Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
That's just not what happened though. There were 64 players in the tournament and only a couple of matches involving the same couple of players were an issue. In particular it was the last couple of one pocket TV matches. And other than a mild warning nothing was done by the TD to enforce speeding up play that I am aware of. Either a shot clock or some kind of enforcement at the TV table would've taken care of it.
If you want a "tweak" I understand. Everything can stand a tweak. But I love an uptable game. If it bores you "aficionados" thats another thing. Look into yourselves. Dont blame the game. Watching a 100 ball run in 14.1 bores the hell out of me. Should we institute one bank per 50 ball. A 2 rail bank per 75 ball run and add a kick shot per 100 baller to keep my interest. You straight pool fans keep your game pristine. Ill keep mine.
Should we then turn classics like Shakespeare or Dickens into comic book form to make it interesting for those who cant read? Oh wait they done did that.
Billy you know the taking of scratches is a legitimate move. When an army retreats its not because it is losing but to trap. Its the result of that trap that is important. If you think Wyatt Earp got on a street and shot people down on a fastest guy competition you dont understand history. Its for the fans who never shot someone or got shot at.. He trapped people with the best of them.
Should we then turn classics like Shakespeare or Dickens into comic book form to make it interesting for those who cant read? Oh wait they done did that.
Billy you know the taking of scratches is a legitimate move. When an army retreats its not because it is losing but to trap. Its the result of that trap that is important. If you think Wyatt Earp got on a street and shot people down on a fastest guy competition you dont understand history. Its for the fans who never shot someone or got shot at.. He trapped people with the best of them.
It is in the early rounds that most of these SLOW players bog the brackets down.
We all know that SLOW play impacts a lot more than the two players in the long match.
I don't like messing with the tournament rules. I am not a purist, but I do believe that if it is not broke, don't fix it.
OnePocket.org rules do not address 'slow play' they leave it up to the 'general rules' category of the World Standardized Rules which state;
Under Section 6; FOULS
6.15 Slow Play
If the referee feels that a player is playing too slowly, he may advise that player to speed up his play. If the player does not speed up, the referee may impose a shot clock on that match that applies to both players. If the shooter exceeds the time limit specified for the tournament, a standard foul will be called and the incoming player is rewarded according to the rules applicable to the game being played. (Rule 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct may also apply.)
If the tournament officials will take the time to enforce the rules as they should be the slow players just might speed up their play.
Changing the game because of 'slow play' is not (IMO) a good enough reason. Increasing the penalty(s) for slow play effects the culprits not the game.
Enforce the rules, and make 'Slow Play' violation more severe.
We all know that SLOW play impacts a lot more than the two players in the long match.
I don't like messing with the tournament rules. I am not a purist, but I do believe that if it is not broke, don't fix it.
OnePocket.org rules do not address 'slow play' they leave it up to the 'general rules' category of the World Standardized Rules which state;
Under Section 6; FOULS
6.15 Slow Play
If the referee feels that a player is playing too slowly, he may advise that player to speed up his play. If the player does not speed up, the referee may impose a shot clock on that match that applies to both players. If the shooter exceeds the time limit specified for the tournament, a standard foul will be called and the incoming player is rewarded according to the rules applicable to the game being played. (Rule 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct may also apply.)
If the tournament officials will take the time to enforce the rules as they should be the slow players just might speed up their play.
Changing the game because of 'slow play' is not (IMO) a good enough reason. Increasing the penalty(s) for slow play effects the culprits not the game.
Enforce the rules, and make 'Slow Play' violation more severe.
Steve,
Look I agree with you but without a shot clock matches can and will go up table and because these guys can make anything from almost anywhere and they treat each other like they are nuclear and give each other zero air and thus you get games like the finals (which I loved except for the result).
I still like my idea of BIH for second foul. That would change the tempo without clock or spotting balls.
Nick
It is not the "Up the table/uptown game" that is slowing the One pocket game . The thing that is slowing the game is : the player standing at the table looking at the balls for ever (Call it Taberskization )
After the first US open one pocket held in a down town Casino in Las Vegas few years ago ( In the past it was in kalamazoo,MI), I told Mark Griffin to introduce the Time clock. He said ," No".
