Just read "New Break Rules A Success", WTH??

hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storya.php?storynum=7564

Next up, angry that you hung a ball due to a skid or dirty rails? New rule will be put in place. If the ball is within 1/2 in. of the pocket, it will count as in, and you continue to shoot.

Left your stick at home and not shooting well? Why be penalized for that, it's not your fault the house cues stink. If you use a house cue, you get 2 games on the wire as a spot.

Making a ball on the break and getting a shot at the next ball IS a skill. Look at Shane break 10 ball, Earl break 9 ball, Efren hit a one-pocket break. Sure you want a tight rack, but that would affect how well the balls spread as much as if you make a ball or not. Having a tight rack affects you making a ball on the break about as much as having gas in your car automatically allows you to find your way to any location in the US without a map. Sure it helps, but you still need to know what you are doing.

Worse thing I have seen done in pool to cheapen the game since jump sticks.

Edit: what I think would be fair: No pattern rack (if you read the rules I think they say what ball goes in the middle and the rest are placed "Randomly"), rack your own unless you and the opponent agree that you rack for each other, 9 ball on break is not a win but you get to pick if you shoot first and then spot it or spot it and then shoot.
 
Last edited:
The ball being hung halfway in the pocket counting as a made ball is preposterous.

If you shoot and leave the cueball up against the rail can you use the butt of your stick as a measuring device to relocate the cueball for an easier shot?
 
Luxury said:
The ball being hung halfway in the pocket counting as a made ball is preposterous.

If you shoot and leave the cueball up against the rail can you use the butt of your stick as a measuring device to relocate the cueball for an easier shot?
Click to expand...

Yea, but if you are a pro, you can only move it a tip length ;)

But really now, removing the rule that you need to pocket a ball on the break is silly.
 
I get tired of all this racking crap......it's easy.....you grab the balls at random, put the 1 on top, the 9 in the middle, and rack them tight....it's simple.....I simply cannot fathom why so many pool players, who woof about integrity, rules, and fouls, find it acceptable to try and cheat when they rack......IT SIMPLY BLOWS MY FREAKING MIND......IT'S NOT THAT HARD PEOPLE....
 
Big Perm said:
I get tired of all this racking crap......it's easy.....you grab the balls at random, put the 1 on top, the 9 in the middle, and rack them tight....it's simple.....I simply cannot fathom why so many pool players, who woof about integrity, rules, and fouls, find it acceptable to try and cheat when they rack......IT SIMPLY BLOWS MY FREAKING MIND......IT'S NOT THAT HARD PEOPLE....
Click to expand...

Actually, racking a true frozen rack is difficult on the majority of tables and balls - that is if you're not using a magic rack.

This set of breaking rules in the OP is difficult for me to fathom. I'm scratching my head on that one too.
 
Oh crap, now the APA is going to allow 2's to knock all balls in that are withing a foot of the pocket, 3's 9 inches from the pocking, etc, etc...
 
hang-the-9 said:
http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storya.php?storynum=7564

Next up, angry that you hung a ball due to a skid or dirty rails? New rule will be put in place. If the ball is within 1/2 in. of the pocket, it will count as in, and you continue to shoot.

Left your stick at home and not shooting well? Why be penalized for that, it's not your fault the house cues stink. If you use a house cue, you get 2 games on the wire as a spot.

Making a ball on the break and getting a shot at the next ball IS a skill. Look at Shane break 10 ball, Earl break 9 ball, Efren hit a one-pocket break. Sure you want a tight rack, but that would affect how well the balls spread as much as if you make a ball or not. Having a tight rack affects you making a ball on the break about as much as having gas in your car automatically allows you to find your way to any location in the US without a map. Sure it helps, but you still need to know what you are doing.

Worse thing I have seen done in pool to cheapen the game since jump sticks.

Edit: what I think would be fair: No pattern rack (if you read the rules I think they say what ball goes in the middle and the rest are placed "Randomly"), rack your own unless you and the opponent agree that you rack for each other, 9 ball on break is not a win but you get to pick if you shoot first and then spot it or spot it and then shoot.
Click to expand...

The Sardo rack provided a tight rack every time, but it was eventually rejected. Why is that?

Roger
 
Roger Long said:
The Sardo rack provided a tight rack every time, but it was eventually rejected. Why is that?

Roger
Click to expand...

I have read that it provided a good rack, but only if the cloth and slate were new. Once wear set in, it became harder and harder to set up the rack tight. Never tried it myself, but heard from people that used it in the APA.
 
Actually, I think this is fascinating. I know a lot of people are upset by it but how ridiculous is this rule when you consider all the other things that people have been doing to try to keep it fair?

