Three foul rule...Keep it or toss it?

[the420trooper]

here is the best way to handle three fouls.

first, you need the three foul rule because in 9-ball if the one ball gets jammed into a pocket blocked completely by two other balls, then the players just foul back and forth, and starting a game over is not an option in my opinion.

second, the only problem i have with the three foul rule is when the first foul is from the break. a guy breaks perfect, scratches, then there is a hanger safety. now the guy is on 2 and he has done nothing. so just make it so the break can not count as one of the three fouls. im sure we can handle this even though i know we are just pool players.

thats the best, fairest way to handle it i think.

It's widely agreed that the break is the most important shot in any pool game. That being the case, why should a foul on the break carry less penalty than any other foul?

You imply that a person who scratches on the break has done nothing wrong....There are times when you break perfectly, and the CB gets kicked into a pocket out of nowhere...But, the majority of the time, a scratch on the break is the logical result of a bad shot.

Pool is not always fair, but when you make a mistake on such an important shot, you deserve to be punished for it, imo.

Or, we could just rerack and give the offending player another break? After all, it wasn't his fault that he scratched...

 

[Black-Balled]

Another keep it vote here.

 

[macneilb]

i respectfully just don't think it should be a rule...

This is the logic I'm seeing most people use to rationalize the 3 foul rule: Well, it takes great skill to lock someone up 3 times in one rack and make them foul 3 times, and that skill should be rewarded by a win, right?...

Well......

If you're going to add another way to win other than running the balls because it takes great skill...then why should you not allowed to win by successfully kicking out of/ or escaping 3 safeties in one rack? It takes just as much skill if not more to escape a great safety does it not? Why then should that skill not be rewarded by a win?

My point is there should only be one way to win a game, which is by making balls and getting out. Yes, safeties are an integral part of the game and they are an art in themselves. However, saying that playing 3 successful safeties in one rack should be rewarded with a win because it takes skill just isn't logical. Getting out of 3 safeties takes the same amount of skill if not more so that should be deserving of a victory by the same logic should it not?

Before anyone starts dogging me for this, I absolutely do believe that safety play is an integral part of the game. I just believe there should be a balance - if the rules say someone can win by playing 3 successful safeties, then I say I should be able to win by succesfully escaping 3 safeties. That, or, we can both only win by one manner: Getting out.

 

[Tin Man]

intentional fouls

The most important aspect of the three fould rule is that it limits intentional foul.

Many times the lowest numbered ball is tied up on the rail and the best you can do is thin it and hook the guy or leave them long with no shot. If there is no 3 fould rule they can just pick up the cue ball and hand it to you, or worse, tie up other balls.

If the 3 foul rule is in effect I know that they will have to take a kick and break those balls open at some point.

In other words, take out 3 fouls only if you want to take out intentional fouls and make 9 ball honest effort (no good, hard to enforce). Personally, I like the strategy of 3 fouls myself...

 

[mapman72]

I've been three fouled and three fouled people. I have always liked the rule, but this thread got me thinking...would removing the 3-foul rule make players more aggressive?

The example from a previous post where a player scratches on the break, there are balls tied up, and their opponent plays two good safes to the win the game. Well, without three foul, perhaps the incoming player will push the 1 ball toward the 9 to set up 1-9 combo after getting ball in hand or attempt to tackle a risky layout. Just playing devil's advocate a little, but I think it's an interesting discussion to have.