I not only avoid playing slow players but also avoid socialization and even a hand shake with them.
After the first US open one pocket held in a down town Casino in Las Vegas few years ago ( In the past it was in kalamazoo,MI), I told Mark Griffin to introduce the Time clock. He said ," No".
I not only avoid playing slow players but also avoid socialization and even a hand shake with them.
Well put yobagua! Uptable game is just a part of THE game, If it bores you watch something else.
The one thing I know.....
is that the people that know the least, or play the least One Pocket complain the most. One pocket is the most challenging game on a pool table by far. In the pool world I have known for the past fifty years, very few players have attained greatness that did not play at least very good one pocket. For me, who plays nothing else at present, its biggest attraction is that the current rules make for great battles of conflicting styles, and as has been said several times the best "shooter" don't have to win.
I cannot begin to count the times I have either witnessed or experienced a situation in a game of one pocket where one player seemed to have the "dead nuts", or was conversely trapped in a situation that spelled loss, only to have a miraculous lightning bolt strike and completely reverse the game. This is what makes one pocket exciting for me, and the rules of the game are what make this possible. Its never over til its over.
So... I am OK with maybe a time clock (so long as it provides enough time to make decisions) and perhaps the penalty for taking tooo long is a ball, and you get a new clock. With this rule you can still control your own destiny
I also don't mind spotting some number of balls from the kitchen, so long as its always more than one ball, so a straight in shot is not possible, but still balls are moved down table and more in play.
is that the people that know the least, or play the least One Pocket complain the most. One pocket is the most challenging game on a pool table by far. In the pool world I have known for the past fifty years, very few players have attained greatness that did not play at least very good one pocket. For me, who plays nothing else at present, its biggest attraction is that the current rules make for great battles of conflicting styles, and as has been said several times the best "shooter" don't have to win.
I cannot begin to count the times I have either witnessed or experienced a situation in a game of one pocket where one player seemed to have the "dead nuts", or was conversely trapped in a situation that spelled loss, only to have a miraculous lightning bolt strike and completely reverse the game. This is what makes one pocket exciting for me, and the rules of the game are what make this possible. Its never over til its over.
So... I am OK with maybe a time clock (so long as it provides enough time to make decisions) and perhaps the penalty for taking tooo long is a ball, and you get a new clock. With this rule you can still control your own destiny
I also don't mind spotting some number of balls from the kitchen, so long as its always more than one ball, so a straight in shot is not possible, but still balls are moved down table and more in play.
So if you're on 2, you lose the ability to use a foul to clear a ball out of your opponent's pocket! That would magnify the incentive to only use intentional fouls judiciously.
With most of these proposals, my main concern is that players will respond to the change in order to trigger certain rules.
Maybe I don't pursue a viable runout because you already have 1 foul and I want to just keep locking you up till you get to 2? Maybe I start putting balls up table on purpose because I want them spotted? If there's a chess clock, maybe I do things that just to make you burn your time, drawing out the game. Etc.The risk of unintended consequences is large.
I agree that this is primarily a tournament issue. In heads up play, if I don't feel like dinking the balls for an hour in an uptable game, I can just take a few fliers and either be a hero or move on to the next game (my expected $/hour might be more favorable that way). If it happens every game, I can just find someone else to play. Neither of those options are viable in a tournament.
I think for tournaments there is no way around limiting the time. You can do that by changing many of the rules - or you can do it by limiting the time. I think limiting the time is the best option as it keeps most of the current rules intact. Of course, once the time is limited, you must institute a shot clock.
If one person is up at the end of the time (30 minutes max per game) they win. I like the one idea posted that after the time is up you play one ball one pocket if it's a tie, first person to pocket the ball wins that game. Max 10 minutes on the shootout. If no winner there than shoot spot shots from the kitchen?
I like Billy's 3 foul is a loss of game. You can foul however you like, but after three you lose that game. It's a little harsh, but how many games have you unintentionally fouled three times in? It happens for sure, and I've done it a few times in one pocket but it's certainly not common.
