Proponent of 3 consecutive foul l.o.g. rule

Maniac

Maniac

2manyQ's
Silver Member
I play in an APA 8-ball league. Every once in a while a situation comes up where I can only shoot safe and leave my opponents remaining ball or two tied up on a rail (of course, I have a ball tied up on that rail also). After my safety, the opponent usually picks up the c.b. and hands it to me. If I shoot my ball, which is frozen to the rail and tied up with one of theirs, I will break out their ball and they could run out. I can't just hand it back to them because eventually the game will be called unwinable and a new game started, which, to me, is a waste of time and effort. Geez, I worked my buns off getting them in a bind and they expect ME to shoot and get them out of it? You all out there know the scenario I'm talking about here. It happens to you all at some time or another.
In my heart, I think it would be in the best interest of the integrity of the game to force a person who just got put in a bind to shoot at their ball no matter what the result could be. The three consecutive fouls means loss of game could aid in this situation. Anybody out there think like me or am I just full-of-it?

Maniac
 
Maniac said:
I play in an APA 8-ball league. Every once in a while a situation comes up where I can only shoot safe and leave my opponents remaining ball or two tied up on a rail (of course, I have a ball tied up on that rail also). After my safety, the opponent usually picks up the c.b. and hands it to me. If I shoot my ball, which is frozen to the rail and tied up with one of theirs, I will break out their ball and they could run out. I can't just hand it back to them because eventually the game will be called unwinable and a new game started, which, to me, is a waste of time and effort. Geez, I worked my buns off getting them in a bind and they expect ME to shoot and get them out of it? You all out there know the scenario I'm talking about here. It happens to you all at some time or another.
In my heart, I think it would be in the best interest of the integrity of the game to force a person who just got put in a bind to shoot at their ball no matter what the result could be. The three consecutive fouls means loss of game could aid in this situation. Anybody out there think like me or am I just full-of-it?

Maniac
Click to expand...


It's not a garbage rule. It's a rule and with every rule, there are aspects that you need to appreciate. Personally, I like these situations a lot and although the correct shot may not be obvious, shots do exist. When I get home, I'll post several of my personal favorites. Also, I'll show you a personal favorite I executed in 9-ball (BCA rules) to take advantage of the 3-foul rule.
 
Blunt Instrumen said:
Any league without the 3-foul rule is rinky dink.
Click to expand...


No, 8-ball doesn't need a 3-foul rule and in my opinion, shouldn't have one. I'll show later.

What's more, one could argue that 14.1 has a flawed 3-foul rule since the penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the game-length.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
No, 8-ball doesn't need a 3-foul rule and in my opinion, shouldn't have one. I'll show later.

What's more, one could argue that 14.1 has a flawed 3-foul rule since the penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the game-length.
Click to expand...

Totally agree on both of these.

I had one of my low ranked players going to 35 to win a match. She'd got to about 23 when she accidentally put her hand in the pocket and her opponent took the 15 so she was down to 8 and with no chance at all. With two pros going to 200, it's almost meaningless (and the fact they can run a 100).

In APA, you can agree to call it a stalemate, and replay the rack.
 
I think the 3foul rule originally had something to do with the game length. When I play shorter than 150 games, the 3 foul penalty is 10% of whatever the race is to. So going to 50, penalty is 5. But if you think about it for a second, 15 balls isnt a huge penalty if you are capable of running balls with any proficiency.
 
The three foul rule, along with ball-in-hand-anywhere, ruined 9 ball. As much as I dislike 8 ball, I'd hate to see it happen again.
 
Ok, I know that these shots are not necessarily directly related to the rules but they're a good way to approach the given shot BECAUSE of the rules. Sorry for screwing up the sizes but I'm too lazy and tired to fix them.


8ballbreakout.JPG

This first one was a scenario I encountered with BIH. Simply, my opponent couldn't pocket the 8-ball and figured I couldn't get out (6-ball does not go). I couldn't so instead, I went rail-first and broke-out the lone cluster. The point of showing this is that creativity is key in any game, especially when your opponent thinks he's using the rules to his advantage.

8ballreverse.JPG

The second was a well-placed safety by my opponent. Now, he kinda leaves me a free shot here since I don't have to worry about fouling out and he's got his work cut-out for him if the 8 stays put. I hit it very softly so that if I get a legal hit (which I did), I'd leave him nothing (which I also did).


