Matchroom changing break rules for European Open (Aug 9-14 Germany)

[sjm]

Personally, I think it's a really bad idea, and there's abundant evidence that standardization of rules and equipment is now Matchroom's broken promise. Matchroom is starting to remind me of some American event producers that tweaked the game so many times from event to event that their product became unrecognizable in the eyes of both old and new fans, and I really never thought I'd say that given Matchroom's super-strong management team.

Make no mistake about it, this is two changes, not one, and I, for one, don't like either.

Change 1: Nine on the Spot
We all understand that nine on the spot is harder, and that's the only point in favor of its use, but there are many reasons not to employ it, such as:

a) Fewer balls made on the break, fewer runouts and more defense, meaning longer matches with less offensive firepower on display. It's possible that some will like this, but it's not the best way to showcase the talents of the world's greatest cueists.
b) Nine on the spot strongly favors European players. Neither Asians nor Americans have much experience with nine on the spot, while the Euro-tour has used it for years and years.
c) It means there will be far fewer "packages" and Matchroom has noted in its videos that they would like to create pool's equivalent of the "nine darter." That's now a pipe dream.
d) The advantage enjoyed by many of the elite breakers will be diminished,

Finally, changes like this one should never be made during a pool year. For example, in baseball the rules committee meets annually and tweaks the rules ever so slightly almost every year at the Winter Meetings in December. Any changes made are announced immediately and everybody has about four months to prepare for those changes.

Change 2: Use of the Break Box
As if nine on the spot isn't hard enough already, forcing a break from the break box is hard to fathom. This will bring more luck into the break shot than we have ever had before. Many of those who have spent years working on their breaks will see most of those efforts go to waste.

Who Will This Favor?
I think that the "hard" breakers may be helped relative to the "controlled" breakers. I also think that the players who are best at safety play and kicking will benefit, as we'll start to see a few more tactical sequences. Oddly enough, the weakest breakers will benefit, too, because the customary advantage enjoyed by their opponents will be reduced.

... SJM, still Matchroom's biggest fan on this side of the Atlantic Ocean but startled by this development, which seems poorly considered.

 

[JAM]

No bird breaks allowed.

 

[FeelDaShot]

Rather than a break box, has anyone ever required the cue ball to be placed directly on the headstring spot? That would take the wingball and the headball out of play. It never crossed my mind until now but it seems like someone must have tried this before.,

 

[L.S. Dennis]

I like both these changes, anything to stop the boring nine ball run outs with the wing ball going on the break time after time. These changes hopefully will promote more interplay between opponents which is ultimately more interesting to watch for the viewers. Nine ball has become boriing to watch in its present form, and also while they’re at it I’d like to see a shorter time clock with very limited extensions. Let’s play the game the way that Earl would like to see it played.

 

[sjm]

I like both these changes, anything to stop the boring nine ball run outs with the wing ball going on the break time after time. These changes hopefully will promote more interplay between opponents which is ultimately more interesting to watch for the viewers. Nine ball has become boriing to watch in its present form, and also while they’re at it I’d like to see a shorter time clock with very limited extensions. Let’s play the game the way that Earl would like to see it played.

Yes, Earl wanted to see pool played with no jump cues, so I'll second that.

Seriously, though, I like your post because it addresses a legitimate issue. Many strong pool players and die-hard fans feel as you do, that nine ball has become too easy and that the game should be modified to make it more difficult. Hence, if it's the elite players and die-hard fans than Matchroom is trying to reach here, maybe there's some sense in it. That said, nine on the spot with a break box, which makes the break much more random, is a poor solution. Tightening the pockets would have been better, toughening the game without devaluing some of the skills that players have spent years developing.

Then again, I also believe in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the recently completed UK Open offered some of the most electrifying pool we've seen in quite some time, delivering a final featuring the two best players on the planet this year in Filler and Sanchez-Ruiz.

I tend to take the view that no casual or would-be fan would feel that nine ball is too easy and that Matchroom should be more focused on attracting such fans rather than catering to diehard fans who want to see more tactical racks.

Thanks for sharing your views.

 

[westcoast]

Rather than a break box, has anyone ever required the cue ball to be placed directly on the headstring spot? That would take the wingball and the headball out of play. It never crossed my mind until now but it seems like someone must have tried this before.,

I’ve never seen it in a tournament, but Earl played to Tony Robles in an exhibition match with that rule in place. Seemed to take away the wing ball from going in most of the time

 

[Straightpool_99]

How about a new break box?

View attachment 647527

The best idea so far.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Yes, Earl wanted to see pool played with no jump cues, so I'll second that.

