Possible new rule in Viking Tour events. Opinions wanted, please
- Thread starter MikeJanis
- Start date
) Just kidding with ya.
MikeJanis said:
What stinks, the WPA rule? I don't really like it either because it's too hard to enforce and can only result in bickering. You can pattern rack without racking the exact same pattern every time, so it may look random when it's not, or it may look like a pattern when it's not.
One possible solution could be that when doing rack-your-own, the non-racker has the option to choose the pattern.
I think some enterprising individual needs to come up with "The AutoRacker(tm)!"
A big honkin' gadget that you drop all the balls into from the top, and it sorts them out - grabs the one and the nine, and randomizes the rest, and snugly places them down onto the table, like how bowling pins are gathered up and replaced.
A big honkin' gadget that you drop all the balls into from the top, and it sorts them out - grabs the one and the nine, and randomizes the rest, and snugly places them down onto the table, like how bowling pins are gathered up and replaced.
Mike,
Am I correct that you are using World Standard Rules?
If so, just follow the rules, there is a penalty for 'delay of game' refusing to rack is "delay of game".
see rule
6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a three-foul sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points.
Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly. It includes
(a) distracting the opponent;
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;
(e) practicing during a match;
(f) marking the table;
(g) delay of the game
(h) using equipment inappropriately.
Am I correct that you are using World Standard Rules?
If so, just follow the rules, there is a penalty for 'delay of game' refusing to rack is "delay of game".
see rule
6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a three-foul sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points.
Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly. It includes
(a) distracting the opponent;
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;
(e) practicing during a match;
(f) marking the table;
(g) delay of the game
(h) using equipment inappropriately.
Excellent post Hu. From a tournament competition point of view you are absolutely right.
Pattern racking...winner breaks and numerous other features of the game arise from pool's heritage as a hustler's game where "winning" is often called "robbing" and often for good reason.
"Random" racking will never work because no one is going to sit there and chart the ball sequences being used or hire statisticians to render opinions on how often certain ball positions ought to reoccur in random fashion.
So a mandated fixed pattern is an excellent idea.
Then spot the 9 on the snap....move the rack up...and then other than ridiculous imperfections , racking techniques won't make much difference.
(-:
Jim
Pattern racking...winner breaks and numerous other features of the game arise from pool's heritage as a hustler's game where "winning" is often called "robbing" and often for good reason.
"Random" racking will never work because no one is going to sit there and chart the ball sequences being used or hire statisticians to render opinions on how often certain ball positions ought to reoccur in random fashion.
So a mandated fixed pattern is an excellent idea.
Then spot the 9 on the snap....move the rack up...and then other than ridiculous imperfections , racking techniques won't make much difference.
(-:
Jim
ShootingArts said:
Right Tom....and MIKE...It is YOUR event. You are a DICTATOR. You are judge, jury and executioner if need be.
Add ONE more rule to your events...The "No Crybaby" rule.
You are providing an income opportunity and if your rules are fair, the players will come. And for enough money, they will come if the rules are UNFAIR!!!
(-:
Add ONE more rule to your events...The "No Crybaby" rule.
You are providing an income opportunity and if your rules are fair, the players will come. And for enough money, they will come if the rules are UNFAIR!!!
(-:
Tom In Cincy said:
why it stinks
Mike,
In my opinion the reason it stinks is that it is an unenforceable rule. If someone,(say Mike Janis for example ) admits to pattern racking or obviously rearranges balls after they are in the rack then it can be called. However many many players, my guess is most, pattern rack to some degree. Positioning any ball other than the one or nine is pattern racking. Most of us are quite capable of throwing the balls in the triangle rack in the general area we want them to be in and then just in shaping them into a diamond we get most of the balls where we want them.
This is why I have long recommended a legal pattern rack for nine ball with only it and the mirror image of that pattern being legal. You could easily post the pattern on the walls near tables and specify who calls which way the balls are racked.(I think the breaker should be able to call it)
You are in the position to do it, why not make any type of pattern racking legal or specify a specific pattern for Viking Tour events? We both agree the WPA rules in this area stink!
Nobody complaining doesn't mean they are happy with their opponent pattern racking, they just can't prove it so they are forced to fight fire with fire and pattern rack themselves.