Break from Box
Must break hard
Rack 9 on spot
Balls must be frozen
Cannot pattern rack
Sardo Rack
Delta Rack
(there are other racks that are even more expensive and/or ridiculous looking)


Once you say, "Okay, breaker gets to shoot again after the break even if he fails to pocket a ball" and you eliminate all this crap. I mean, you almost can't have this rule without alternate breaks but assuming that's the case, what's the problem?
 
All I can say is I hope this is just some sort of april fools day joke or something. I can see that maybe making the 9 on the break not a win and just respotted a good idea. As for the break being "luck" well I'm no pro pool player and I don't have a Phd. in physics but having racked and broken countless racks and after a while it becomes less about just smashing the balls and hopping for the best to control and finesse. and thats just my 2 cents
 
re-post

I posted this last night in the applicable thread. I copied and pasted it here because it is relevant


I finally took the time today to watch hours of Nine-Ball and Ten-Ball Matches on YouTube of the best players in the world. I fast forwarded to the breaks to see what is going on. I have been away from the top players for more than thirty years. The faces are all new and I wanted to see just what has changed.

I saw hours of smash breaks, cue balls going anywhere and everywhere, all kinds of slopped balls, and dry breaks. If one word could describe the current break, it would be “chaos”. The second word would be “luck” -and these are the best players in the world. The perception players have of the break, what is written in books, and what is posted on this forum, just does not match what actually goes on.

My players in my room have extensive experience with the “no conflict rules”. Two months ago I had my players fill out a written survey addressing the rules. I was shocked at the results. My best seven players all preferred the “no conflict rules” (5 of the 7 have run a 100 balls in 14.1, all have run at least 5 consecutive racks of Nine-Ball). The point here is that no one could be expected to have a well thought out opinion without a lot of experience.

In the last couple of weeks, I have had a half-dozen requests to adopt the “no conflict rules” for my BCA League. My players are sick and tired of hitting a rack of Eight-Ball perfect, not making a ball on the break, and leaving their opponent out.

My experience is: The better the player, the more willing the player is to abandon the smash break with the slopped ball, and instead adopt the “no conflict rules” with a control break and no ball on the break requirement.

I will be redundant: The purpose of the break in Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball should be to get a good spread on the balls and to control the cue ball and the 1-ball in rotation games. That is good enough. Our games would be more fun and would be better off. The smash shot should have no place in pool.

The only reason there is a smash shot is so that players can slop balls in (should the intended ball not go in).

Read these for a better understanding
http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/noconflict.html
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=183425
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=177469&highlight=schofield

My experience is that these rules are actually an advantage for the better player. All things being equal, he who has a better "control break" has the upper hand.

I am sure that given enough time, every player under the sun will prefer these rules. Try it. You will be surpised how much better our games become.
 
Last edited:
Jude Rosenstock said:
Once you say, "Okay, breaker gets to shoot again after the break even if he fails to pocket a ball" and you eliminate all this crap. I mean, you almost can't have this rule without alternate breaks but assuming that's the case, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Try to visualize for a second what happens when you institute this rule and use it at the pro level... you thought corey was a beast before? Give him a month to play with this.

I think the problem is it violates a fundamental rule of pool: you must make a ball to keep shooting. Fail to put a ball in the hole, and you sit down. That's been true for the break and for the rest of the rack in 8b, 9b, 10b, 14.1, and 1p. We're gonna change a major part of the game to... what, accomodate some whining fussy breakers who complain the rack's not tight? That doesn't require a rule change, just a good TD and good equipment. If that TD is desperate to prevent the wing ball from going and stop racking arguments... don't hold a 9b tournament with strange rules. Hold a 10b tournament. Problem solved.

Players accept there is some luck in pool and they even want a little in there to keep it interesting. It's not bowling. I won't deny there's luck in the break, I just don't think we need to neuter it.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Once you say, "Okay, breaker gets to shoot again after the break even if he fails to pocket a ball" and you eliminate all this crap. I mean, you almost can't have this rule without alternate breaks but assuming that's the case, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

I have watched some alternate break tournaments. A. you don't see a player string racks which is what you want pros to do B. if you fall behind, you don't get a chance to catch up because you can't do A.

The break should be simple, anywhere behind the line, no pattern racking (especially since the rules all say "balls placed randomly" in the rack), and hit em how you want to. You don't make a ball, go sit.
 
Paul Schofield said:
In the last couple of weeks, I have had a half-dozen requests to adopt the “no conflict rules” for my BCA League. My players are sick and tired of hitting a rack of Eight-Ball perfect, not making a ball on the break, and leaving their opponent out.

My experience is: The better the player, the more willing the player is to abandon the smash break with the slopped ball, and instead adopt the “no conflict rules” with a control break and no ball on the break requirement.