Seriously, though, I like your post because it addresses a legitimate issue. Many strong pool players and die-hard fans feel as you do, that nine ball has become too easy and that the game should be modified to make it more difficult. Hence, if it's the elite players and die-hard fans than Matchroom is trying to reach here, maybe there's some sense in it. That said, nine on the spot with a break box, which makes the break much more random, is a poor solution. Tightening the pockets would have been better, toughening the game without devaluing some of the skills that players have spent years developing.

Then again, I also believe in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the recently completed UK Open offered some of the most electrifying pool we've seen in quite some time.

I tend to take the view that no casual or would-be fan would feel that nine ball is too easy and that Matchroom should be more focused on attracting such fans rather than catering to diehard fans who want to see more tactical racks.

Thanks for sharing your views.

Wow! 4 inches isnt small enough? How small should the pockets get? 2 5/16?
I think 4 is plenty small enough, even for the pros. There are plenty of misses. The recently completed World Cup of Pool is a good example.

 

[sjm]

Wow! 4 inches isnt small enough? How small should the pockets get? 2 5/16?
I think 4 is plenty small enough, even for the pros. There are plenty of misses. The recently completed World Cup of Pool is a good example.

Actually, it's a poor example. If you really watched the World Cup of Pool, you'd know that many balls poorly struck were going in. These were not difficult conditions at all. Balls well up the rail were finding the corner pockets, even at medium speed, and sometimes shockingly so.

Making the break impossible is a step backward for nine ball.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Actually, it's a poor example. If you really watched the World Cup of Pool, you'd know that many balls poorly struck were going in. These were not difficult conditions at all. Balls well up the rail were finding the corner pockets, even at medium speed, and sometimes shockingly so.

Making the break impossible is a step backward for nine ball.

What about rounded pocket points like on a snooker table?

 

[Straightpool_99]

Below 4 inches and the game turns into a snooze fest. If you don't believe me watch Chinese 8 ball. If you use call shot as well, it's a 100 percent guarantee that nobody will ever watch it. Soft break with that will ensure that anyone accidentally watching by mistake will die of boredom. Seriously, if I wanted to kill the game off, this is what I'd do.

 

[sjm]

What about rounded pocket points like on a snooker table?

Interesting question.

Although I watch pro snooker, I'm not too knowledgeable on this matter, but that's one of several possible ways of slowing the players down without devaluing any of the skills they've spent years developing. The argument against is that you can take certain shots along the rails out of play.

To be fair, this diehard fan likes it when there's more safety play, and a selling point of snooker is that most racks involve a tactical sequence to gain control of the table before the offensive play begins. That said, I know as many pool fans as almost anyone on the planet and it is not my experience that this is what the casual fans want. If we reach a point that ten ball comes to be viewed as the game with more break and runs rather than nine ball, I'm not sure it will serve Matchroom well, but I could be wrong.

I've already taken note of the fact that diehards like me might enjoy the game with more tactical play. That said, I know I'm in a small minority, and that a slower, more tactically oriented, pace of play might not sit well with many fans.

 

[skip100]

I don't buy the idea that 9 ball as a game is too easy. Viewers love packages and runouts and those don't happen with unnaturally small pockets.

The break is what has become too easy. What viewers don't want to see is the same wing ball going in on the break every single time. The break should incorporate a mix of skill and randomness and whatever it takes to ensure that mix is fine by me.

 

[skogstokig]

If the ref gets to decide what a "forceful" break is under the new breaking rule, then under the three point rule the ref could be allowed to declare a break that doesn't satisfy the three point rule as "forceful" and hence a legal break. Three points would automatically be a legal break, and less than three points would be the ref's call.

yes, that would work, but it would also be a mouthful to explain for the casual viewers. maybe too complicated? i really don't know

those evasive "casual viewers" have been discussed for as long as i've been on here (10+ years). i have before thought of it being problematic that the game played by the pros on TV is straying too far from the game that the casual viewers know of. now i'm not so sure, here's why:

1. fewer young people get introduced to pool at a pool hall nowadays, meaning there is no "game they know of"

2. the pros are too good now to play on equipment resembling what the casual viewer have access to anyway. 99% of commercial tables have pockets bigger than 4.5 inch pockets and many have 5 inch pockets. for the elite players of today to play on such tables would be a joke. also the cloth speed is way different

3. if we really were to pander to mainstream pool knowledge the game should be 8-ball. but 8-ball is not challenging enough for the pros without seriously tampering with equipment and rules, which makes the point moot anyway

because of this i think the best way forward for pro pool is to just make it as exciting to watch as possible and not care about bangers perception of pool. if excitement means safety duels or BNR packages i don't know. as an avid pool fan i'm not the one to ask (because if i got the question i'd say one pocket). maybe MR should do test screenings of a couple of variants to random joes. but these are also points that means that maybe complicated break rules aren't a problem in the bigger picture

 

[kling&allen]

Interesting question.

