One Pocket Rules

[lfigueroa]

On OP.org quite often there pops up discussions about the rules of OP and whether there ought to be some changes considered.

Out of curiosity I wonder what the members here would think of this:

The rule allowing intentional fouls is often used, particularly in gambling sessions, by the superior player (or the player giving up a spot), to reduce the consequences of being caught in a trap by changing the game originally negotiated..

For example, player A is giving player B 9/7, but get caught in a trap and takes two subsequent intentional fouls, causing player B to do likewise. Now, because they are playing the "three foul you lose" rule player A has to take a chance and try to shoot out of the trap. But, he has now changed the game to 11/9, much more to his advantage.

How about a new rule for OP that says that after any foul, the incoming player can give the table back to the player that committed the foul (much like how push out nine ball used to be played when we all were young, and before it was ruined by TV).

Consider how this would improve OP by removing the motive to take intentionals. One could still take the intentional, but he may be shooting again. Also, i should say that on fouls like a CB scratch where BIH behind the line applies, it is unlikely the shot would be given back to the fouler. And, the one exception I would propose is the situation at the end of a game where one ball remains and is hanging in the pocket, we would play the same as today (the shooter may pocket the ball and foul and spot two balls, continuing the game).

I feel that something should be done about endless intentionals.

Perhaps by limiting them to no more than two intentionals with a third being loss of game. However, as you point out even two intentionals creates a scenario that favors the better player, so maybe limit it to one intentional.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I think the chances of rules changing the game for the better are unlikely

However if Iwere playing a better player who took intentional fouls and i was worried about it,I would negotiate that into the game

The 3 foul rule was seldom usedin Dallas,but when I played Cliff Joyner I had to insist on the 3 foul rule as a way to prevent excessive pressure on me.

I got beat anyway,but i don't think the intentional foul rule caused the problem

A change in the rules, if well thought out and supported by players, is not unlikely, evidenced by the growing use of the ball on the break re-rack rule.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

How about they DCC rule to just reset the negative ball counts to zero when they negative ball count is equal? At least that's what I got out of the rules yesterday. Anyone else catch that?

As far as this idea goes from the OP, I dont like it too much either. Let the game get played! If it takes 3 hours then so be it.

I don't feel it's a time issue as much as a fairness issue, pretty much like re-racking if a ball is made on the break.

And though I didn't personally encounter it I did see two guys on an adjoining table go to the desk for a ruling on that, with one guy owing two and the other guy owing one. I think they reset it to the guy owing two owing one and put the other guy back to even.

I thought it was a good idea.

Lou Figueroa

 

[8cree]

I don't feel it's a time issue as much as a fairness issue, pretty much like re-racking if a ball is made on the break.

And though I didn't personally encounter it I did see two guys on an adjoining table go to the desk for a ruling on that, with one guy owing two and the other guy owing one. I think they reset it to the guy owing two owing one and put the other guy back to even.

I thought it was a good idea.

Lou Figueroa

I see, so as long as they offset, then they reset the ball count. I could see it being a benefit to the lesser player (in which I should support). I didnt look at it like that at first. If you have to actually spot the balls, you never know where those spotted balls will end up and you may have to come with a good shot or break-up shot to get to the desired amount of balls...the variables here are endless. I guess though if they agree to the terms before they pay into the tournament, you know what you're getting your self into anyway.

 

[garczar]

I like the use of the "Grady Rule", at the end of an inning if there are more than four balls in kitchen the ball nearest to head rail spots. In tournament play this can really help with match times/scheduling. As for intentionals i once watched Cliff J. take like 6-7 of them and win the game. Crazy.

 

[JazzyJeff87]

I like the use of the "Grady Rule", at the end of an inning if there are more than four balls in kitchen the ball nearest to head rail spots. In tournament play this can really help with match times/scheduling. As for intentionals i once watched Cliff J. take like 6-7 of them and win the game. Crazy.

Have you (or anyone) ever heard of a different version of this rule where you spot all the balls from the kitchen at once?

Ex - there are 4 balls in the kitchen while your shooting, at the end of your turn you leave a 5th ball up there, all 5 balls come spot in a line.

I can’t say I’m a fan, and I’ve never seen it done but I definitely heard 2 commentators talking about it during a stream. I can’t remember who they were and it was before I really started playing 1P so it didn’t register as odd until later.

 

[garczar]

Have you (or anyone) ever heard of a different version of this rule where you spot all the balls from the kitchen at once?

Ex - there are 4 balls in the kitchen while your shooting, at the end of your turn you leave a 5th ball up there, all 5 balls come spot in a line.

I can’t say I’m a fan, and I’ve never seen it done but I definitely heard 2 commentators talking about it during a stream. I can’t remember who they were and it was before I really started playing 1P so it didn’t register as odd until later.

No. Never seen/heard that version. That would change the game way too much imo. One ball makes a big difference in match times.

 

[darmoose]

I'm sorry, my mistake for asking a one pocket question on this forum. Don't know what I
was thinking.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Why the rush? ... .

