Rules- 2021 International 9-Ball Open

kkdanamatt

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
1634067171268.png
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
I like these breaking rules. In a major championship, and this qualifies as such, unless a referee is racking with a rack rather than a template, alternate break is well advised. Competitively, alternate break means more close matches but fewer big comebacks, and some will like that and others will not. Personally, I'm OK with it. The big breakers will still enjoy a big advantage if they break and run at their usual rate.

I'm not sure why we need thirty two players advancing to Stage 2, which makes Stage 1 match play less important than it was in the World Pool Championship, the US Open or in any Eurotour event and exposes the elite to elimination sooner than suits this particular fan. Having 25% (32 out of 128) of the field survive Stage 1 seems excessive. At the WPC, it's 6% (16 advance out of 256) and at the US Open it's also 6% (16 advance out of 256), and at the large field Eurotour events, only 16 players get out of Stage 1. The flip side, of course, is that "win or go home" matches, which are a fan's delight, will come sooner rather than later in the event. I'll keep an open mind, but I feel that this format makes the most elite players just a little more vulnerable than they ought to be.

Anyway, these points aside, this sizes up as a great event and whether you'll be attending or just buying the stream, you're in for a real treat. If you're not planning on doing either, you should probably reconsider.
 

Vahmurka

...and I get all da rolls
Silver Member
Having 25% (32 out of 128) of the field survive Stage 1 seems excessive. At the WPC, it's 6% (16 advance out of 256) and at the US Open it's also 6% (16 advance out of 256), and at the large field Eurotour events, only 16 players get out of Stage 1.
Stu, at the Eurotours single elim stage Round 1 accommodates 32 players.

25% is pretty common I think. There are events where half of the field advances to stage 2, and that's obviously way too many. 6% is what Matchroom seem to like (and that might be too tough for my personal liking)
 

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I like these breaking rules. In a major championship, and this qualifies as such, unless a referee is racking with a rack rather than a template, alternate break is well advised. Competitively, alternate break means more close matches but fewer big comebacks, and some will like that and others will not. Personally, I'm OK with it. The big breakers will still enjoy a big advantage if they break and run at their usual rate.

I'm not sure why we need thirty two players advancing to Stage 2, which makes Stage 1 match play less important than it was in the World Pool Championship, the US Open or in any Eurotour event and exposes the elite to elimination sooner than suits this particular fan. Having 25% (32 out of 128) of the field survive Stage 1 seems excessive. At the WPC, it's 6% (16 advance out of 256) and at the US Open it's also 6% (16 advance out of 256), and at the large field Eurotour events, only 16 players get out of Stage 1. The flip side, of course, is that "win or go home" matches, which are a fan's delight, will come sooner rather than later in the event. I'll keep an open mind, but I feel that this format makes the most elite players just a little more vulnerable than they ought to be.

Anyway, these points aside, this sizes up as a great event and whether you'll be attending or just buying the stream, you're in for a real treat. If you're not planning on doing either, you should probably reconsider.
I agree, 32 is way too many to advance to Round 2. Actually, I am completely against having a Round 2 at all. It's simply not fair to the undefeated players on the winner's side. It's like they get penalized and moved to the losers bracket without ever having lost and now their in sudden death match ups. Many players travel from across the world to play and they don't even get an opportunity to avenge a late tournament loss. That makes it a lot harder to justify the travel expenses.

This seems to have all started from trying to eliminate the double dip aspect in the finals, by making it just one longer race. Which is actually a good format since playing the same finals match twice in a row is redundant and boring, but now it's evolved into this Round 2 format and it's getting out of control. Other than the finals, I wish they went back to the true double elimination format.

And don't even get me started on the changing to a wooden rack for Round 2 matches...
 

Vahmurka

...and I get all da rolls
Silver Member
Event format largely depends on how many tables the hosts can provide to handle N number of players. To my understanding, double elimination turns into single elim mainly to speed things up at a certain point.

(My eternal love seems to forever be multiple round robins as used at the IPTs... Really was bringing to the top creme de la creme)

EDIT: The Eurotour experience showed "3-point rule" is the way to go is the goal is to eliminate softbreaking. Even if diamond is racked with 9 on the spot.
 
Last edited:

Vahmurka

...and I get all da rolls
Silver Member
playing the same finals match twice in a row is redundant and boring ...
Other than the finals, I wish they went back to the true double elimination format
If omit a second final set, the format is no longer true DE :) Because you don't give a player who took the hotseat a chance in case of a final match defeat, meaning he could be eliminated with one loss only.
Of course, I understand that an extended final set in such case is your acceptable solution. Pointing only that "other than" and "true" are not going along ;)
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Promoter should not have final say. Tournament director or panel of referees should have final say.
That is like restaurant owner having final say on menu/ dishes instead of the head chef.
If I recall some years ago at US Open , I think Barry sneaked in a veteran player friend. Tournament director Jay disagreed but Barry overrode Jay.
prm1.JPG

I like these breaking rules. In a major championship, and this qualifies as such, unless a referee is racking with a rack rather than a template, alternate break is well advised. Competitively, alternate break means more close matches but fewer big comebacks, and some will like that and others will not. Personally, I'm OK with it. The big breakers will still enjoy a big advantage if they break and run at their usual rate.
In theory, winner sounds great cos of possible comebacks but in reality, comebacks are rare so winner break is overrated. On balance, I prefer alternate break over winner break. Most matches in alternate break are usually close more pressure cooker as they near finish line.
Only thing I don't like about alternate break is winner of lag breaks on hill hill. They should have win by 2 racks until a certain scoreline.
Winning lag is too minor a skill to give such a big advantage to the lag winner. I would rather they decide who wins lag by testing their skill in long pots or kicks or banks or reverse cut shots :LOL:
 

sjm

Sweating it at Derby City
Silver Member
Stu, at the Eurotours single elim stage Round 1 accommodates 32 players.

25% is pretty common I think. There are events where half of the field advances to stage 2, and that's obviously way too many. 6% is what Matchroom seem to like (and that might be too tough for my personal liking)
Thanks for that, and I stand corrected. That said, Eurotour events are set up for a field of 256 (although the last event, called the Lasko Open, had only 240) and that means that a Eurotour event is set up to have 12.5% of the field reach the single elimination stage.
 
Last edited:

kkdanamatt

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Promoter should not have final say. Tournament director or panel of referees should have final say.
That is like restaurant owner having final say on menu/ dishes instead of the head chef.
If I recall some years ago at US Open , I think Barry sneaked in a veteran player friend. Tournament director Jay disagreed but Barry overrode Jay.
View attachment 612991

In theory, winner sounds great cos of possible comebacks but in reality, comebacks are rare so winner break is overrated. On balance, I prefer alternate break over winner break. Most matches in alternate break are usually close more pressure cooker as they near finish line.
Only thing I don't like about alternate break is winner of lag breaks on hill hill. They should have win by 2 racks until a certain scoreline.
Winning lag is too minor a skill to give such a big advantage to the lag winner. I would rather they decide who wins lag by testing their skill in long pots or kicks or banks or reverse cut shots :LOL:
There is no official TD for this event.
The promoter will consult with the referees and make the final decision.
 
Last edited:
Top