Blunt Instrumen said:
Wow Blunt, I think you're on to something. Your insight and contributions are just so intelligent and really invaluable. It's such a pleasure to finally have someone like you contributing on the boards. I hope you stick around!
Proponent of 3 consecutive foul l.o.g. rule
- Thread starter Maniac
- Start date
Wow Blunt, I think you're on to something. Your insight and contributions are just so intelligent and really invaluable. It's such a pleasure to finally have someone like you contributing on the boards. I hope you stick around!
Blunt Instrumen
Banned
I thought you'd finally get it.
Da Poet said: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 agree with this more, I like the stalemate rule that vnea for instance has. Some 9-ball organizations are killing the 3-foul rule why bring it into an already working and effective rule set.
The 3 foul rule used in a stalemate situation isn't fair and forces a person to fall on his sword basically.
O.K. you two guys, cool it. The reason I started this thread is because I just hate it when I get somebody's a$$ in a jam and they just pick up the cue ball and hand it to me.
Catscradle, as said before, eight ball hanging in the pocket, two of your balls crowded right in there with it, and it's his shot at the eight. He hands you the ball. He was gonna lose this game and he wimps out of it by not taking another shot. I don't like it. What's the point of having safeties if someone can just hand the ball to you when he/she is in a bind and wants to start the game over (mulligan???)?
I see everybody's points here. No two people are gonna think alike on everything. I was just venting my opinion. Each to their own.
Maniac
Catscradle, as said before, eight ball hanging in the pocket, two of your balls crowded right in there with it, and it's his shot at the eight. He hands you the ball. He was gonna lose this game and he wimps out of it by not taking another shot. I don't like it. What's the point of having safeties if someone can just hand the ball to you when he/she is in a bind and wants to start the game over (mulligan???)?
I see everybody's points here. No two people are gonna think alike on everything. I was just venting my opinion. Each to their own.
Maniac
Maniac said:
No but honestly, you brought up an interesting point. Personally, I like the rules the way they stand and thought it was odd when the IPT took on the 3-foul rule. It's interesting to see what others think.
Jude Rosenstock said:
I think Jude forgot to use his sarcastic font
supergreenman said:I think Jude forgot to use his sarcastic font
SHIP ME THE SARCASTIC FONT, PULEASE!
No way man, I don't have it trade marked yet LOL<----- sarcastic fontJude Rosenstock said:
Blunt Instrumen
Banned
supergreenman said:I think Jude forgot to use his sarcastic font
You might offer him the knowledge font also.
Blunt Instrumen said:
There's a knowledge-font? How come this information wasn't made available to me previously? SHIP THAT, TOO!!!
Blunt Instrumen
Banned
StormHotRod300 said:
In our league only players above a certain handicap can lose by the 3 foul rule. However, players below that level can win by it. This threshold is generally around the line between a B and a C player.
This creates a "break in" period for new players. They can observe others using it and can learn the reason for it without worrying about it being put on them. And, if they are capable, they can actually use it to their benefit without worrying about it being put on them. It's rare (most new players don't have the skill to win by it) but it happens........usually a result of a good coach.
As their skills improve and they reach that handicap threshold, they understand it better, appreciate it's purpose more and now have the skills to deal with it.
And, when they watch pool on TV, they appreciate that they are playing the same rules the big boys and girls play by. (With the exception of the break in period).
This goes a long way toward standardizing rules.
Last edited:
Blunt Instrumen said:
The underlying problem I have with a 3-foul rule is that it's simply not used very often in high amateur or professional competition. To put it another way, the number of games won this way during an event is extremely minimal. I mean, most professionals won't resort to it unless they have few options OR their opponent is already on two-fouls and the opportunity presents itself. On the beginner/intermediate level, many players will opt to play a rack this way rather often, especially if kicking seems to be one of their opponent's weaknesses. Of course, you want them to know there is a penalty for fouling but I think it's even more important that games are won by superior pocketing rather than poor kicking.
I mean, I've probably been safed-out about twice in the past year and no more than a dozen times in the past five years. I know if this rule existed for beginner/intermediate players, they'd get safed out this many times in a single league season.
Another thought to consider:
A failed run-out attempt (missing the 8-ball) would result in a loss 99.9% of the time, regardless as to where the 8-ball rested. I mean, it could be hanging infront of a pocket that you need open so that you can pocket half your balls and you can just safe him out to get the win. If you think not having a 3-foul penalty takes away a degree of skill, wait until the day you find yourself in this situation and it's the hill-hill game. I can assure you, you will not have kind words for your opponent.
