One-Foul vs. Two-Foul

O

Old Nine Baller

Banned
In consideration of and response to this post;

alstl said:
I've tried but I can't figure out what people are advocating and what is wrong with the current rules.

Can somebody give me the Cliffs notes version?
Click to expand...

I will give one example of the things I dislike about 1 foul BIH.

This is from Parica vs. McCready at the 2003 U.S. Open.

Keith just made a kick-combo on the 1/7 and made the 7 leaving himself here. Playing Two-Foul he would've probably banked the 1 cross-side but playing 1 Foul BIH it's smart to play a safety from here. The shotmaking of one of the best players ever is taken away from him with 1 Foul BIH rules.

km0.jpg


Keith plays a safety off the 1 ball but hits it too soft, leaving Parica here:


jp1.jpg

You already know what Parica is going to do here but if he was playing Two-Foul he would most likely cut the 1 down the rail and try to run out. The 1 Foul rules encourage him to play a safety though. The rules take the shotmaking abilities of one of the best players ever away from him. It's simply a bad percentage shot to try to pocket the 1 ball from here when playing 1 Foul BIH. The rules force you to play safe.

But guess what happened? Jose played the safety but banked the 1 ball cross-corner! Oops. He left himself here:


jp2.jpg


Now he has no shot on the 2 ball and he has to play a safety. He does and does it well, leaving Keith here:

km1.jpg

km2.jpg

To summarize:

Keith probably would've banked the 1 ball and the audience would be treated to a great make & maybe a run out or maybe a miss, but either way they would've seen offense. The rules forced him to play safe.

Jose probably would've cut the 1 down the rail playing 2 Foul but the rules made it smart to play a safe, and then he gets punished for making the 1 ball.

Playing 2 Foul Jose probably would've pushed-out after making the 1 ball cross-corner, leaving Keith the option of taking the shot or making Jose shoot again. Maybe Jose would've just played the safety off the 2 ball that he did play and leave it up to Keith to push-out. This way Jose would have control of the table (after Keith's push).

After being hooked on the 2 ball Keith could've pushed-out to a straight-back bank, the tough 2/6 combo, or maybe even a tough carom off the 2 into the 9. Either way it went the players would be showing offense and shotmaking, not playing safties.

What could've happened here? Keith could've banked the 1 ball and either missed or ran out. Jose could've cut the 1 down the rail and either missed or ran out. After Jose's safety on the 2 ball we would've been treated to a push-out battle that would've been very enjoyable, I'm sure. Instead we see three safeties and a ridiculous kick (by Keith on the 2 ball).

I hope I answered a few questions for the uninitiated here.

You must first accept the premise that 9 Ball is an offensive, ball-pocketing game. All else flows from there.

Which scenario would you rather see?

One other thing I'd like to mention; Very rarely playing 2 Foul did BIH actually happen. It's not that hard to hit the object ball (and not foul) when either you or your opponent has pushed-out to it.

This means much more shooting and almost no safety play except in extreme positions (it does occur but it's the exception more than the rule) or with two guys who are terrified of each other.

I'll now step aside while CJ hijacks this thread with his 100 posts of mostly drivel.

ONB
 
Push Out

It seems to me you think the players would be on offense more with push out. I disagree. The advantage of playing push out is to exploit your strengths over the other players weaknesses.

If I think I bank better than you, I push out on a tough shot for a bank shot or any shot I think I may hit better than you. You would do the same thing.

At least that is my opinion and I have been beaten by many of the best of them in the last 50+ years.

I will be interested in others opinions, even CJ's.:D
 
jrhendy said:
It seems to me you think the players would be on offense more with push out. I disagree. The advantage of playing push out is to exploit your strengths over the other players weaknesses.

If I think I bank better than you, I push out on a tough shot for a bank shot or any shot I think I may hit better than you. You would do the same thing.

At least that is my opinion and I have been beaten by many of the best of them in the last 50+ years.

I will be interested in others opinions, even CJ's.:D
Click to expand...

Actually, the primary advantage of pushout is to give the player a fair chance to hit the lowest numbered ball on the table. All other advantages are secondary to this.

Everything you wrote after your 1st sentence is not wrong but it's also not relevant. How the game is played when pushing-out is strategy and that's different in many cases based on the playing abilities and knowledge of the players involved.

My pics show two good examples of two top players who probably would've shot an offensive shot but instead were forced by the rules to play a safety.

ONB
 
Don't forget that in push out balls get spotted back up -
This changes the game also -



bill
 
Sorry....but that is BS....being forced by the rules to play a safety. He had 2 options, shoot at the ball to make it...or play safe. The rules had no effect on his decision.

And Keith did not shoot the bank, because he was playing Parica,...some history there.
 
It sounds like the primary argument is all out offensive game versus game "ruined" by safety play. I can only speak for myself but I enjoy well executed safety play. I think it takes a better all around player who can play either game.
 
Communication

vasilios said:
Don't forget that in push out balls get spotted back up -
This changes the game also -



bill
Click to expand...

It was also normal to always shoot from the kitchen on a cue ball scratch, and if the lowest ball was in the kitchen, it too was spotted. Ya just learned ANY time you matched up, rules came first.

