is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights?

[DynoDan]

I think that Crane's strategy on taking a foul and leaving the cue against the bottom of a full pack would only makes sense if the opponent was already on one foul. Otherwise, the opponent can simply keep sending you back to that bottom rail - once Crane was on two fouls, still on the bottom rail, and now the opponent is on two fouls- it would be Crane's move to shoot for a THIRD time off that bottom rail- and he would be at a disadvantage as he would have to make a legal safety from where he hated to shoot or be on 3 fouls first!

If you MUST accomplish a legal safety from an uncomfortable position, would not the reward of leaving your opponent down table on 2 fouls constitute a helpful incentive to overcome your discomfort, and thus perform to the best of your ability? (I would consider staring at a full pack from the head rail, and being already on two fouls to be an ESPECIALLY uncomfortable position). Am I wrong, or isn’t a major part of overall ‘intention foul’ strategy to be aware of opportunities to maneuver your opponent into a higher pressure situation than what he inflicts?

 

[mikemosconi]

If you MUST accomplish a legal safety from an uncomfortable position, would not the reward of leaving your opponent down table on 2 fouls constitute a helpful incentive to overcome your discomfort, and thus perform to the best of your ability? (I would consider staring at a full pack from the head rail, and being already on two fouls to be an ESPECIALLY uncomfortable position). Am I wrong, or isn’t a major part of overall ‘intention foul’ strategy to be aware of opportunities to maneuver your opponent into a higher pressure situation than what he inflicts?

Yes , correct- whenever you are the first person to initiate the intentional foul in 14.1- you NEED to know up front what your OUT safe will be when both of you are on two fouls- as that is always a high probability with very good and knowledgeable 14.1 players- and you may very well end up right where you started from when initiating your first intentional foul- THAT was my point here! if Crane HATED to play safe off the rails- then he had to know that initiating a foul off the bottom rail would most likely lead him to still be sitting back there with two fouls on him FIRST! and yes, if he then sent the cue ball VERY THIN off one of the two corner balls in the full stack UP to the other end of the table- he could put the opponent in the position to have to fire at the full stack from up table AND also being on two fouls- so Crane would then have an advantage. BUT, Crane would have to attempt that safe from a place he hated to BE! Additionally- try getting up table and thinning one of the end balls in a full pack WHEN you are frozen behind the pack on the middle diamond of the bottom rail- you cannot use full left or right english just top right or left - TOUGH to execute and very possible miscue- THAT is way Crane hated to be in that position to begin with- and THAT is why great 14.1 safety play tells you to try and keep putting him RIGHT BACK there until he has two fouls and he HAS to move up table from there or go 3 and out!

 

[sjm]

I think that Crane's strategy on taking a foul and leaving the cue against the bottom of a full pack would only makes sense if the opponent was already on one foul. Otherwise, the opponent can simply keep sending you back to that bottom rail - once Crane was on two fouls, still on the bottom rail, and now the opponent is on two fouls- it would be Crane's move to shoot for a THIRD time off that bottom rail- and he would be at a disadvantage as he would have to make a legal safety from where he hated to shoot or be on 3 fouls first!

A logical argument, but here practice trumps theory because I said he was frozen to the rail and in practice, opponent will be hard pressed to put him frozen to the rail again, let alone twice. If they left him off the rail, he had gained something at the expense of one point. If they somehow managed to freeze him twice (probably less than a 10% chance), he'd have to play the safety from underneath.

The strategy usually applies when neither player is on a foul and the shooter is frozen to the bottom rail under a tight pack, but is reasonable even on a foul.

Finally, if opponent were on a foul and you are not, the correct shot is to send the cue ball to the top of the table in the middle of the table without disturbing the pack at all.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Another thing Crane professed to me was that if you are underneath a frozen pack and against the bottom rail, unless on two fouls, take a very soft foul into the back of the pack, because your next chance will nearly always be easier....

