Ring game dispute

Who is correct?


  • Total voters
    40

Johnny Rosato

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You settle it by flipping a coin. Loser of coin toss not only loses
the dispute, but he must also buy shots for all the players in the game.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Gold Member
Silver Member
As jviss said, rules are now different for 10 ball.. sometimes it won't count
on the break, it gets spotted. It's not 9 ball rules with an extra ball.
I've seen tournaments where it counts on the break only in the sides or
back corner pockets.

Not counting the money ball on the break in the two racking pockets was a result of ‘Rack
Your Own’ rules. In a ring game it’s usually another player racking..money ball should count anywhere.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
From an old post when people were discussing most money balls on the break in a row.....

Myron Zownir claims 6. He probably was telling the truth. On the other hand, both your customer and Myron were breaking trick, loose racks. With a tight rack, the nine does not move. This has been well documented and was certainly true at the just-finished Mosconi Cup. The nine was nearly always in it's original spot at the end of each rack.

Here's a story about gaff racks:

------------------------------------------------
House Rules

The front table at Kip's Pool Hall (a block from the UC Berkeley campus,
mentioned in John Grissim's "Billiards", and now, sadly, closed) was a
little strange. Not as difficult to play on as the table next to it,
which would reject any ball run at high speed down the rail, due to
deformed pocket facings, causing road players to cry out in agony
and frustration, nor as untrue as most of the rest of the tables in
Kip's, which hadn't been leveled since the quake of '57, the front
table, right by the door and desk, had two jewels of peculiarity.

The first was the post which held up the second floor and all of the
pizza-gobbling, beer-swilling college students, and which was
strategically located 55 inches from one of the two corner pockets that
one might use for one pocket. A lot of one pocket was played on that
table, and the dreaded "post hook" was a standard tactic.

A lot of ring nineball also was played on that table, usually when there
wasn't some visiting player in a big match and the regulars had gotten
tired of one pocket and there were four or five people with a little
extra money and a lot of extra time. Since the guy running the desk
would usually join the game, the table rental rate was very attractive.

It was during one of these ring nineball games that Tim stumbled over
the second peculiar jewel.

Tim didn't really belong in the game. He usually just watched the
better players on the front table, and occasionally would match up with
someone closer to his own speed -- of course they would play on one of
the back tables. Overcome that night by ennui, and noting that any
idiot in a ring game could slop in a nineball now and again, Tim decided
to join the fun. He didn't have much fun. He didn't sink a nine ball
in the first ten games. In the eleventh he scored and collected from
the four other players. Six games stuck. His glum look improved a little.

He broke well. The nine headed straight for the corner pocket, the one
by the post. The nine wobbled in the pocket. It fell! Tim was
beaming, no longer stooped and sullen. He had a chance to get ahead of
the big boys after being stuck like a pig. Ring games were wonderful.

"It doesn't count," said one of the players.

Tim had already collected the cue ball for his next break. "Hunh?" he
asked, his face contorted.

"The nine doesn't count on the break in that pocket." All the other
players and onlookers nodded agreement. "That pocket's no good for the
nine on the break. It spots and you go on shooting."

Tim was eventually convinced of the rule. It really was the rule on that
table, and not made up specially for him. The nine went into that
particular pocket one out of four breaks on a good day, so the regulars
had long before declared the pocket ineligible for the nine. The
strange attraction persisted across changes of felt, and the prevailing
theory was that permanent small craters in the slate would position
the balls just right to make the nine dead. The unwritten rule was so
familiar that no one had thought to make sure that Tim knew it.
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
If I jump into a ten ball ring game in a pool hall, I assume anything goes...
...if I make the ten on the break, I expect to get paid.

If someone wants to cite the latest rules of any organization, he should've declared before
a ball was struck..
Call shot , call shot with the option, ten doesn't count on the break or in certain pockets,
ten must be made in order.....these are Johnny come lately rules....say that's how you
want to play....I'll probably decide not to play......
....but I don't want to hear that the latest fad is the ONLY way to play.

Ten ball has been around a long time...traditionally played like nine ball.

!0 ball was traditionally played just like 9 ball??? Why bother adding the 10th ball then?? To me it seems kinda silly to play 10b just like 9b where slop counts, I was under the impression that 10b has always been a call shot game and thats what really separated it from 9 ball.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
!0 ball was traditionally played just like 9 ball??? Why bother adding the 10th ball then?? To me it seems kinda silly to play 10b just like 9b where slop counts, I was under the impression that 10b has always been a call shot game and thats what really separated it from 9 ball.
The better players used to play 10 ball in ring games because it was too easy for them to run out with 9 ball. The rules were the same but with one more ball. The simplest possible change.

That was done long before the current official rules of 10 ball which were invented specifically to be different from 9 ball.
 