Hu
MikeJanis said:
Mike,
In my opinion the reason it stinks is that it is an unenforceable rule. If someone,(say Mike Janis for example
) admits to pattern racking or obviously rearranges balls after they are in the rack then it can be called. However many many players, my guess is most, pattern rack to some degree. Positioning any ball other than the one or nine is pattern racking. Most of us are quite capable of throwing the balls in the triangle rack in the general area we want them to be in and then just in shaping them into a diamond we get most of the balls where we want them. This is why I have long recommended a legal pattern rack for nine ball with only it and the mirror image of that pattern being legal. You could easily post the pattern on the walls near tables and specify who calls which way the balls are racked.(I think the breaker should be able to call it)
You are in the position to do it, why not make any type of pattern racking legal or specify a specific pattern for Viking Tour events? We both agree the WPA rules in this area stink!
Nobody complaining doesn't mean they are happy with their opponent pattern racking, they just can't prove it so they are forced to fight fire with fire and pattern rack themselves.
Hu
ShootingArts said:
You know, it just amazes me how much players look at what they can't control vs what they can.
What amazed me was that the guy was such a genious about the rack that he never examined my pattern.
It reminds me of a saying my grandmother had," you can show your ignorance by running your mouth or show your intelligence by staying quiet."
MikeJanis said:
Our patterns are similar, but i"m not revealing mine just yet. Mine has nothing to do with science whatsoever. It's just a superstition of mine and one that Buddy and Mike Segil and and I devised one night at the Sands in Reno while very, very, Very drunk!!!! I mean, very drunk!!
If it's really that easy or common to rig a rack and have it look tight then here's an oddball proposal: alternate racks. After the balls are racked, flip a coin for who gets to break. This way, the racker never knows if they or their opponent will be breaking.J. Learned Hand said:
Cory
Cory in DC said:
I LIKE IT!!! With one modification. The winner of the flip decides who breaks!
The reason is that if the racker slugs the rack, he has a 50/50 chance that his opponent will have to break it.
If the winner of the toss sees that the rack is A) slugged, he lets the other guy break. B) If he sees the 9 Ball is rigged to move, he breaks himself.
In a way, that would be like the push-out rule.
In addition, the method would reward racking knowledge.
But I think your idea is GREAT! Including my modification the rule would be:
1. Opponents alternate racking duty.
2. A coin is tossed to decide which player has the choice of breaking or passing the break to the racker.
Regards,
Jim
Not to beat a dead horse into the ground here, but I just don't get it
. The best pool players in the world get to where they are at by combining physical skill, mental skill, KNOWLEDGE, and a little luck (at times). If a player has the KNOWLEDGE to know how to get a better rack and his opponent doesn't, then IMO he/she should be able to use this to HIS/HER advantage. The opponent should have the onus on him/her to acquire this knowledge for use in future events. Racking for yourself is the only way for a more knowledgable player (or I should say a more knowledgable racker) to use HIS/HER acquired skill in this circumstance.
If I'm playing Johnny Archer race to 11, alternate breaks, rack for yourself, and Johnny knows how to rack to insure himself that he makes a particular wing ball on every break, then he should be allowed to use this KNOWLEDGE that he has acquired. I have the same opportunities in life to learn the same type of racking techniques. It is solely up to me to "progress" my pool shooting abilities.
It would be up to TD's (or individuals if playing "head-to-head" action sets) to alter the rules to counteract this acquired knowledge.
Once again, this is just my opinion. I am but a small, inconsequential person in the pool community. There are probably many more people with more experience and smarts about this subject who can explain to me why a player shouldn't be allowed to use some knowledge they have learned.
Rack for yourself should be the standard, IMO.
Maniac
. The best pool players in the world get to where they are at by combining physical skill, mental skill, KNOWLEDGE, and a little luck (at times). If a player has the KNOWLEDGE to know how to get a better rack and his opponent doesn't, then IMO he/she should be able to use this to HIS/HER advantage. The opponent should have the onus on him/her to acquire this knowledge for use in future events. Racking for yourself is the only way for a more knowledgable player (or I should say a more knowledgable racker) to use HIS/HER acquired skill in this circumstance.If I'm playing Johnny Archer race to 11, alternate breaks, rack for yourself, and Johnny knows how to rack to insure himself that he makes a particular wing ball on every break, then he should be allowed to use this KNOWLEDGE that he has acquired. I have the same opportunities in life to learn the same type of racking techniques. It is solely up to me to "progress" my pool shooting abilities.