8ballcover.JPG


This next one is a reversal of a bad-situation I anticipated. I knew my opponent could carom in my 3-ball while keeping my 1-ball locked-up so instead, I put the 8-ball in the space the 3 occupied. Now he has no place to go without completely disrupting the layout of the table.

9balljail.JPG


The last is 9-ball. My opponent thought it would be nifty to further tie-up the 1-ball by moving the 8-ball right on it. This was a very bad decision since he was already on two-fouls. I simply parked the 5-ball right next to the 1-ball leaving no place to put the cue-ball down. Complete and indisputable JAIL.


Sorry again for the sizing issue. I'll get it right next time. I simply don't have the same graphic tools at home as I do at work.
 
Jude,
I see and understand everything you have diagrammed here. But these are just a handful of a possible thousands of scenarios that can come up in any given game of pool. This could happen (and I have actually seen this happen): Player 1 shoots the 8-ball towards the corner pocket and it jaws, laying so close to the edge a fly could push it in. Player 2 already has a ball sitting right next the the pocket the eight-ball is sitting in, on the rail. Player 2 has another ball on the table laying without a pocket to shoot it in, so Player 2, feeling that if he misses any shot, will most definitely lose this game. So, he plays safe by running his ball right in front of the eight-ball while catching a rail with the cue ball. Now we have what is known in these parts as a Mexican stand-off. Player 1 is in some serious cow-paddy now so he just hands the c.b. to Player 2, who wants no part of this action either. This game will most likely be deemed unwinable and started over, which penalizes the guy who just made a kick-a$$ safety. This is just one scenario out of many that could happen this way. My point I was trying to make in my original post (but didn't) is that a league that starts at 7:30p.m. and involves 5 matches that wind up @ midnight needs to have rules to speed things up a bit. Me personally, I'm retired, but there are a lot of hard-working people in this league that have to start their daily grind fairly early in the morning and would like to get home and into the sack. Besides, it's just APA which is supposed to be all about fun. What's fun about tie games, replaying of said game, and long-a$$ matches?

Maniac
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
No, 8-ball doesn't need a 3-foul rule and in my opinion, shouldn't have one. I'll show later.

What's more, one could argue that 14.1 has a flawed 3-foul rule since the penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the game-length.
Click to expand...

When you play a little more, you'll understand the need for the 3 foul rule.
 
Blunt Instrumen said:
When you play a little more, you'll understand the need for the 3 foul rule.
Click to expand...

I believe Jude has played quite a bit of pool.

It is not just APA 8-ball that doesn't use the 3-foul rule. It is also true of BCA 8-ball rules, and it isn't until IPT comes along that a player does lose game in 8-ball by committing three consecutive fouls rule.
 
Maniac said:
Jude,
I see and understand everything you have diagrammed here. But these are just a handful of a possible thousands of scenarios that can come up in any given game of pool. This could happen (and I have actually seen this happen): Player 1 shoots the 8-ball towards the corner pocket and it jaws, laying so close to the edge a fly could push it in. Player 2 already has a ball sitting right next the the pocket the eight-ball is sitting in, on the rail. Player 2 has another ball on the table laying without a pocket to shoot it in, so Player 2, feeling that if he misses any shot, will most definitely lose this game. So, he plays safe by running his ball right in front of the eight-ball while catching a rail with the cue ball. Now we have what is known in these parts as a Mexican stand-off. Player 1 is in some serious cow-paddy now so he just hands the c.b. to Player 2, who wants no part of this action either. This game will most likely be deemed unwinable and started over, which penalizes the guy who just made a kick-a$$ safety. This is just one scenario out of many that could happen this way. My point I was trying to make in my original post (but didn't) is that a league that starts at 7:30p.m. and involves 5 matches that wind up @ midnight needs to have rules to speed things up a bit. Me personally, I'm retired, but there are a lot of hard-working people in this league that have to start their daily grind fairly early in the morning and would like to get home and into the sack. Besides, it's just APA which is supposed to be all about fun. What's fun about tie games, replaying of said game, and long-a$$ matches?

Maniac
Click to expand...


I understand your points and respect them. Unfortunately, the greatest reason why the APA will NEVER have a 3-foul rule has to do with its demographic. This would simply cater to better players. Safes and kicks are the traits of a good player and can negate a handicap. What's more, it may speed things up but that doesn't necessarily you're left with a better game (which was my point). It's just different.
 
Blunt Instrumen said:
When you play a little more, you'll understand the need for the 3 foul rule.
Click to expand...