TX Poolnut

🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟&#127
Silver Member
So far 27 people have voted and it's now 14-13. Even us pool gods on AZB can't come to an agreement.

That's proof that you have to establish rules BEFORE the game. That pretty much goes for all pool and billiard games.
 
Last edited:

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So far 27 people have voted and it's now 14-13. Even us pool gods on AZB can't come to an agreement.

That's proof that you have to establish rules BEFORE the game. That pretty much goes for all pool and billiard games.

I didn't vote but my vote is available for either option for the right amount of jelly beans.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know this is an old thread but I'll chime in.

Lacking History
I don't know a lot of the history of pool through the 70s, 80s, and 90s. I don't expect many younger players do either. About the first 15 years of playing pool for me was all 8 ball and 9 ball. So I didn't look into 10 ball, banks, or 1 pocket until more recently. All I have to go off of is currently published rules or watching more recent matches on YouTube.

Essence of 10 Ball
So for me 10 ball has never been 9 ball with an extra ball. Without knowing it's exact history, it's only ever been what it is today which I interpret as being similar to 9 ball but taking more of the "Texas Express" out of it. And the posted rules are all I have to go off of.

10 Ball on the Snap
Normally I wouldn't assume the 10b on the break is a winner given published rules. And I always assume "racker's corners" rules only apply to rack your own. And I would also wonder if "racker's corners" rules make sense in 10b anyway because the rack shape is different and I'm not sure there's common unintentional (or intentional) gap configuration that'll make the 10 ball favor those pockets like it does in 9 ball.

Ring Games
But, in the end it is a ring game. So money is meant to be paid often. I've just never encountered a 10ball ring game before. I remember really being confused trying to learn all the rules and etiquette of a 9 ball ring game but I could tell the people teaching me have seen it hundreds of times. I'm not sure the same could be said of 10 ball ring games in terms of local experts. It does feel like it needs to be talked through first given how 10 ball is already a bit like 8 ball in terms of various house rules.
 
Last edited:

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know this is an old thread but I'll chime in.

Lacking History
I don't know a lot of the history of pool through the 70s, 80s, and 90s. I don't expect many younger players do either. About the first 15 years of playing pool for me was all 8 ball and 9 ball. So I didn't look into 10 ball, banks, or 1 pocket until more recently. All I have to go off of is currently published rules or watching more recent matches on YouTube.

Essence of 10 Ball
So for me 10 ball has never been 9 ball with an extra ball. Without knowing it's exact history, it's only ever been what it is today which I interpret as being similar to 9 ball but taking more of the "Texas Express" out of it. And the posted rules are all I have to go off of.

10 Ball on the Snap
Normally I wouldn't assume the 10b on the break is a winner given published rules. And I always assume "racker's corners" rules only apply to rack your own. And I would also wonder if "racker's corners" rules make sense in 10b anyway because the rack shape is different and I'm not sure there's common unintentional (or intentional) gap configuration that'll make the 10 ball favor those pockets like it does in 9 ball.

Ring Games
But, in the end it is a ring game. So money is meant to be paid often. I've just never encountered a 10ball ring game before. I remember really being confused trying to learn all the rules and etiquette of a 9 ball ring game but I could tell the people teaching me have seen it hundreds of times. I'm not sure the same could be said of 10 ball ring games in terms of local experts. It does feel like it needs to be talked through first given how 10 ball is already a bit like 8 ball in terms of various house rules.

I've been in a 10 ball ring game. If you are the outsider you have to outrun the nuts to get the cash.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
!0 ball was traditionally played just like 9 ball??? Why bother adding the 10th ball then?? To me it seems kinda silly to play 10b just like 9b where slop counts, I was under the impression that 10b has always been a call shot game and thats what really separated it from 9 ball.

I like that you are so surprised. You wouldn't be alone. And now that WPA 10-ball rules have been around for 15 years or so, less and less people remember how traditional 10-ball was played. Even some of the early TAR matches, the rules used for the 10-ball challenges were in flux. And of course today's Big Foot Challenge is played old school (no call).

Aside from gamboling and ring games in the 70's, professional 10-ball events were played in the late 1980's and early 1990's, no call shot just like 9-ball. It was clearly a different game than 9-ball due to the break leaving so many balls in the middle of the table. That one extra ball and the pyramid rack made way more than just a 10% difference. Remember that we didn't have template racks and the cloth hadn't transitioned to Simonis 860 yet. Combine that all, and 10-ball was some 25% more difficult than 9-ball. Players like Allen Hopkins perfected the "1-ball in the side pocket" break.

10-ball, because of the layouts leaving balls in the center of the table, was much more difficult to runout. And making nothing on the break was the norm as there wasn't the automatic wing ball on the break.

