ? If not, I wouldn't play.
Click to expand...

By tournament's end, everyone will have two losses except for the champion.
 
Last edited:
Paul Schofield said:
If you keep the ball-on-the-break, you get to keep a the crap that goes with it. Get rid of it and all the trouble goes away. (been through all this before but its worth it to say it again)
Click to expand...

Sorry I must be retarded because I don't understand...why does potting a ball on the break cause conflict??
 
BFrench501 said:
Sorry I must be retarded because I don't understand...why does potting a ball on the break cause conflict??
Click to expand...

The idea is that it eliminates the need to rig the rack so as to ensure making a ball, or slug racking if opponent racks. This in turn, hopefully avoids arguments.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
The idea is that it eliminates the need to rig the rack so as to ensure making a ball, or slug racking if opponent racks. This in turn, hopefully avoids arguments.
Click to expand...

I can see the idea but surely all this can be avoided by just using the magic rack - very difficult to rig a rack using it as the balls are all tight. Or take a slug doctor to the table because they can be made tight but not so tight that they explode with a soft break like magic racks...

I probably need some time to try and digest the logic of it all because in the UK, we don't have of these conflict issues you seem to have in the US. We all just get down and play, if you don't make 3 points then break turns over to somebody else, not once have I seen a dispute on it other than when an opponent expected somebody with cerebral palsy to make 3 points in a £5 plate competition where I waived the rule, and he flipped!!! Thats the only conflict I've had lol :)
 
BFrench501 said:
I can see the idea but surely all this can be avoided by just using the magic rack - very difficult to rig a rack using it as the balls are all tight. Or take a slug doctor to the table because they can be made tight but not so tight that they explode with a soft break like magic racks...

I probably need some time to try and digest the logic of it all because in the UK, we don't have of these conflict issues you seem to have in the US. We all just get down and play, if you don't make 3 points then break turns over to somebody else, not once have I seen a dispute on it other than when an opponent expected somebody with cerebral palsy to make 3 points in a £5 plate competition where I waived the rule, and he flipped!!! Thats the only conflict I've had lol :)
Click to expand...

I don't know about the slug doctor, but you can rig a rack with the magic rack. You can get a tight rack with it every time, but you can also have small gaps or create small gaps if you want to. You can also tilt it.

Regardless, staying at the table whether you pocket a ball on the break or not is certainly equitable in an alternating break format.
 
rlw said:
the last time I played in a Modified Double Elimination format everybody will play a least twice but not everybody will get to lose twice. If you lose your first match you go in the losers bracket then lose again your done. If I remember correctly in the winners bracket if you make it to the third round undefeated and lose your done.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think this is it. Quite simply it's an utterly bullshit rule though, everybody should be on a level playing field... how is it reasonable to punish players on the A side that have played well? The 6 on A side vs 12 on B side matches issue is a completely moot point... people that think that's a problem should maybe step up and stop getting knocked over so early then?
 
I like everything about the No Conflict Rules except the issue allowing the breaker to continue shooting even if he doesn't make a ball on the break. It is essentially handicapping (providing an advantage for weak breakers) in my opinion.
 
cuenut said:
I like everything about the No Conflict Rules except the issue allowing the breaker to continue shooting even if he doesn't make a ball on the break. It is essentially handicapping (providing an advantage for weak breakers) in my opinion.
Click to expand...

All the stats that I have shows that there is not even a 5% difference between a champion and a banger in making a ball on the break. (the banger has to at least have some kind of stroke and strength). I think the 5% difference is in the racking manipulation by the better players. If you sit back and take a look at how we start our favorite games: slamming the balls and slopping balls in, I will get rid of that in a minute if it will speed up play, and stop the players from cheating and fighting.

The real skill of the break is cue-ball and 1-ball control. Keep that.

My answer is the No Conflict Rules and a Modified DE format. My tournaments fly and the players get along better.
 
Last edited:
cuenut said:
I like everything about the No Conflict Rules except the issue allowing the breaker to continue shooting even if he doesn't make a ball on the break. It is essentially handicapping (providing an advantage for weak breakers) in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I sort of think the opposite, that it gives the better player an advantage. Because he doesn't have to make a ball and is guaranteed to stay at the table, the better player can really control the whole match once they get on the break.

Hey, how about the guy who breaks gives up the table no matter what, all balls are spotted, and incoming payer gets BIH? :grin-square: The advantage to this solution is the players have an incentive to break hard because if you can make more than a single ball on the break you create a problem cluster for your opponent, especially if it includes the one ball (and you could argue that making the one in the side is also a skill). I shall call this "No Squabble Rules".:D
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
I sort of think the opposite, that it gives the better player an advantage. Because he doesn't have to make a ball and is guaranteed to stay at the table, the better player can really control the whole match once they get on the break.

Hey, how about the guy who breaks gives up the table no matter what, all balls are spotted, and incoming payer gets BIH? :grin-square: The advantage to this solution is the players have an incentive to break hard because if you can make more than a single ball on the break you create a problem cluster for your opponent, especially if it includes the one ball (and you could argue that making the one in the side is also a skill). I shall call this "No Squabble Rules".:D
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that. You are probably right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top