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

I didn't read all the posts, but I'm guessing the 3-foul rule was adopted from one-pocket. One poster said the same thing I had in mind. Once when shooting some one-pocket, I intentionaly corner-hooked my opponent. He just tapped the the top of the cueball, trying to create a stalemate. Either he didn't know about the rule or didn't think I did.

The point being, if a player A jams opponent B up, then I expect B to have to shoot out of it.

The other thing is that if I owned a pool room anyone caught playing ball-in-hand would be banned for life, along with their relatives. Push-out/two shot foul only! :)
 
Here's my $0.02

At the amateur level - the 3-foul rule in 8-ball is a BAD idea. The spirit of the game is to win by making your group and the 8. I can't imagine playing 3 fouls with all the troglodytes who can't run out in the APA. The entire game would change into a 3-foul contest. Running the pattern and making the 8-ball would become secondary to some of these people who generally annoy me. It would be beyond disgusting. Nothing wrong with safety play - but only when it presents itself as the best option in a particular game. These people go out of their way to get their safety jollies. Think of it like intentionally hooking yourself just so you can break out your jump cue and try it in a match.

At the professional level - it is OK. Here's why. Professional 8-ball is rarely a long safety battle. Usually one guy pukes up ball in hand and it's over, or it is a run out game. Case: The IPT NAO. Not as many safety battles as I thought there would be. Way more running out.

Also, it prevents players from engaging in the intentional-foul safety battles where you bump balls around the table, block pockets or sink opponents balls and other such 8-ball only strategies. Many of the nudge safeties etc..These can make a single rack last an HOUR if the situation is right.

In the IPT for example, matches already take so long because of slow-play (and some safety play)...allowing players to take intentional fouls would require some matches to take 4 hours to complete.

3 fouls changes the strategy a bit, as you MUST take action in advance, in anticipation actually, of a situation where you might be 3 fouled. The make or break shot of the rack will be the shot prior to you getting in hot water - rather than down the line, 9 innings later after a long drawn out safety war. Therefore, your performance on that shot will decide, right then and there if you win or lose. It's a little more cutthroat...but a timesaver. I saw this many times when players were faced with a tough breakout or situation when they are down to the last ball or 2- they were forced to go offensive because of the consequence of leaving the table due to the inability to play certain safeties because of the 3-foul rule.
 
Bola Ocho said:
Here's my $0.02

At the amateur level - the 3-foul rule in 8-ball is a BAD idea. The spirit of the game is to win by making your group and the 8. I can't imagine playing 3 fouls with all the troglodytes who can't run out in the APA. The entire game would change into a 3-foul contest. Running the pattern and making the 8-ball would become secondary to some of these people who generally annoy me. It would be beyond disgusting. Nothing wrong with safety play - but only when it presents itself as the best option in a particular game. These people go out of their way to get their safety jollies. Think of it like intentionally hooking yourself just so you can break out your jump cue and try it in a match.

At the professional level - it is OK. Here's why. Professional 8-ball is rarely a long safety battle. Usually one guy pukes up ball in hand and it's over, or it is a run out game. Case: The IPT NAO. Not as many safety battles as I thought there would be. Way more running out.

Also, it prevents players from engaging in the intentional-foul safety battles where you bump balls around the table, block pockets or sink opponents balls and other such 8-ball only strategies. Many of the nudge safeties etc..These can make a single rack last an HOUR if the situation is right.

In the IPT for example, matches already take so long because of slow-play (and some safety play)...allowing players to take intentional fouls would require some matches to take 4 hours to complete.

3 fouls changes the strategy a bit, as you MUST take action in advance, in anticipation actually, of a situation where you might be 3 fouled. The make or break shot of the rack will be the shot prior to you getting in hot water - rather than down the line, 9 innings later after a long drawn out safety war. Therefore, your performance on that shot will decide, right then and there if you win or lose. It's a little more cutthroat...but a timesaver. I saw this many times when players were faced with a tough breakout or situation when they are down to the last ball or 2- they were forced to go offensive because of the consequence of leaving the table due to the inability to play certain safeties because of the 3-foul rule.
Click to expand...

B.O.

You're going both ways here. IMO, the amateur level is where it's needed the most. By your own admission, it's a timesaver. Let's get the leagues over with at a decent hour and let the working stiffs get to bed and get some sleep.
A stalemate will also, for the most part make a single rack last an hour.
And, you speak of the "spirit of the game". IMO, the spirit of the game is to take a cue stick, line up the cue ball with an object ball in which you intend to hit, and attempt to strike said ball. Not pick up the cue ball and hand it to your opponent, which is my only gripe and reason for this post to start with. If not a 3 foul rule, than let's come up with another penalty to stop this picking up of the cueball. This is NOT "shooting pool". You said the key words right in your post. "You MUST take action". Just my take on the subject, I respect all opinions on the matter.

Maniac
 
The reason time saving is more important for pros is because they have many matches to play. Leagues, even without this rule - will still finish.


Pros will not abuse this tactic, they'll use it when the situation presents itself as the best option (the way it should be). Amateurs, especially the types of people you see in the APA, will abuse this and make it their sole strategy for winning the match.


Every team will have their SL2's and SL3's coached to 3-foul the other teams' SL2 or SL3 or maybe even higher! You think this isn't possible? Look at some SL2's and SL3's who take 10-14 innings to finish a rack. When one of them gives up ball in hand - they're on ONE foul. 2 coaches after that could coach for 2 more fouls pretty easily.


It would be highly stupid.