A failed run-out attempt (missing the 8-ball) would result in a loss 99.9% of the time, regardless as to where the 8-ball rested. I mean, it could be hanging infront of a pocket that you need open so that you can pocket half your balls and you can just safe him out to get the win. If you think not having a 3-foul penalty takes away a degree of skill, wait until the day you find yourself in this situation and it's the hill-hill game. I can assure you, you will not have kind words for your opponent.
Jude Rosenstock said:
Tap tap tap tap. very good points.
Maniac said:
Fun thread, Maniac. I don't have a strong opinion on the 3-foul rule one way or another. I don't get upset when someone tries to 3-foul me. If they are successful, more power to them. Its not easy to 3-foul a good player, so when I get fouled out, I typically say, "well done", or something like that. If going for the 3-foul is "the wrong move", then I'm fortunate that they chose it, since it means that they just increased my chances of winning, compared to them doing the "right move".
I just wanted to offer another perspective about the stalemate situation you described. Say player A plays a great safe on player B, and player B hands player A the cue ball, which ultimately results in a stalemate. If that happens, player A's safety actually was not that great.
Perhaps it was well-executed, but it was not as well thought out as it should have been. When one plays a safety, they need to consider the opponent's potential options from that situation, including the option of doing nothing (handing over the cue ball).
As a side note, handing over the cue ball isn't necessarily a wimp move, in my opinion. Just like in some cases taking an intentional foul in 1-pocket or straight pool is the right move, it might also be the right move in 8-ball every now and then.
Back to the stalemate thing, maybe a chess player here could comment on whether or not my point about the stalemate is analogous to chess. Say player A is winning at chess, in terms of how many pieces they have remaining, and what their positions are. Then player A puts player B in check, but it results in a position that allows player B to force a stalemate situation. It seems that player A should not have made that move that allowed player B to create a stalemate. Just a thought. I don't play much chess, but that was fun to ponder anyway.
Blunt Instrumen
Banned
Is there a "can you stay on point" font?
How many times does a rule need to be used before it's worthy?
How many times does a rule need to be used before it's worthy?
Last edited:
Cuebacca said:Fun thread, Maniac. I don't have a strong opinion on the 3-foul rule one way or another. I don't get upset when someone tries to 3-foul me. If they are successful, more power to them. Its not easy to 3-foul a good player, so when I get fouled out, I typically say, "well done", or something like that. If going for the 3-foul is "the wrong move", then I'm fortunate that they chose it, since it means that they just increased my chances of winning, compared to them doing the "right move".
I just wanted to offer another perspective about the stalemate situation you described. Say player A plays a great safe on player B, and player B hands player A the cue ball, which ultimately results in a stalemate. If that happens, player A's safety actually was not that great.
Perhaps it was well-executed, but it was not as well thought out as it should have been. When one plays a safety, they need to consider the opponent's potential options from that situation, including the option of doing nothing (handing over the cue ball).
As a side note, handing over the cue ball isn't necessarily a wimp move, in my opinion. Just like in some cases taking an intentional foul in 1-pocket or straight pool is the right move, it might also be the right move in 8-ball every now and then.
Back to the stalemate thing, maybe a chess player here could comment on whether or not my point about the stalemate is analogous to chess. Say player A is winning at chess, in terms of how many pieces they have remaining, and what their positions are. Then player A puts player B in check, but it results in a position that allows player B to force a stalemate situation. It seems that player A should not have made that move that allowed player B to create a stalemate. Just a thought. I don't play much chess, but that was fun to ponder anyway.
That's an excellent point and exactly what I love about 8-ball but many here will argue that this shows how time-consuming the game can be w/o such a rule.
Blunt Instrumen said:
Hmm, I'm not sure which post you are referring to, since you didn't use the "Quote" feature, but I can only presume you mean this one:
Jude Rosenstock said:
If that is the post you are referring to, I believe he is very on point, but you were too busy slinging insults to notice. If insults are dished out everytime someone has an opposing opinion, we'd have a flame war on every thread. There's a place for that, its called RSB.
If your browser is ever in the neighborhood, Fast Larry would enjoy the company, I'm sure. 
The point of his post, or at least the insight that I took from his post, was that the 3-foul rule might be good for expert-level players because it helps to curb the rare occurance of a prolonged safety war & stalemate situation. However, when one or two of the players are at a beginner level, it may create the temptation to over-use the 3-foul rule, which might spoil the primary intention of pool, which is, ultimately, to put balls in holes.
Cuebacca said:Back to the stalemate thing, maybe a chess player here could comment on whether or not my point about the stalemate is analogous to chess. Say player A is winning at chess, in terms of how many pieces they have remaining, and what their positions are. Then player A puts player B in check, but it results in a position that allows player B to force a stalemate situation. It seems that player A should not have made that move that allowed player B to create a stalemate. Just a thought. I don't play much chess, but that was fun to ponder anyway.
Very good points.