10-ball was my practice game for over 20 years before the WPA surprised us with changing to calling shots. I totally understand whythe WPA changed the rules so that 10-ball could stand on its own apart from 9-ball as a World Championship discipline, but the rules were changed. Older players who loved 10-ball already are going to hold grudges.


Freddie <~~~ grudges in hands
 
Last edited:

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
I like that you are so surprised. You wouldn't be alone. And now that WPA 10-ball rules have been around for 15 years or so, less and less people remember how traditional 10-ball was played. Even some of the early TAR matches, the rules used for the 10-ball challenges were in flux. And of course today's Big Foot Challenge is played old school (no call).

Aside from gamboling and ring games in the 70's, professional 10-ball events were played in the late 1980's and early 1990's, no call shot just like 9-ball. It was clearly a different game than 9-ball due to the break leaving so many balls in the middle of the table. That one extra ball and the pyramid rack made way more than just a 10% difference. Remember that we didn't have template racks and the cloth hadn't transitioned to Simonis 860 yet. Combine that all, and 10-ball was some 25% more difficult than 9-ball. Players like Allen Hopkins perfected the "1-ball in the side pocket" break.

10-ball, because of the layouts leaving balls in the center of the table, was much more difficult to runout. And making nothing on the break was the norm as there wasn't the automatic wing ball on the break.

10-ball was my practice game for over 20 years before the WPA surprised us with changing to calling shots. I totally understand whythe WPA changed the rules so that 10-ball could stand on its own apart from 9-ball as a World Championship discipline, but the rules were changed. Older players who loved 10-ball already are going to hold grudges.


Freddie <~~~ grudges in hands

Thank you for the great explanation. I always thought 10 ball was invented to eliminate the luck part and prevent players from riding the 9 ball all night. Its not something you see pros and high level players do but when you get to the lower end of the skill spectrum I think some guys specialize in riding the 9. You know, those combo, kick, bank, carom shots on the early 9 ball. I have always preferred 10 ball, the only stipulation we play tournaments by that is out of the ordinary is that 10 on the break and early 10 combos count............as long as it is called just to speed things up.
 

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The premise of the question is biased based upon failing to consider all of the real world outcomes.
It assumes that there has to be a winner to the game. it must be A or B which is hardly the situation.
Every fool knows the 8 is in the middle or the 9 and the 10 when playing 8, 9, and 10 ball. It’s in the rules.
So it was never a legal rack. Besides even if you insist it was, the 3rd outcome is a do over. Just re-rack.
Neither player wins and the previous incorrectly racked balls that just pocketed the 10 ball doesn’t count.
 

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The OP wrote that the 10 ball was in a racking corner, not the middle, which is how the dispute arose.
I’ve never played in a ring game where the 5 ball was positioned in a corner location for that reason.
There are some players, not myself, with a great break & corner rack OB often drop in side pockets.

Personally, since 10 ball is played using intentionally called pockets, I submit the 10 should only count
if and when the player intentionally designated the 10 ball pocket before the break. If another ball drops,
the player that broke the rack does not retain the table since the 10 ball did not go in the called pocket.
If a different OB drops on the break rather than the10 ball, the player’s inning ends & gives up the table.

If you have the nuts to call the 10 ball on the break, go for it, But counting the 10 ball on the break & also
not calling the intended pocket makes it a 9 ball break. In other words, slopping the 10 in a pocket wins.
Nope, I believe there should be zero slop in 10 ball unless the specific pocket was named before the break.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The OP wrote that the 10 ball was in a racking corner, not the middle, which is how the dispute arose.
...
What the OP said was:
While playing a 10 ball ring game player A racks the balls and player B breaks and makes the 10 ball in one of the racking corners.​
I take that to mean that the 10 ball was made in one of the foot pockets.

You take that to mean that the 10 ball was racked in a corner position in the rack.

Maybe the OP could clarify.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
What the OP said was:
While playing a 10 ball ring game player A racks the balls and player B breaks and makes the 10 ball in one of the racking corners.​
I take that to mean that the 10 ball was made in one of the foot pockets.

You take that to mean that the 10 ball was racked in a corner position in the rack.

Maybe the OP could clarify.

There’s no question that the 10-ball was racked correctly, and it dropped (rocketed straight ) in a foot corner pocket.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
The better players used to play 10 ball in ring games because it was too easy for them to run out with 9 ball. The rules were the same but with one more ball. The simplest possible change.

That was done long before the current official rules of 10 ball which were invented specifically to be different from 9 ball.

There you go. That's how we played Ring Ten Ball for years, with the same rules as 9-Ball. Adding one ball made running the rack about 20% harder imo.
By the way, it's MUCH harder to make the 10 on the break than it is to make the 9 ball. It may only happen once out of forty or fifty racks, if that.
 
Last edited:
Top