New US Open Rack & Break Rules "Could" Be A Fiasco

Paul Schofield

Paul Schofield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Originally Posted by jay helfert
Based on the responses we've gotten the nine ball will be on the spot, the smaller break box (9") will be used and the balls will be racked with the one in front and the two in back. It's still Rack Your Own, Winner Breaks and your opponent can inspect the rack one time.

Originally Posted by Paul Schofield
You know Jay, this is unwise implementing these rules at the US Open. The rules are not fully vetted. To date, the rules have only been used for small exclusive events. The rules need to pass a test of time. At least with past rules, you know what you have. Now, if one player discovers and exploits a weakness with your proposed rules, it will spread like a disease and kill the event.



Let me explain what "could" happen. Under current rules, players are successful pocketing a ball-on-the-break in the 60-70 percentiles. With the 9-ball on the spot, should the ball-on-the-break percentile drop into the 40s or low 30s, the incentive to smash break the balls and get position on the 1-ball could evaporate. This changes everything. A player does not even want to break anymore for the possibility of selling out. He might just roll the cue-ball down and bump the rack and turn the break over to an opponent (who does not want to break either). Now what?

Here are Mosconi Cup stats at 34%: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=343151

Right now, if I was a US Open Player, I would be developing a cut-smash-safe break where the 1-ball settles near the center of the head-rail and the cue-ball winds up near the center of the foot-rail. How would this sell to a viewing audience? What might this do to a tournament schedule?

All it takes is one calculating player to get the ball rolling. These are just a couple scenarios. There are others for sure. Unintended consequences can be disastrous.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Right now, if I was a US Open Player, I would be developing a cut-smash-safe break where the 1-ball settles near the center of the head-rail and the cue-ball winds up near the center of the foot-rail. How would this sell to a viewing audience? What might this do to a tournament schedule?
Click to expand...

Paul,

Anybody who plays safe on the break will not make it to the television table. It's ridiculous to even suggest today's players will make a safe break as you've described.

Chris
 
There are already games where having the break is a disadvantage. If these new rules for 9 ball, turn out that way, I dont know if I would call it a disaster. At least for the lower skill levels I think playing defensibly actual will win you more games than all out offense - I suspect the great majority of people play too offensively in general, maybe that applies to the break and the pros as well.
 
TATE said:
Paul,

Anybody who plays safe on the break will not make it to the television table. It's ridiculous to even suggest today's players will make a safe break as you've described.

Chris
Click to expand...

If your chances to win are better then why would this be ridiculous. If I know I'm not likely to make a ball on the break why would I try to shape on the one after the snap? Paul makes perfect sense and I've seen players do this before and it works.....better than you think it would.
 
Two points about the safe break possibility:
1. You still have to drive four balls to rails, so the break can't be THAT soft.
2. Your opponent can still push after a dry break.
 
I think what we'll see is the players trying to pocket the the 1 ball. The B&R average in 9 ball is pretty low anyway unless the wing ball is wired. I think the fix-all so to speak would be a minimum break speed and a 9" break box. Today's technology makes this real easy to accomplish via smartphone . There are way more smartphones than tables at the event. With a minimum break speed It would stop a lot of potential problems.
That's just my 2cents
 
Last edited:
Allen Brown said:
If your chances to win are better then why would this be ridiculous. If I know I'm not likely to make a ball on the break why would I try to shape on the one after the snap? Paul makes perfect sense and I've seen players do this before and it works.....better than you think it would.
Click to expand...

With the 9 on the spot, the 1 in the side goes more than 50% of the time with a cut break. But I'm sure you all knew that...
 
cleary said:
With the 9 on the spot, the 1 in the side goes more than 50% of the time with a cut break. But I'm sure you all knew that...
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! Why is anyone talking about safe breaking?? You will have the better breakers like SVB and dechaine taking advantage of that!

If they really want to make it fair, do a first shot push out! But then again, no one will run any packages;)

ITS 9-BALL PEOPLE,,, RELAXXXXXXXXXX!!! ;)
 
This sucks,the same as simultaneously adding and embelishing new rules to game of pool.This is one of those reasons why pool isn't as recognized as it should be and why still isn't considered as a sport.
:mad::mad::mad:
 
ivicafranic said:
This sucks,the same as simultaneously adding and embelishing new rules to game of pool.This is one of those reasons why pool isn't as recognized as it should be and why still isn't considered as a sport.
:mad::mad::mad:
Click to expand...

No, that's not the reason... it does suck, but that's not the reason.
 
Allen Brown said:
If your chances to win are better then why would this be ridiculous. If I know I'm not likely to make a ball on the break why would I try to shape on the one after the snap? Paul makes perfect sense and I've seen players do this before and it works.....better than you think it would.
Click to expand...

Because the chances of making a ball on a hard break are very good, about 80%, even if racked with the 9 on the spot.

The break is never a disadvantage. We can only make it less of an advantage.

When was the last time you saw a pro player play a safe on the break in 9 ball?
 
liakos said:
Exactly!!! Why is anyone talking about safe breaking?? You will have the better breakers like SVB and dechaine taking advantage of that!

If they really want to make it fair, do a first shot push out! But then again, no one will run any packages;)

ITS 9-BALL PEOPLE,,, RELAXXXXXXXXXX!!! ;)
Click to expand...