It would be up to TD's (or individuals if playing "head-to-head" action sets) to alter the rules to counteract this acquired knowledge.
Once again, this is just my opinion. I am but a small, inconsequential person in the pool community. There are probably many more people with more experience and smarts about this subject who can explain to me why a player shouldn't be allowed to use some knowledge they have learned.
Rack for yourself should be the standard, IMO.
Maniac
ironman said:
I was wondering when you were gonna jump in here, Lewis!
I remember seeing you rack in that match, too. I was surprised it wasn't for someone else. :grin-square:
Our Tour is rack for the opponent, also, like Lewis's. We have had a few instances as well (you know women!), and the TD or ref racks when the person cannot get a tight rack either b/c they themselves cannot get a tight rack or the breaker doesn't think it's a tight rack. Mind you, we only come over to do this after many attempts by the players to get a tight rack. I honestly can say it's not certain people, but certain people on certain tables - so it does seem to be part sharking/part equipment.
But, we've never had anyone refuse to rack before and so to have to even consider forfeiting someone for that seems absurd to me. So, I feel for you about your situation with certain players.
akaTrigger said:
I have an honest question. Why do you believe that just because it's only certain players that that means they are sharking? Do these individuals cause other problems besides being picky about the rack? Is it possible that these certain players just have a higher (or different) standard of what a good rack is?
A lot of times, I look at a rack and I'm not too thrilled about how it looks, but since it doesn't appear to be a complete dud, I'll just break it anyway. I rarely ask someone to re-rack, just because I don't want to cause a production. But I'm not thrilled about it. I could see where if I stood up for the rack I want (similar to the rack I might give) it really could take a while to get one from some players and I might be labeled some kind of troublemaker or shark because of that.
Another problem with rack-for-each-other is that if a picky rack-recipient is on a table for the first time, he won't know how good or bad a table is racking until it's their opponent's turn to break. So he might not realize at first that he should lower his standards and let his racker off the hook, due to a tough-racking table.
the fix
If you check a person's first rack you can pretty much take care of careless or intentional poor racking.(nothing helps if the person is doing the best they can)
When I check it, if it is a poor rack I look at it a long time. When the other player asks why, I tell them I am looking for flaws to exploit. This often tightens bad racks marvelously!
Of course I take a fairly long look at good racks too, understanding racks has a lot to do with successful breaks.
Hu
If you check a person's first rack you can pretty much take care of careless or intentional poor racking.(nothing helps if the person is doing the best they can)
When I check it, if it is a poor rack I look at it a long time. When the other player asks why, I tell them I am looking for flaws to exploit. This often tightens bad racks marvelously!
Of course I take a fairly long look at good racks too, understanding racks has a lot to do with successful breaks.
Hu
Cuebacca said:
Maniac said:Not to beat a dead horse into the ground here, but I just don't get it
If I'm playing Johnny Archer race to 11, alternate breaks, rack for yourself, and Johnny knows how to rack to insure himself that he makes a particular wing ball on every break, then he should be allowed to use this KNOWLEDGE that he has acquired. I have the same opportunities in life to learn the same type of racking techniques. It is solely up to me to "progress" my pool shooting abilities.
It would be up to TD's (or individuals if playing "head-to-head" action sets) to alter the rules to counteract this acquired knowledge.
Once again, this is just my opinion. I am but a small, inconsequential person in the pool community. There are probably many more people with more experience and smarts about this subject who can explain to me why a player shouldn't be allowed to use some knowledge they have learned.
Rack for yourself should be the standard, IMO.
Maniac
I completely agree. And I'd like to add on to this that this does not have to mean "rack mechanic", which has a negative connotation. Instead it can mean, getting balls tight, and knowing which balls are the most important to pay attention to in the event that it's impossible to all of them tight.
Look at other sports. I don't have a lot of general sports knowledge, but can anyone name one other sport where your opponent sets your shot up for you, and they are required to do as good of a job as they can to help you? I can't think of any.
In football, your team gets to snap the ball and hold it for a field goal. In basketball, you throw the ball in-bounds to your own team. In tennis you get to toss your own serve. Part of getting good at tennis is tossing the ball well for your serve. I can't imagine if you had the opponent's coach tossing your tennis serve for you. That would be a circus. Why does pool do this?