Although I watch pro snooker, I'm not too knowledgeable on this matter, but that's one of several possible ways of slowing the players down without devaluing any of the skills they've spent years developing. The argument against is that you can take certain shots along the rails out of play.

To be fair, this diehard fan likes it when there's more safety play, and a selling point of snooker is that most racks involve a tactical sequence to gain control of the table before the offensive play begins. That said, I know as many pool fans as almost anyone on the planet and it is not my experience that this is what the casual fans want. If we reach a point that ten ball comes to be viewed as the game with more break and runs rather than nine ball, I'm not sure it will serve Matchroom well, but I could be wrong.

I've already taken note of the fact that diehards like me might enjoy the game with more tactical play. That said, I know I'm in a small minority, and that a slower, more tactically oriented, pace of play might not sit well with many fans.

The Matchroom tournaments the last year have had no shortage of excellent play and battles, and have been wonderful to watch when DAZN is working, so I wonder what data Matchroom has that says things would be improved by changing the rules midyear?

Even for those of us who love tactical play, it's easy enough to fast forward through the routine run-outs to get to a safety, mistake, dry break, etc.

 

[sjm]

2. the pros are too good now to play on equipment resembling what the casual viewer have access to anyway. 99% of commercial tables have pockets bigger than 4.5 inch pockets and many have 5 inch pockets. for the elite players of today to play on such tables would be a joke. also the cloth speed is way different

Despite you're generally well-reasoned post, I don't agree that this matters.

Does the average golfer have any problem relating to the 500-yard par fours the pros play even though they play on par fours that are closer to 400 yards? No, they understand that the challenge must be greater for a professional, but still relate 100% to the challenge the pros face and the pros are playing the game they know. Amateur baseball players who can hit 250-foot home runs. which are much shorter than what is needed at pro level, similarly, relate 100% to what the pros are trying to do, as the pros are playing the game they know.

What the casual players can't relate to is when the game they watch is unrecognizable, which is why things like sporadic use of the template, constantly changing breaking rules, and spot shot shootouts turn so many of us off. Give them the game they know and there is a much better chance they will attend or tune in without having a negative experience.

I can't say with any certainty that you're wrong and that pursuit of the less serious fan should be abandoned as a far-fetched idea, but I'm not yet willing to give up on that dream. Pool's fan base can grow, and catering to the serious players and diehard fans doesn't seem the way to make it happen.

 

[sjm]

The Matchroom tournaments the last year have had no shortage of excellent play and battles, and have been wonderful to watch when DAZN is working, so I wonder what data Matchroom has that says things would be improved by changing the rules midyear?

Even for those of us who love tactical play, it's easy enough to fast forward through the routine run-outs to get to a safety, mistake, dry break, etc.

Well said, at least for those who tend to watch the DAZN replay, and yes, I'm one of them.

 

[AtLarge]

I think some of you are forgetting that racking the 9-ball on the spot, using a break box, and requiring a forceful break has already been done in major events. However, a 3-point rule was used rather than leaving forcefulness to the referee's determination.

Events that used these rules included the US Open 9-Ball Championship (2014-2017) and the International 9-Ball Open (2018, 2019, 2021).

In these events, the break box was just 9" to either side of the long string. I haven't heard yet what the size or location of the box will be for the European Open.

In these events, for the matches I tracked, the percentages of successful breaks were generally in the 60s, games won by the breaker in the 50s, and B&R games in the 20s.

 

[AtLarge]

And I think just requiring a forceful break, as determined by the referee, rather than using a 3-point rule seems to be working well. It was used in the World Cup of Pool this past week and I don't recall any problems. Players were warned a couple of times in the matches I watched, but no fouls were assessed. With a 3-point rule, too often breaks hit forcefully still fail to satisfy the rule for one reason or another.

 

[sjm]

And I think just requiring a forceful break, as determined by the referee, rather than using a 3-point rule seems to be working well. It was used in the World Cup of Pool this past week and I don't recall any problems. Players were warned a couple of times in the matches I watched, but no fouls were assessed. With a 3-point rule, too often breaks hit forcefully still fail to satisfy the rule for one reason or another.

Yes, I also feel the "forceful break" requirement has been a big winner and the rule has been applied fairly and consistently.