One Pocket Rules

alphadog said:
So where do you divide the line between unintentional and intentional? I graze a ball coming out of the stack but leave cueball 1/4" short of a cushion,unintentional? What if I leave cueball 3 ' shy of contacting a rail?

Fouls help stronger players period.
lets say you adapt a rule: Any foul allows incoming player to remove a ball from the table and that ball scores for them.
I take a intentional into stack because youhave balls you can run and I cant play a solid safety. You pick up a ball and now have to
1.kick at 1 of your object balls.
2. Try a not so safe safety.
3. Take a intentional and I pick1 ball and score it.

FOULS are part of the game;)
Click to expand...


I don't believe that any reasonable player would call your first scenario an intentional.

As to the scenarios you describe thereafter, we are not talking about "any foul.' We're talking about intentionals.

Lou Figueroa
 
bbb said:
why are you trying to help the weaker player at the detriment of the stronger player??
maybe the weaker player just needs a bigger spot??
that would negate the need for more/changing rules
thats also part of matching up
jmho
icbw
Click to expand...


It's called fairness or an even playing field, which I think is the goal of most competitive endeavors.

It's why the teams will switch goals during the Super Bowl.

Lou Figueroa
 
darmoose said:
Appreciate your thought. The option that I am suggesting could apply to any foul whether a pocket scratch or failing to get a rail after contact or anything else. I don't consider the option a penalty, but rather a sort of protection for the incoming player after a foul is committed. The incoming player can return the table to the player who committed the foul, so he is not unfairly penalized or disadvantaged by the other player invalid or illegal shot (which he took because he was in a bad spot after a valid or legal shot.

I considered your thought about cancelling out owed balls, but in the case where we are in the middle of the game where each player has balls, the intentional "tap" foul would just remove 2 balls from each player and have the same effect as changing the spot from say 9/7 to 11/9 for example.
Click to expand...

lfigueroa said:
I don't believe that any reasonable player would call your first scenario an intentional.

As to the scenarios you describe thereafter, we are not talking about "any foul.' We're talking about intentionals.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
look guys
when 2 people match up
they can negotiate any kind of game they want
your option(s) can easily be added to other spots
your fouls dont count
hit and a pick
hand span
etc etc etc etc etc
the 2 guys DECIDE WHATS FAIR
not an edict from you
jmho
i know both of you think i am wrong
for the record
darrell
you are an outside the box thinker
and come up with interesting ideas which it seems you have put alot of thought into your proposals
i am a traditionalist and do believe that the game has made it this far
i dont see that it is broke so i see no need to fix it (lets agree to disagree on this one)
in summary
if 2 guys gambling want to agree to your rules ...GREAT....:)
i dont think they should HAVE to play by those rules
jmho
 
bbb said:
look guys
when 2 people match up
they can negotiate any kind of game they want
your option(s) can easily be added to other spots
your fouls dont count
hit and a pick
hand span
etc etc etc etc etc
the 2 guys DECIDE WHATS FAIR
not an edict from you
jmho
i know both of you think i am wrong
for the record
darrell
you are an outside the box thinker
and come up with interesting ideas which it seems you have put alot of thought into your proposals
i am a traditionalist and do believe that the game has made it this far
i dont see that it is broke so i see no need to fix it (lets agree to disagree on this one)
in summary
if 2 guys gambling want to agree to your rules ...GREAT....:)
i dont think they should HAVE to play by those rules
jmho
Click to expand...

Larry,

This is a thread about a potential rule change for one pocket: you don't have to respond. If you have nothing to say about my suggestion as to WHY you think it is not reasonable why do you think you are the appointed defender of the status quo?

I know that any two players can agree on any rules they want to play by. Yet, as I have said to you already we DO have rules to play by. The rule change I am discussing corrects what I think is an unintended consequence of the existing rules that FAVORS one player over another. If that is over your head and you can't comprehend what is being said you should just leave it alone and let more experienced players discuss it.

