Racking Nonsense
- Thread starter Wedge
- Start date
This is my question, Neil. Are the balls frozen "like they are supposed to be?"
Specifically, the traditional proper rack has all balls touching. But with the MR the balls are leaning against each other. The question is do the balls behave any differently when leaning against each other versus simply touching? I'm no physics major so I don't know the answer. But it is a valid question. For example, if the balls do indeed release off the snap with more energy because of an artificial device leaning them against each other, that's a problem that needs discussion.
If not, then it is not an issue. But then we still have the question of any balls that are more prone to going because of skidding on the template.
Any physics guys out there?
One last note. I don't buy the argument that in any case it's the same for both players so it's fair. If that's the case then why not allow air or gas powered cues that will guarantee a straight stroke?
My Thread Has Been Officially Highjacked
The intent of my thread was to say that during a tournament the same rack should be used. Not one player using a rack they prefer and the other player using something different in a rack your own venue. What next players with racks attached to their cue case with bungee cords. I in no way was talking about the merits of any racks.
You may continue with your rack merit debate.
Wedge
The intent of my thread was to say that during a tournament the same rack should be used. Not one player using a rack they prefer and the other player using something different in a rack your own venue. What next players with racks attached to their cue case with bungee cords. I in no way was talking about the merits of any racks.
You may continue with your rack merit debate.
Wedge
The site I just ordered the slug doctor did not offer an 8 ball rack (Pool Dawg), so I incorrectly assumed it wasn't available.
PM i4pool and explain the deal. He can probably hook you up. They have a template for the back row that snaps on to the 10 ball rack.
I am going to reword this thing:
There are 3 break events:
1. slopped ball
2. wired ball
3. dry break
All 3 should be treated equally. No advantage should be given to the slopped and wired ball. This makes good sense. Shoot what you break. Problem solved.
Freezing the balls is not the problem. The gadgets are not the problem. The ball on the break is the problem. Fix that. I did. Nine tournaments using the No Conflict Rules tell the story. It's easy.
Last edited:
Even if you don't have to make a ball on the break guys are still gonna want a consistently good rack so they can get consistent results, like CB control and a shot on the one ball.
Not a problem at all. Players get the logic of the No Conflict Rules and readily accept the best rack they can get with the rack and balls that they have. I have a lot of experience here. My events move along quickly.
I also hear a lot of complaints that the nine ball doesn't move (which happens on a "perfect" rack, right?) Unless of course another ball hits it on the rebound off a rail. The MR stops the racking "scheme" of wiring a nine.
Paul - I like your racking rules! Certainly takes away the issue of pattern racking. I have seen pics of yoru place, and the tables look very well kept. The problem is the quality of our tables where we play at league. Almost impossible to get a tight 9-ball rack with all the divots. Literally need to move the rack significantly up or down to even get close. If I played on better cloth, I'd be happy to use a standard rack.
At the players meeting I tell everyone that the 1-ball can be anywhere on the spot. If you want to move it up or down, that is OK. (there is no advantage or disadvantage one way or the other). Players do the best they can.
Keep in mind that a wing ball pocketed in one of the foot corners does not count toward the center string requirement.
I can agree that the ball on the break adds an element of chance to the game, but I don't know if it's fair to state that it's the problem without also stating your assumption that it's a problem for that bit of chance to be a part of the game.
I'm intrigued by your "No Conflict Rules" and would probably enjoy playing by them sometime, but the premise that removing luck from the game is necessarily a good thing can be taken too far.
Why not just do away with the open break and place all the balls in specific starting positions? How about resetting the balls for each player's turn so they don't fall victim to a lucky roll or balls inadvertently being tied up? Why even have the two players play on the same table? Just put them on side by side tables and count the number of innings it takes each one to get through a set number of racks...
Obviously, those are all extreme examples, and I'm not suggesting that you would do any of them. All I'm saying is that some unpredictability is what keeps the game exciting. Maybe the ball on the break rule is too much unpredictability for some, and maybe those people will enjoy getting rid of it, but I don't think it's fair to simply state that it's the problem.