No way. Especially in 1p. The taking of intentionals is a big part of the game.I would like to see straight pool and one pocket use the option of saying ‘shoot again’ after any foul.
Thoughts?
You can still take all the intentional fouls you want...but ‘shoot again’ creates new considerations.No way. Especially in 1p. The taking of intentionals is a big part of the game.
1p is perfect as is. Why jack with it just for 'new considerations'?? Its not gonna happen.You can still take all the intentional fouls you want...but ‘shoot again’ creates new considerations.
I think it will be good for the game..no other rules change...including the 3 foul rule.
I feel it’s an improvement...it’s absolutely fair.1p is perfect as is. Why jack with it just for 'new considerations'?? Its not gonna happen.
Strongly agreed. If fact, one of the most creative shots I've ever seen in one pocket was a foul Corey Deuel took against Darren Appleton at Derby City (?2016?) that got him out of a seemingly inescapable trap in the double hill rack. Grady Matthews always contended that the use of intentional fouls was part of one pocket's majesty. --- he also felt that they were underutilized.No way. Especially in 1p. The taking of intentionals is a big part of the game.
Agree 100%. I just don't get why people are always wanting to change/re-write rules to games that are so well established. Sounds to me like someone got seriously 'outmoved' in a 1p game.Strongly agreed. If fact, one of the most creative shots I've ever seen in one pocket was a foul Corey Deuel took against Darren Appleton at Derby City (?2016?) that got him out of a seemingly inescapable trap in the double hill rack. Grady Matthews always contended that the use of intentional fouls was part of one pocket's majesty. --- he also felt that they were underutilized.
I have similar problems in straight pool. The back scratch, in which a player stuck at the top of the table with the pack largely undisturbed, is a shot in which the player hits the cue ball into the foot rail and then hits the back of the pack to loosen a couple of pools.in the front of the rack. This tactical shot is so fundamental to straight pool that I think its elimination, which would be the consequence of permitting a "shoot again" option, would dumb down the tactical portion of the game.
How does the ‘shoot again’ option affect that situation?Strongly agreed. If fact, one of the most creative shots I've ever seen in one pocket was a foul Corey Deuel took against Darren Appleton at Derby City (?2016?) that got him out of a seemingly inescapable trap in the double hill rack. Grady Matthews always contended that the use of intentional fouls was part of one pocket's majesty. --- he also felt that they were underutilized.
I have similar problems in straight pool. The back scratch, in which a player stuck at the top of the table with the pack largely undisturbed, is a shot in which the player hits the cue ball into the foot rail and then hits the back of the pack to loosen a couple of pools.in the front of the rack. This tactical shot is so fundamental to straight pool that I think its elimination, which would be the consequence of permitting a "shoot again" option, would dumb down the tactical portion of the game.
Think I'm OK with those who want to tweak the rules, but the benefits need to be clear and the change widely accepted by the pro players as advisable.Agree 100%. I just don't get why people are always wanting to change/re-write rules to games that are so well established. Sounds to me like someone got seriously 'outmoved' in a 1p game.
The back scratch would change. Under today's rules, the back scratch to loosen balls in the front of the rack denies the long return scratch that would put you in jail. What if If I hit the back scratch so soft that I fail to loosen balls in the front of the rack? Under today's rules, opponent can reply by taking a multi rail foul to the center of the head rail that will give me a huge problem. --- but they can't do so if I have the option to put them in again whenever they take a foul. If they make me shoot again in this situation, my safety is ridiculously easy from behind a largely undisturbed rack. Hence, the percentage would be to tap into the back of the rack, and the skill that is normally required to execute a back scratch successfully is no longer required. The purist in me just doesn't like this.How does the ‘shoot again’ option affect that situation?
Perhaps the term snooker has escaped youIronic that snooker is victimized by defense syndrome as well. The table dimensions make ducking a no brainer and too often the "stately elegance" is just an interchange of duck safeties; lagging to a hook IOW...
No wonder kids rather do video games.
The shoot again option will often be exercised in snooker after a missed kick. It came up several times in the semifinal of the 2020 World Snooker Championships between Mark Selby and Ronnie O'Sullivan. The grinding, tactically oriented Selby often wins frames by wearing opponents down through forced repetition of kicks.Does anyone have an example of this being done in snooker?
I suspect the rail after contact requirement in American pool changes the tactics. Most intentional fouls in straight pool and one pocket that I have seen would not be fouls if contacting a rail isn't required.
'Grinding' is a nice way to describe Selby's style. IMO 'painful' is more like it. I find it hard to watch guys like him and Ebdon. Great players but not entertaining to me anywayThe shoot again option will often be exercised in snooker after a missed kick. It came up several times in the semifinal of the 2020 World Snooker Championships between Mark Selby and Ronnie O'Sullivan. The grinding, tactically oriented Selby often wins frames by wearing opponents down through forced repetition of kicks.