I have done my best to humor you and explain this in several different ways, but you refuse to understand. Why don't you try to make a contribution to the discussion and tell us what the tapping foul adds to the game and why it would be so missed? I am not trying to edict anything. I am trying to get players to understand this shortcoming in our rules and how to fix it. No different than the dozens of other rules that already exist to define how we play. If you don't like that, the least you can do is tell us why, and "this is how we have always played" is not an argument.

I don't see where my thinking is so out of the box, it is really very simple. Sounds like you advocate not thinking at all.
 
darmoose said:
Larry,

This is a thread about a potential rule change for one pocket: you don't have to respond. If you have nothing to say about my suggestion as to WHY you think it is not reasonable why do you think you are the appointed defender of the status quo?

I know that any two players can agree on any rules they want to play by. Yet, as I have said to you already we DO have rules to play by. The rule change I am discussing corrects what I think is an unintended consequence of the existing rules that FAVORS one player over another. If that is over your head and you can't comprehend what is being said you should just leave it alone and let more experienced players discuss it.

I have done my best to humor you and explain this in several different ways, but you refuse to understand. Why don't you try to make a contribution to the discussion and tell us what the tapping foul adds to the game and why it would be so missed? I am not trying to edict anything. I am trying to get players to understand this shortcoming in our rules and how to fix it. No different than the dozens of other rules that already exist to define how we play. If you don't like that, the least you can do is tell us why, and "this is how we have always played" is not an argument.

I don't see where my thinking is so out of the box, it is really very simple. Sounds like you advocate not thinking at all.
Click to expand...
darrell
i find your condescending attitude offensive
maybe its you that finds this discussion "over your head"

you seem to find a shortcoming where the overwhelming majority do not
plus its a GAMBLING SITUATION ..
i am sure all the weaker players thank you for coming to their defense
(sarcasm intended)
more experienced players at one pocket . org didnt buy it
this thread is 5 days old and doesnt give you overwhelming support
maybe you should accept
no one is screaming
YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have stated my case
i am done debating and will leave it to azb members and onepocket.org members to decide
and more importantly gambling players to decide
good luck with your ambitions
sincerely
larry
we still do agree on your political views and your responses to tobermory have been outstanding...:thumbup:
 
darmoose said:
Appreciate your thought. The option that I am suggesting could apply to any foul whether a pocket scratch or failing to get a rail after contact or anything else. I don't consider the option a penalty, but rather a sort of protection for the incoming player after a foul is committed. The incoming player can return the table to the player who committed the foul, so he is not unfairly penalized or disadvantaged by the other player invalid or illegal shot (which he took because he was in a bad spot after a valid or legal shot.



I considered your thought about cancelling out owed balls, but in the case where we are in the middle of the game where each player has balls, the intentional "tap" foul would just remove 2 balls from each player and have the same effect as changing the spot from say 9/7 to 11/9 for example.
Click to expand...



I agree it doesn’t work in all situations (in fact, it only works as intended when neither player has balls (no pun intended)). Still, the current proposal feels like treating a headache with a guillotine. Will have to think about it a bit more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bbb said:
darrell
i find your condescending attitude offensive
maybe its you that finds this discussion "over your head"

you seem to find a shortcoming where the overwhelming majority do not
plus its a GAMBLING SITUATION ..
i am sure all the weaker players thank you for coming to their defense
(sarcasm intended)
more experienced players at one pocket . org didnt buy it
this thread is 5 days old and doesnt give you overwhelming support
maybe you should accept
no one is screaming
YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have stated my case
i am done debating and will leave it to azb members and onepocket.org members to decide
and more importantly gambling players to decide
good luck with your ambitions
sincerely
larry
we still do agree on your political views and your responses to tobermory have been outstanding...:thumbup:
Click to expand...


People become accustomed with rules but rules change over time.

I know it wasn't until just the last couple of years that the re-rack on the break rule became more widely used by players gambling and I think that it's close to becoming universal. That's the way it is. And so it may be with these rules about fouls we're discussing.

Probably the strongest influencer of what rules get introduced and adopted is the DCC One Pocket. And, over the years, I've had numerous discussions with GS about possible changes to the rules. Next time I talk to him there are a couple of things about the rules I want to bring up.