You're right. I do need to play more. If ever you care to join me, that would really really make my day. Obviously, by the way you talk, your knowledge and expertise would be a true pleasure to witness. In fact, I might even be willing to wager on such an opportunity, just so I could make it worth your while.
 
gregory said:
I believe Jude has played quite a bit of pool.

It is not just APA 8-ball that doesn't use the 3-foul rule. It is also true of BCA 8-ball rules, and it isn't until IPT comes along that a player does lose game in 8-ball by committing three consecutive fouls rule.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sticking up for me Gregory but he's right. I stink. The shots I posted are rudamentary, show little creativity and only suggest that my opponents could brush up their games a bit.
 
3 Foul Rules

I understand the points in favor of a three foul rule, consecutive or not, whatever, but it just seems to me the whole point of having pockets on a pool table is to put the the darn balls in them. Somehow, winning without having anything to do with putting balls in the pockets just seems a little beside the point. I say re-rack or keep playing and finish the game properly!:)
 
I've had it before in APA matches where I break and have a fairly easy run out, but end up bumping a ball that gets locked to a rail with a opponents ball.

So, I end up trying to break it out but either bump more or my opponents balls towards mine lone ball that is locked up or make the situation worse.

All the while I am potting balls. Now in my stupider days, I would just try to run out and wait for him to break out my ball and mess up. Which happend sometimes but more times than not, I was left trying to kick at my ball and leaving him ball in hand.

And what generally happend was my opponent would play safe on me and let me kick at mine while he open'd the table so he could easily run out. Is that bad? because he's not actually potting balls, but making me kick at my lone ball so it gives him the easier run out?

I've done it to my opponents and yea its frustration but thats part of the game.

Is it wrong to 3 foul someone if your able to do it? NOPE I've seen it done to a guy in a tournament for 3 straight games and yes he was pissed about it, and told off the guy who was doing this to him, but the guy came back with well, learn to break better or learn how to kick better!

The reason i see it being bad in leagues is if you have someone who is a higher skill level, it makes it easier for them to just 3 foul someone and win the game, over a lower skill level player. Obviously that isnt going to be any fun for the lower skill level player.

And yea Jude, i think you need to brush up on your shooting skills lol jk
 
Sweet Daddy said:
It's APA , get used to their garbage rules!
Click to expand...

The rules being referred to are not APA rules but general 8-ball rules.

The stalemate rule is not an APA rule, the BCA and the WPA also specify the stalemate rule. He is not actually force to play the ball, they can keep handing the cueball back and forth until the stalemate rule is in play.

The only real distinction in the 8-ball rules in the APA is that the only ball for which the pocket has to be called is the 8.
 
Maniac said:
I play in an APA 8-ball league. Every once in a while a situation comes up where I can only shoot safe and leave my opponents remaining ball or two tied up on a rail (of course, I have a ball tied up on that rail also). After my safety, the opponent usually picks up the c.b. and hands it to me. If I shoot my ball, which is frozen to the rail and tied up with one of theirs, I will break out their ball and they could run out. I can't just hand it back to them because eventually the game will be called unwinable and a new game started, which, to me, is a waste of time and effort. Geez, I worked my buns off getting them in a bind and they expect ME to shoot and get them out of it? You all out there know the scenario I'm talking about here. It happens to you all at some time or another.
In my heart, I think it would be in the best interest of the integrity of the game to force a person who just got put in a bind to shoot at their ball no matter what the result could be. The three consecutive fouls means loss of game could aid in this situation. Anybody out there think like me or am I just full-of-it?

Maniac
Click to expand...

First of all, with ball in hand you should be able to come up with a better alternative to a stalemate situation. You should be able to pocket another ball and break out the one on the rail. If you don't have a ball in the proper position to break it out, then you can take advantage of the BIH to move a ball to the proper position to break iit out on your next shot. If you've only 1 ball left you should be able to move in such a manner as to leave him still in a bind, or at least with a very tough out, while at the same time moving your's to a makeable position.
Even if it ultimately winds up a stalemate, I prefer that to the 3-foul rule. I wish 9-ball had a similar rule.
 
You're either not as good as you think you are or you're completely dishonest with the posters. Probably the latter.

There is good reason for a three foul rule. It doesn't come up that often. But the rule settles those issues, that come up rarely, very well.

Some players use it offensively. Fine. Many league types don't like this. Fine.

That still doesn't mean there isn't a need for the 3 foul rule. And, whining league players is not reason not to have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top