It was more or less a joke.

But if the game is in a tournament and two up-table players are going to make everyone wait until 4AM to start the quarter-finals, something needs to be done, one way or another. If that is the situation, I think my solution will be more effective than the OP's, but I don't think the OP's proposal is really directed at speeding up play.

I do think that "owed balls can cancel" is a good idea for tournaments. But even better would be a mandatory clock (chess style).

 

[bbb]

I'm sorry, my mistake for asking a one pocket question on this forum. Don't know what I
was thinking.

did you not think what the onepocket.org members told you was sufficient??
darmoose
i am lll on onepocket.org
just to be transparent
get over it
until there are no old timers its not going to fly
for what its worth
i do agree with you political views....

 

[lfigueroa]

I see, so as long as they offset, then they reset the ball count. I could see it being a benefit to the lesser player (in which I should support). I didnt look at it like that at first. If you have to actually spot the balls, you never know where those spotted balls will end up and you may have to come with a good shot or break-up shot to get to the desired amount of balls...the variables here are endless. I guess though if they agree to the terms before they pay into the tournament, you know what you're getting your self into anyway.

I'm not so sure you can call it a benefit to the weaker player, it just keeps things the same as when they started.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I like the use of the "Grady Rule", at the end of an inning if there are more than four balls in kitchen the ball nearest to head rail spots. In tournament play this can really help with match times/scheduling. As for intentionals i once watched Cliff J. take like 6-7 of them and win the game. Crazy.

The Grady Rule is an abomination and most true 1pocket players reject it out of hand.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

did you not think what the onepocket.org members told you was sufficient??
darmoose
i am lll on onepocket.org
just to be transparent
get over it
until there are no old timers its not going to fly
for what its worth
i do agree with you political views....

onepocket.org is not the final word on all things 1pocket.

Lou Figueroa
not
even
close

 

[bbb]

onepocket.org is not the final word on all things 1pocket.

Lou Figueroa
not
even
close

your words are also not the final word either
no disrespect intended lou

 

[garczar]

The Grady Rule is an abomination and most true 1pocket players reject it out of hand.

Lou Figueroa

For action i'd agree but when trying to run a tournament on schedule every little bit helps. Grady used it at his in-house events and nobody whined. I guess based on your take Grady was just an abominable 1p player.

 

[lfigueroa]

your words are also not the final word either
no disrespect intended lou

Never said they were.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

For action i'd agree but when trying to run a tournament on schedule every little bit helps. Grady used it at his in-house events and nobody whined. I guess based on your take Grady was just an abominable 1p player.

I spent an afternoon playing Grady at his room in SC.

It was great and I always loved Grady and held him in high regard as a pool player. When I saw him at his last DCC, though his throat was shot from radiation treatments, he called out and greeted me warmly.

Disagreeing with his suggested rule change does not mean your despicable characterization has an ounce of merit but it is the cheapest of shots.

Lou Figueroa

 

[darmoose]

did you not think what the onepocket.org members told you was sufficient??
darmoose
i am lll on onepocket.org
just to be transparent
get over it
until there are no old timers its not going to fly
for what its worth
i do agree with you political views....

You need not advise me to get over anything, Larry. I am on no crusade to change one pocket, nor am I unaware that there is a great deal of resistance to almost all recommended changes to the game, whether they come from me or anyone else as you know.

Just exactly what do you mean by "get over it"? Are you trying to say I can't ask a question here or anywhere else to start a discussion? By what authority do you speak to anyone that way?

I rarely post on this forum, but while reading here i noticed that one pocket is on occasion discussed here, so I merely was interested in what this crowd might think on this subject. I think that is my perogative, and these good people can respond or ignore as they like. Don't you agree?

 

[darmoose]

As an example, I bank a ball to my side in front of my pocket and freeze you on the stack. There is no escape for you and you just touch a CB as an intentional. So instead of touching back and taking a foul myself I could just put you back to shoot again. That’s at least how I understand what the OP is proposing.

I think this would take a lot from the game, make it less strategic. Imagine a similar rule introduced in 14.1. No, not a fan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please explain what you think is "strategic" about in your above example the player just touching the CB, and what that adds to the game. I think it is simply a "cop out" that says rather then take any chance trying to execute an escape, I'll just change the game even though I know that I will probably be forced to shoot that escape shot in a couple of innings anyway.

I think it adds nothing to the game, in fact it takes some skill and execution requirements out of the game. it definitely reduces the penalty to be paid for getting caught in a trap which is a big part of one pocket.

My reference to how nine ball was played back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's was to that on any pushout the shot could be returned to the fouler. Ask any old timer familiar with that game and they will tell you nine ball was a much better game then. it was for TV that texas express was invented to have a faster game.

 

[darmoose]

I get what you're saying, I just think that's part of the game and part of the spot.

Part of the game and part of the spot is i can give you 9/7 and at anytime I please I can change the game to 11/9, or I can do it again to 13/11? Really?