Lou Figueroa
 
Ratamon said:
I agree it doesn’t work in all situations (in fact, it only works as intended when neither player has balls (no pun intended)). Still, the current proposal feels like treating a headache with a guillotine. Will have to think about it a bit more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Appreciate that Ratamon, that's all I can expect. Consider how many situations the incoming player would actually return the shot. I don't think it would be that many. I think it would be limited to the"tapping" type fouls mostly.

Thanks:smile:
 
bbb said:
darrell
i find your condescending attitude offensive
maybe its you that finds this discussion "over your head"

you seem to find a shortcoming where the overwhelming majority do not
plus its a GAMBLING SITUATION ..
i am sure all the weaker players thank you for coming to their defense
(sarcasm intended)
more experienced players at one pocket . org didnt buy it
this thread is 5 days old and doesnt give you overwhelming support
maybe you should accept
no one is screaming
YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have stated my case
i am done debating and will leave it to azb members and onepocket.org members to
decide
and more importantly gambling players to decide
good luck with your ambitions
sincerely
larry
we still do agree on your political views and your responses to tobermory have been outstanding...:thumbup:
Click to expand...

Larry,

I try to be nice to you, but you make it very hard to do. I have NO idea what your CASE is. You have added nothing to the discussion to consider other than your "brick wall" defense of the status quo for sake of the status quo alone. This thread would not have gone on for the last five days had I not attempted to reason with you and just ignored you. But, enough is indeed enough.

Glad I finally said something to get you to announce you are done. I would expect then that wherever I decide to discuss this in the future, I won't have to listen to you shouting "the sky will fall" should we make any rule change.

On the other hand any time you want to elaborate on the benefits of the "tapping" foul, and explain why it would be so missed, I will listen.
 
darmoose said:
Larry,

I try to be nice to you, but you make it very hard to do. I have NO idea what your CASE is. You have added nothing to the discussion to consider other than your "brick wall" defense of the status quo for sake of the status quo alone. This thread would not have gone on for the last five days had I not attempted to reason with you and just ignored you. But, enough is indeed enough.

Glad I finally said something to get you to announce you are done. I would expect then that wherever I decide to discuss this in the future, I won't have to listen to you shouting "the sky will fall" should we make any rule change.

On the other hand any time you want to elaborate on the benefits of the "tapping" foul, and explain why it would be so missed, I will listen.
Click to expand...
Just a small bit of advice here. You've clearly stated your opinion on this and some(me to a degree) agree. Apparently a bunch don't agree and this is probably how it will remain. You know that old saying about insanity? Doing the same thing over-n-over and expecting a different outcome?? I would just walk away from this. Just my $.02 here, nothing more.
 
darmoose said:
Appreciate that Ratamon, that's all I can expect. Consider how many situations the incoming player would actually return the shot. I don't think it would be that many. I think it would be limited to the"tapping" type fouls mostly.



Thanks:smile:
Click to expand...



On reflection, giving (or delaying until pocketed) one of the pocketed balls to the non-fouler could also be considered. This is a double whammy as effectively results in a two-point penalty (-1 for the fouler and +1 for the non-fouler) so should reduce intentionals to critical situations only. Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ratamon said:
On reflection, giving (or delaying until pocketed) one of the pocketed balls to the non-fouler could also be considered. This is a double whammy as effectively results in a two-point penalty (-1 for the fouler and +1 for the non-fouler) so should reduce intentionals to critical situations only. Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ratamon,

That's funny, man. Would you believe that in the last year I had proposed on one pocket.org a rule they ended up calling the "moving forward" rule that worked just like you described. Rather than subtract a ball from your side when you commit a foul, instead you give one of your balls to your opponent. This grew out of people complaining how OP took too long. This rule would dictate that the game could never go backwards, only forward, so every one of your fouls put your opponent closer to being out.:D

Traditionalists see nothing wrong with the game and resist all suggestions for change, which I fr the most part agree with. I would just like to eliminate those "tap" fouls, they don't belong in such a great game as OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top