IN FACT, it would waste MORE time...since the lousy SL2's and SL3's would be wasting time trying to attempt a 3-foul attack only to have it fail because they didn't hide the cue ball on the last safety attempt, or the other player gets a hit. That would be even more aweful.


All I know is, you add that to a league like the APA, and I guarantee you that people will be trying it way more than the pros do - and will waste more time in the long run as well as change the nature of the game.



Edited to add: also, the APA for example, is a league designed to please low-handicapped players and has cry-baby rules built in. When SL5's and SL6's 3-foul lower players over and over - the lower players are going to quit the league in frustration. They will resent rules like these were they lose like that. It's just like the balls on the break rule. Make a solid - you have to play solids. Make 1-1, open. Stupid rule. I know the vast majority of rules in the APA are geared for bar-tables and that type of environment. However, that rule puzzles me to this day. It isn't a real time saver since most people don't agonize over group selection. It has to do with the psyche of low level players. Low level ball bangers HATE IT when they make 2 balls on the break of one group and fail to "win" the group only to have their oppenents take it. Thus, the cry-baby rule. You get what you make and that's that. It also slows down the higher level players advantage in being able to pick the better groups. If you haven't seen this, play with true bar table players and see for yourself. These types of players feel there is an entitlement to having the group in which they make the most balls or a ball.

Same thing with jump cues. Ball bangers often just buy a bud-light $30 cue and soft case and play in traveling bar leagues. If you break out a jump cue, you are introducing a new piece of equipment to the game that the other player isn't likely to have. If they allowed jump cues, it would be a defacto way of saying to everyone that to play in the APA fairly, you have to buy "extra equipment" and the APA doesn't want their players getting that message...not to mention, hardly anyone can jump in that league (so it favors the better players).
 
Last edited:
Bola Ocho said:
The reason time saving is more important for pros is because they have many matches to play. Leagues, even without this rule - will still finish.


Pros will not abuse this tactic, they'll use it when the situation presents itself as the best option (the way it should be). Amateurs, especially the types of people you see in the APA, will abuse this and make it their sole strategy for winning the match.


Every team will have their SL2's and SL3's coached to 3-foul the other teams' SL2 or SL3 or maybe even higher! You think this isn't possible? Look at some SL2's and SL3's who take 10-14 innings to finish a rack. When one of them gives up ball in hand - they're on ONE foul. 2 coaches after that could coach for 2 more fouls pretty easily.


It would be highly stupid.


IN FACT, it would waste MORE time...since the lousy SL2's and SL3's would be wasting time trying to attempt a 3-foul attack only to have it fail because they didn't hide the cue ball on the last safety attempt, or the other player gets a hit. That would be even more aweful.


All I know is, you add that to a league like the APA, and I guarantee you that people will be trying it way more than the pros do - and will waste more time in the long run as well as change the nature of the game.



Edited to add: also, the APA for example, is a league designed to please low-handicapped players and has cry-baby rules built in. When SL5's and SL6's 3-foul lower players over and over - the lower players are going to quit the league in frustration. They will resent rules like these were they lose like that. It's just like the balls on the break rule. Make a solid - you have to play solids. Make 1-1, open. Stupid rule. I know the vast majority of rules in the APA are geared for bar-tables and that type of environment. However, that rule puzzles me to this day. It isn't a real time saver since most people don't agonize over group selection. It has to do with the psyche of low level players. Low level ball bangers HATE IT when they make 2 balls on the break of one group and fail to "win" the group only to have their oppenents take it. Thus, the cry-baby rule. You get what you make and that's that. It also slows down the higher level players advantage in being able to pick the better groups. If you haven't seen this, play with true bar table players and see for yourself. These types of players feel there is an entitlement to having the group in which they make the most balls or a ball.

Same thing with jump cues. Ball bangers often just buy a bud-light $30 cue and soft case and play in traveling bar leagues. If you break out a jump cue, you are introducing a new piece of equipment to the game that the other player isn't likely to have. If they allowed jump cues, it would be a defacto way of saying to everyone that to play in the APA fairly, you have to buy "extra equipment" and the APA doesn't want their players getting that message...not to mention, hardly anyone can jump in that league (so it favors the better players).
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting low handicaps be affected by the 3 foul rule. How about reading the thread. Or are Straw Man arguments the best you can come up with?

Secondly, the low handicap players, who can not deal with being 3 fouled defensively, because they lack the needed skills, also lack the skills to use it offensively. Therefore, it really isn't an issue.

The rule has been in our league for 12 years, which is 36 sessions. It's a great rule. The purpose behind it is sound. And, it solves the problems articulated by Maniac. And others.

Now and then, a guy uses it offensively. Usually after a guy has fouled once or twice on his own. (Meaning it's use is generally after the opponent fouled carelessly or accidently on his own a time or two). Your time issues are ridiculous.

Teach ALL players ALL the rules ALL the time. Use the break in rule for low handicap players and you have a good system that teaches the game properly.

And, for you that think the game is about pocketing balls (you are revealing your ignorance) you will someday realize the game is about the cue ball.
 
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 sounds like you worked your butt off to get both players in a bind were neither player has much incentive to break out the balls. By you tying up both players balls on the rail you are expecting them to shoot you out of trouble and if they are not willing then it is a failed strategy that you might want to rethink.
 
Blunt Instrument, you came across as quite abrasive to me in that post as well as to others in the thread.

You seem like a passionate supporter of the 3-foul rule. Good for you.

I'm not peddling straw, so get off it.

And don't question my knowledge of 8-ball.

ty.

PS, thanks for that amazing revelation about cueball control! WOW. You've enlightened me. I didn't know that! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top