I will be redundant: The purpose of the break in Eight, Nine, and Ten-Ball should be to get a good spread on the balls and to control the cue ball and the 1-ball in rotation games. That is good enough. Our games would be more fun and would be better off. The smash shot should have no place in pool.

The only reason there is a smash shot is so that players can slop balls in (should the intended ball not go in). [/COLOR]
Click to expand...

According to this, your players also play "Called Shot" so when someone leaves an accidental safe after missing they can have the other shooter come back to the table, correct? That's much more of a crap shot than the break.
 
softshot said:
Corey Deuel
Click to expand...

Yes, Corey perfected a controlled soft break with the Sardo rack that put the 1-ball in the side every time. But other than that, it took a lot of skill for him to run out as it left a lot of clusters. It drove the monster breakers (particularly Strickland) nuts because they were used to locking up matches off their breaks.

One of the female pros told me that the Sardo rack worked so well that it almost guaranteed anyone could make a ball on the break, and the WPBA didn't think that was fair to the players who had worked so hard on their smash breaks.

So, am I missing something here, or does it seem that the best breakers only want perfect racks when they are the ones doing the breaking?

Count me in as one of those who think these new break rules have good potential.

Roger
 
CreeDo said:
Try to visualize for a second what happens when you institute this rule and use it at the pro level... you thought corey was a beast before? Give him a month to play with this.

I think the problem is it violates a fundamental rule of pool: you must make a ball to keep shooting. Fail to put a ball in the hole, and you sit down. That's been true for the break and for the rest of the rack in 8b, 9b, 10b, 14.1, and 1p. We're gonna change a major part of the game to... what, accomodate some whining fussy breakers who complain the rack's not tight? That doesn't require a rule change, just a good TD and good equipment. If that TD is desperate to prevent the wing ball from going and stop racking arguments... don't hold a 9b tournament with strange rules. Hold a 10b tournament. Problem solved.

Players accept there is some luck in pool and they even want a little in there to keep it interesting. It's not bowling. I won't deny there's luck in the break, I just don't think we need to neuter it.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. I never said I'm all for it, I just think it's fascinating. On the other hand, what about all the things we've already done to try and maintain "fairness" with the current break rule. We've already made huge changes.
 
hang-the-9 said:
I have watched some alternate break tournaments. A. you don't see a player string racks which is what you want pros to do B. if you fall behind, you don't get a chance to catch up because you can't do A.

The break should be simple, anywhere behind the line, no pattern racking (especially since the rules all say "balls placed randomly" in the rack), and hit em how you want to. You don't make a ball, go sit.
Click to expand...

Well, the reason I brought up alternate breaks is simply for this rule. Players are going to string even more racks together if they don't need to make a ball on the break. I mean, you're almost certain to see a perfect set in every professional touranment without alternate breaks. On the flip side, I think most players will walk away from an event feeling they left their game at the table and weren't victim to poor racks or unfortunate spreads.
 
CreeDo said:
Try to visualize for a second what happens when you institute this rule and use it at the pro level... you thought corey was a beast before? Give him a month to play with this.

I think the problem is it violates a fundamental rule of pool: you must make a ball to keep shooting. Fail to put a ball in the hole, and you sit down. That's been true for the break and for the rest of the rack in 8b, 9b, 10b, 14.1, and 1p. We're gonna change a major part of the game to... what, accomodate some whining fussy breakers who complain the rack's not tight? That doesn't require a rule change, just a good TD and good equipment. If that TD is desperate to prevent the wing ball from going and stop racking arguments... don't hold a 9b tournament with strange rules. Hold a 10b tournament. Problem solved.

Players accept there is some luck in pool and they even want a little in there to keep it interesting. It's not bowling. I won't deny there's luck in the break, I just don't think we need to neuter it.
Click to expand...

CreeDo,

I somewhat agree with you, but aren't we also violating a "fundamental rule of pool" when we allow a player to keep shooting after pocketing an uncalled ball, as we do with the open break? The APA gets blasted all the time for allowing their players to keep shooting after pocketing uncalled balls. Why should it be okay in one case, but not the other?

Roger
 
This will eventually piss off a lot of BREAK Cue sellers.

And, if the next step is letting everyone have TWO shots every time you come to the table, why would anyone want to buy a JUMP Cue?

You don't have to make a shot to continue shooting, just roll the cue ball until you get an easy shot.

I would guess this will bring more players into the game and also provide the lessor skilled players to become masters in no time.

For the average league player, they will be all in VEGAS splitting the pots. No losers.. just winners. Two Shots at everything.

I like the idea of taking two shots on every ball. I think I can be competitive again. (at least with the new kids)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top