I think it's good to define "very soft" here. Some might think that you want to roll the cue ball only barely hard enough to just touch the bottom of the rack. I think it should be at least hard enough to move a ball or two a couple of balls out of the rack.

And there are some places that you might be frozen on the foot rail that allow you to play into a frozen rack and consistently both get a ball to a cushion and leave the cue ball frozen to the bottom of the rack, as Stu has mentioned before. It is important to know when that is possible and use it when available.

 

[sjm]

I think it's good to define "very soft" here. Some might think that you want to roll the cue ball only barely hard enough to just touch the bottom of the rack. I think it should be at least hard enough to move a ball or two a couple of balls out of the rack.

That's correct, Bob. The same principle is in play as when one takes a back scratch by kicking off the bottom rail into the back of the pack. You must loosen something to deny opponent the chance to answer with a scratch that sends you to the back rail, where you'll have a problem.

My bad, I should have made that clear.

 

[mikemosconi]

A logical argument, but here practice trumps theory because I said he was frozen to the rail and in practice, opponent will be hard pressed to put him frozen to the rail again, let alone twice. If they left him off the rail, he had gained something at the expense of one point. If they somehow managed to freeze him twice (probably less than a 10% chance), he'd have to play the safety from underneath.

The strategy usually applies when neither player is on a foul and the shooter is frozen to the bottom rail under a tight pack, but is reasonable even on a foul.

Finally, if opponent were on a foul and you are not, the correct shot is to send the cue ball to the top of the table in the middle of the table without disturbing the pack at all.

Agree with all of the above- in practice it would be extremely hard to send him back AGAINST the rail twice- but I would try it if he were on the first foul and sitting against the back of the stack, and yes, if an opponent is one one foul and I am on the bottom rail behind the stack i WOULD either feather a corner ball and move the cue ball up table center facing a relatively undisturbed rack, or sometimes you can make a legal safe behind the stack by hitting either one of the second balls in from the end ball on the bottom row, which can freeze the cue to the stack and send one ball out from the stack( the first ball directly above the corner balls) to touch a cushion.

 

[sjm]

... yes, if an opponent is one one foul and I am on the bottom rail behind the stack i WOULD either feather a corner ball and move the cue ball up table center facing a relatively undisturbed rack, or sometimes you can make a legal safe behind the stack by hitting either one of the second balls in from the end ball on the bottom row, which can freeze the cue to the stack and send one ball out from the stack( the first ball directly above the corner balls) to touch a cushion.

Grazing the corner ball is virtually never a good idea here. If executed well, it will almost never place pressure on opponent, whose worst case scenario will usually be having to take a back scratch. If executed poorly, you sell out. Even if you execute it well, you can create a dead combo in the rack, which would be an unlucky sell out, but a risk you simply don't have to take.

If opponent is on one and you are not, the back of the stack safety, usually hitting the second or fourth ball full to (typically, but not always) send one ball to the long rail, it just doesn't place any pressure on opponent, as they can escape to the other side of the table. Take a foul and put them at the top center of the table and their next shot is a toughie and you're way ahead in the safety battle.

Straight pool is less like nine ball and more like one pocket in the sense that defense is developed gradually, and few safety battles are ever won in a single inning.

 

[mikemosconi]

Grazing the corner ball is virtually never a good idea here. If executed well, it will almost never place pressure on opponent, whose worst case scenario will usually be having to take a back scratch. If executed poorly, you sell out. Even if you execute it well, you can create a dead combo in the rack, which would be an unlucky sell out, but a risk you simply don't have to take.

If opponent is on one and you are not, the back of the stack safety, usually hitting the second or fourth ball full to (typically, but not always) send one ball to the long rail, it just doesn't place any pressure on opponent, as they can escape to the other side of the table. Take a foul and put them at the top center of the table and their next shot is a toughie and you're way ahead in the safety battle.

Straight pool in less like nine ball and more like one pocket in the sense that defense is developed gradually, and few safety battles are ever won in a single inning.

Yes, I see your point now, agreed!