Templates vs usual wooden racks and break balls

[dquarasr]

When using a wooden rack, we determine whether a break ball is in the "rack zone" by whether the rack will interfere with the ball, and if so, it gets spotted up table.

When using a template rack, which obviously has no width outside the 14 balls racked, is a break ball considered in the rack zone if it is inside where the wooden rack WOULD be if using one, or is it left in place if none of the balls placed in the template interfere with the break ball?

For example, in this layout, the break ball is outside the 14 balls, but would be spotted if a wooden rack is used.

If I were to have drawn an outline of the rack, the 6 would be inside the lines.

 

[Zerksies]

It's probably one of them things discussed before the game if you are using a template rack. Personaly if using a template rack the ball would be kept in the same spot.

 

[fuggles]

When I played with the donut hole rack (the alpha rack) we would use a wooden rack to see if a ball is in the "rack". I would never play with a lay on the cloth template rack. It interferes with the ball movement too much.

 

[DynoDan]

Old school rules moved the breakball only if it interfered with racking (I never agreed with a mandatory outline). So, like back then, you would likely have to guess.

 

[Bob Jewett]

There is an actual rule about this. If something other than a triangle rack is used to form the re-rack, the outline of a triangle is still marked on the table to determine in/out.

In fact, Jayson Shaw's record high run (832) was made using the Perma-Rack and an outline was drawn. in Jayson's run, no ball was ever in the problem area so the rule did not come up.

Another racking device that is problematic is the Sardo rack which has no back. I guess an outline would have to be marked for it as well.

Old school rules moved the breakball only if it interfered with racking (I never agreed with a mandatory outline). So, like back then, you would likely have to guess.

The official rules have always included an outline so far as I know. The rules for the 1921 championship mentions one.

 

[DynoDan]

There is an actual rule about this. If something other than a triangle rack is used to form the re-rack, the outline of a triangle is still marked on the table to determine in/out.

In fact, Jayson Shaw's record high run (832) was made using the Perma-Rack and an outline was drawn. in Jayson's run, no ball was ever in the problem area so the rule did not come up.

Another racking device that is problematic is the Sardo rack which has no back. I guess an outline would have to be marked for it as well.

The official rules have always included an outline so far as I know. The rules for the 1921 championship mentions one.

Guess I should have been more specific re: ‘old school’ (no outline on the straight pool table in the ‘Hustler’ movie! ).
In all the years gambling at 14.1, I don’t recall anyone ever asking the room owner for a pencil to draw one. ‘Guessing’ re: whether or not racking would interfere, was always something we considered as just another ‘skill’ aspect of the game.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I am imagining the probable English (watching too many snooker matches) solution to this would be to mark the last object ball, re-rack, and then replace the OB. Is there a reason that this wouldn't be a better solution (other than tradition, of course)? It would remove the variable of different auxiliary equipment from the equation.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I am imagining the probable English (watching too many snooker matches) solution to this would be to mark the last object ball, re-rack, and then replace the OB. Is there a reason that this wouldn't be a better solution (other than tradition, of course)? It would remove the variable of different auxiliary equipment from the equation.

Thank you kindly.

There are some break balls that would be nearly unplayable if the rule was changed to "interfering with a ball in the rack." For example, a ball nearly touching the back of the rack.

 

[DynoDan]

I am imagining the probable English (watching too many snooker matches) solution to this would be to mark the last object ball, re-rack, and then replace the OB. Is there a reason that this wouldn't be a better solution (other than tradition, of course)? It would remove the variable of different auxiliary equipment from the equation.

Thank you kindly.

I believe that is already the routine in a refereed tournament, regardless. Even if the ball is outside the line, it has to be marked & replaced if it would interfere with racking.
If a very close ball doesn’t interfere when using a template, but would be inside if a line had been drawn, then it likely couldn’t be pocketed anyway. At least the run could continue with the break ball on the headspot.

 

[Corwyn_8]

There are some break balls that would be nearly unplayable if the rule was changed to "interfering with a ball in the rack." For example, a ball nearly touching the back of the rack.

Are we trying to make it so that tough leaves of the 15th ball are made easier? I would think that was the shooter's problem.

Thank you kindly.

 

[DynoDan]

Are we trying to make it so that tough leaves of the 15th ball are made easier? I would think that was the shooter's problem.

Thank you kindly.

You think breaking from the headspot is easy? Wish I had a dollar for every time I circled the rack with that two-rail breakshot attempt .

 

[Bob Jewett]

You think breaking from the headspot is easy? Wish I had a dollar for every time I circled the rack with that two-rail breakshot attempt .

One rail can work much better but you have to be more precise in where you leave the cue ball.

 

[JolietJames]

I have only played in one room that had the outline on the cloth.
Even then, it was only one one table.
Those thick wooden racks from Diamond changed the game with how many break balls were in the way of the rack.
The old Brunswick racks were very thin and the best for 14.1 back in that day imo.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I have only played in one room that had the outline on the cloth.
Even then, it was only one one table.
Those thick wooden racks from Diamond changed the game with how many break balls were in the way of the rack.
The old Brunswick racks were very thin and the best for 14.1 back in that day imo.

I think the Delta-13 is the best of the triangle racks if you want a tight rack. It's also pretty thin. But for the sake of your ears and those around you, get the inserts to damp the sound.

 

[Corwyn_8]

You think breaking from the headspot is easy? Wish I had a dollar for every time I circled the rack with that two-rail breakshot attempt .

No, Bob Jewett thinks that they are better than something he calls "unplayable".

Thank you kindly.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I think the Delta-13 is the best of the triangle racks if you want a tight rack. It's also pretty thin. But for the sake of your ears and those around you, get the inserts to damp the sound.

I have a wood rack that is angled, and designed to go over the balls and push them together. It works well for me, but I had to cut down the outer edges to prevent it from being way too large and interfering with 14.1 racking. Can't find anyone selling them now. Anyone else remember those, or have thoughts on how well they worked for other people?

Thank you kindly.

 

[JolietJames]

I don't recall a rack with an angle to it. Does it sit on the balls and not the cloth?
The racks we use are less than 1/4" thick, giving a bit more freedom in break-out ball location to the balls.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I have a wood rack that is angled, and designed to go over the balls and push them together. It works well for me, but I had to cut down the outer edges to prevent it from being way too large and interfering with 14.1 racking. Can't find anyone selling them now. Anyone else remember those, or have thoughts on how well they worked for other people?

Thank you kindly.

Yes, I've seen that kind of a rack. As I recall, the rack touched/pressed the balls on the back of the rack as well. I think one problem with them was it's harder to drop the balls in. Mostly, people are used to using a simple triangle.

 

[Corwyn_8]

Yes, I've seen that kind of a rack. As I recall, the rack touched/pressed the balls on the back of the rack as well. I think one problem with them was it's harder to drop the balls in. Mostly, people are used to using a simple triangle.

Yes. I usually place the balls on the table in roughly the right place, and place the triangle over them. While true, a lot of different methods are currently used, and I find it odd that that one didn't make it in the marketplace of ideas.

Thank you kindly.