Also, if a situation came up that neither made a rule about, the winner of a coin flip would determine that ruling....then if another situation came up the other player automatically made the call and so forth. If this talk got heated, I'd just finish that set or game and go somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
There's a number of pros and cons to each side of the debate. I have played a lot of both in my time. Just two different styles that each demand different strengths to be at the top. Which one one prefers depends on their strength.

The one thing I wish one foul would change, is to go to BIH in the kitchen, not anywhere. That alone would change the game quite a bit.
 
At the 'normal' pool room level, 1 foul is a joke. Lesser players look to play safe all the time, little 'dink' safes, no skill. Many more 'rolls' in 1 foul. Its not a 'fun' game to watch.
The 1 foul rules were invented around 1970. Weenie Beenie and the Jansco brothers
wanted to 'speed up' tournment play so the players could use the tables for gamblin!
No one I ever saw in the 70's gambled at 1 foul, it was all pushout.
I left pool in 79' ,and when I came back in 89' it was all 1 foul.
9 ball is a shooting game. If you want to 'duck' , play 1 hole.
You can 'duck' on every shot!
ps
If you do 'duck' on every shot, you got action!
Pushout forever
 
Rollout vrs 1 foul? I have played plenty of both. The secret in rollout is to not make yourself predictable. What is annoying in 1 foul, is to have a guy duck 3 times in an open rack of 9 ball. You kick and make a good hit and if it isn't a hanger, he ducks again. Worse than that, he needs the next 3 minutes to decide if he is going to go for the hanger or duck again. Now he has to walk all around the table and check from every angle to make sure he can slow roll whitey and move the object ball to the other end of the table, as if he's a true world champion. Before pulling the trigger on this delicate piece of cue wizardry, we need to devote 30 seconds more to some meticulous chalking, making sure the entire tip is lightly coated with an equal density of blue. Oh wow, my shot? I must have dozed off.
 
Rockin' Robin said:
Sorry....but that is BS....being forced by the rules to play a safety. He had 2 options, shoot at the ball to make it...or play safe. The rules had no effect on his decision.

And Keith did not shoot the bank, because he was playing Parica,...some history there.
Click to expand...

Your post and opinion is BS. You don't have a single clue in the world.

If rules have no effect on decisions made by players then why do Tennis players put everything they have into the 1st serve but just try get it in if on a 2nd serve? Why don't they go "all out" on a 2nd serve or play it safe on a 1st serve? Get a life.

The rules of engagement dictate what is wise to do.

You don't have a clue.

ONB
 
vasilios said:
Don't forget that in push out balls get spotted back up -
This changes the game also -



bill
Click to expand...

Balls only got spotted back up on fouls if you were playing "everything spots up". Many people did not play that way. There is no single way to play two-foul, everyone can tailor it to suit what they like.

ONB
 
I like your attempt at explaining the difference here but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Parica steps to the table, regardless of the rule set being used, he is going to shoot the shot that gives him the greatest chance to win the rack. Saying he would shoot the 1 ball up the rail if playing under 2-Foul rules doesn't make sense. If he thought he had a better chance of running out from there than playing safe he would have gone for the out regardless of the rule set being. Players don't like giving up control of the table -- Period.

The biggest effect I think 2-Foul would have on today's game would be seeing players go for an amazing out that involved NOT great shotmaking, but instead great position play. Shots where the player KNEW they could make the ball but they weren't sure they could get position. In those instances, the players would go for it -- and try to swing the cue ball around 3 or 4 rails and squeeze whitey into a tight position for shape. They would go for it because they would know they could push out if they didn't get there. Today's players duck in these situations every time because -- they like to win.

However, players would not all of sudden try to pocket difficult shots because they would not want to give up control of the table. This would be no different than 1 foul.
 
I have to think about this some more -- I could be wrong about the 1 ball and whether or not Parica would shoot it.....

Hmmmm....

2 Foul does seem more interesting -- that's for sure.
 
I think Parica would have played safe regardless, it was the shot he was most comfortable with, wouldn't you?
 
There's realy no evidence that says the better player wins a higher percentage of games in 2 foul. ,, it's pure speculation at best ,, what I've found is the lesser player is the one who takes more chances because he feels when he has that opening he better take that chance it's the higher levle player , that takes less chances playing the odds

1
 
if parica shoots the one, he has to pound it and go back and forth for shape, cueing like less than an inch from the rail. safety is 99% gin here. if you like to shoot from there, youre probably not winning much, no matter what rules youre playing
 
I would have went for the bank and tried to kill the cue ball in the same spot the one was in. I would have hit it hard enough that if I missed it, it would have brought the ball back into the middle down table. Hopefully, the cue ball would have stayed behind the two if I missed.
 
Sorry, but I do have a clue. I played roll out 2 foul from 1969 to 1983. Only about 15 years worth. It is a great game to rob the suckers with. If I hooked myself, no prob, just roll out to something they had little chance of making. I was jumping balls with a full cue along with Earl, and towards the end I just about quit rolling out to hard shots and would just roll out to where I was just slightly hooked. It was like stealing. But in 1983 I introduced one foul to the Texas State Open and it spread like wildfire across the planet.

If you want the rest of the speech, just ask nicely. I might just be an older nine baller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top