It isn't 9 ball when you make constant changes to it & I'm sick of hearing people use the word "fair" when talking about these changes. If one person has a rock crushing break & another breaks like they hit it with their purse how is that unfair? It's a difference that one has put in the time and work to develop their break & the other hasn't. Those that haven't should put in the work & develop a break & use that break to increase their competitiveness. Instead the common refrain nowadays seems to be if they can't compete due to shortcomings they whine demanding a rule change. They need to work on their game and adapt to the game instead of expecting the game to adapt to them & their weaknesses. Develop their own strengths to be competitive instead of taking away others strengths so they can be competitive with the stronger player.
 
I may be wrong but I think all rules should be changed with the thought of speeding up the game and making viewing pool more interesting for viewers. For pool to grow I think thats why changes to any games/rules should be the focus. No matter what the rules are, they are the same for every players. Its the viewers and the future of pool that suffer when players for example get to constantly play head games over the rack. Corey Duel perfected the soft break. Not to play safe but to make a ball and run out. So lets change the rules so there are no soft break. Watched the World Cup where players were crushing the rack. Only to have an illegal break because 3 balls didnt pass the headstring. Don't know whats right or wrong but some rules have the right intention with the wrong results. Speed of the game should be most important within reason. I personally prefer alternating break. Don't care to see a players run racks while his opponent just sits there. Of course the argument turns into, well you should have won the lag. Maybe your lag was 1/4 inch off the rail but your opponent was just inside that. Anyways. I prefer to see both players having an equal chance to win.
 
Whatever the rules, whatever the format, the cream always rises to the top. Just wait until there are just eight left and you'll see that the great ones are the ones still in the hunt for the title.

And to recount what I took note of in another thread:

... take a look at the US Open golf tournament. The rough is longer and the fairways are narrower. Consequently, the tee shot, the first shot played on every hole, is made more difficult, and more difficult second shots must be played. The US Golf Association feels that such a setup befits our national golf championship. Pool players always talk about wanting pool to be more like golf. If so, a tougher setup in a national championship should not rub them the wrong way. On the contrary, the tougher setup befits the occasion.....

No doubt, the countless apologists on this forum will come out in droves if their favorite players don't win. I always look forward to that on this forum because there are new excuses every single time.

May the best man win.
 
How does the cream always rises to the top if the better breakers are not allowed to use their breaking skills?....
There's another option too, if we are determined to punish forever the better breaker, the US open can be a Straight Pool from now on, why not according to todays 9ball antibreak mentality?....
 
Last edited:
Colonel said:
It isn't 9 ball when you make constant changes to it & I'm sick of hearing people use the word "fair" when talking about these changes. If one person has a rock crushing break & another breaks like they hit it with their purse how is that unfair? It's a difference that one has put in the time and work to develop their break & the other hasn't. Those that haven't should put in the work & develop a break & use that break to increase their competitiveness. Instead the common refrain nowadays seems to be if they can't compete due to shortcomings they whine demanding a rule change. They need to work on their game and adapt to the game instead of expecting the game to adapt to them & their weaknesses. Develop their own strengths to be competitive instead of taking away others strengths so they can be competitive with the stronger player.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. But I don't consider it too much of a shortcoming anymore as far as hard breaks! I'll just say one name,,, Corey Cruel:)

I used the word "fair" because I think the game should have both players playing every game! If we want to sit down and watch 1 person shoot a few racks,,, play straight pool! If we are gonna try to revive the game and get people to watch(outsiders), they want to see both at least take one shot. Again, this is an opinion:)
 
So the guys that don't break as good it's because they don't want to and not because they don't have the necessary skill and the will to practice hard in that part of the game too?....... And they (the better breakers) were the ones that complained in first place and demanded rule changes?....
It's exactly the opposite, that's the truth, period.
 
Paul Schofield said:
Originally Posted by jay helfert
Based on the responses we've gotten the nine ball will be on the spot, the smaller break box (9") will be used and the balls will be racked with the one in front and the two in back. It's still Rack Your Own, Winner Breaks and your opponent can inspect the rack one time.

Originally Posted by Paul Schofield
You know Jay, this is unwise implementing these rules at the US Open. The rules are not fully vetted. To date, the rules have only been used for small exclusive events. The rules need to pass a test of time. At least with past rules, you know what you have. Now, if one player discovers and exploits a weakness with your proposed rules, it will spread like a disease and kill the event.

Let me explain what "could" happen. Under current rules, players are successful pocketing a ball-on-the-break in the 60-70 percentiles. With the 9-ball on the spot, should the ball-on-the-break percentile drop into the 40s or low 30s, the incentive to smash break the balls and get position on the 1-ball could evaporate. This changes everything. A player does not even want to break anymore for the possibility of selling out. He might just roll the cue-ball down and bump the rack and turn the break over to an opponent (who does not want to break either). Now what?

Here are Mosconi Cup stats at 34%: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=343151

Right now, if I was a US Open Player, I would be developing a cut-smash-safe break where the 1-ball settles near the center of the head-rail and the cue-ball winds up near the center of the foot-rail. How would this sell to a viewing audience? What might this do to a tournament schedule?

All it takes is one calculating player to get the ball rolling. These are just a couple scenarios. There are others for sure. Unintended consequences can be disastrous.
Click to expand...

This has been done before so I wouldn't get to excited about it (I don't care for the 9 on the spot) as the U.S. Open didn't fall apart.
I'm pretty sure if you win a game most people choose to break but it is winners choice, Pat from Accu-stats gave the break away once when the balls were breaking bad.
It's been discussed by the commentators in another match about Pat having done this.
Run for your life ---------------------------------------------> The sky is falling, LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top