One other possibility comes from one of the greatest one pocket players, Ronnie Allen. Look at the bottom of his interview on onepocket.org . Ronnie doesn't get into all the details but essentially counts all your balls pocketed vs just a game win/loss. At the end of the game if you pocket 6 balls and your opponent pockets 8, the score is 6 to 8? Not sure if the rules provide an extra point for the win. The end of a three game match could look something like 24 to 14, providing a more accurate summary than 3 to 1.
By doing this and playing round robin (I assume) you can have a leader board similar to golf where you can see who is in the lead throughout the tournament.
I assume the top 4 at some point have a playoff for first place? The interview didn't get into all the details but it sounds interesting and makes every ball count.
If one person is up at the end of the time (30 minutes max per game) they win. I like the one idea posted that after the time is up you play one ball one pocket if it's a tie, first person to pocket the ball wins that game. Max 10 minutes on the shootout. If no winner there than shoot spot shots from the kitchen?
I like Billy's 3 foul is a loss of game. You can foul however you like, but after three you lose that game. It's a little harsh, but how many games have you unintentionally fouled three times in? It happens for sure, and I've done it a few times in one pocket but it's certainly not common.
One other possibility comes from one of the greatest one pocket players, Ronnie Allen. Look at the bottom of his interview on onepocket.org . Ronnie doesn't get into all the details but essentially counts all your balls pocketed vs just a game win/loss. At the end of the game if you pocket 6 balls and your opponent pockets 8, the score is 6 to 8? Not sure if the rules provide an extra point for the win. The end of a three game match could look something like 24 to 14, providing a more accurate summary than 3 to 1.
By doing this and playing round robin (I assume) you can have a leader board similar to golf where you can see who is in the lead throughout the tournament.
I assume the top 4 at some point have a playoff for first place? The interview didn't get into all the details but it sounds interesting and makes every ball count.
I think basic one pocket should not be changed.
But a lot of times the basic games get modified for tournaments.
For example there's no shot clock in basic 10b, but in a tournament there often is.
In basic 9b you can sink the 9 on the break, but in a tournament it's often disallowed
(either in the lower corners or altogether).
It's tough to make a modification that doesn't drastically change the game.
What happens with the chess clock idea if someone runs out of time? Automatic loss?
What if he's ahead in points?
I think the uptable game is the problem, not the amount of time spent per shot.
Both players choose to prolong the game out waiting for a mistake.
You must do something that removes that choice or gives them a more attractive option.
I like the idea of spotting balls. Two at a time. More than that is kind of an unusual situation and
might change the game (so nevermind spotting 5 balls at once from the kitchen).
Spotting only one would drastically change the game as it's a free shot to either hole from almost anywhere. So spot 2 balls at a time when too many get uptable.
Maybe every time the uptable count exceeds 5.
But a lot of times the basic games get modified for tournaments.
For example there's no shot clock in basic 10b, but in a tournament there often is.
In basic 9b you can sink the 9 on the break, but in a tournament it's often disallowed
(either in the lower corners or altogether).
It's tough to make a modification that doesn't drastically change the game.
What happens with the chess clock idea if someone runs out of time? Automatic loss?
What if he's ahead in points?
I think the uptable game is the problem, not the amount of time spent per shot.
Both players choose to prolong the game out waiting for a mistake.
You must do something that removes that choice or gives them a more attractive option.
I like the idea of spotting balls. Two at a time. More than that is kind of an unusual situation and
might change the game (so nevermind spotting 5 balls at once from the kitchen).
Spotting only one would drastically change the game as it's a free shot to either hole from almost anywhere. So spot 2 balls at a time when too many get uptable.
Maybe every time the uptable count exceeds 5.
I've seen a few matches with spotting any balls over 4 that went into the kitchen, IE only four allowed up table at one time (I think they're still on youtube). I thought it looked pretty bad. It was like a machine, kick balls to end of table... spot them up... kick them back... spot them up... I'm not sure it actually did shorten the time but it seemed to significantly change the style of the game (and not for the better).
As I said, I was addressing tournament 1pocket, which I believe does need to change. And I think something could be done -- I especially like Billy's suggestion.
Lou Figueroa
I can see the merit to this idea, but it's a little too radical for my taste.
Lou Figueroa
I think a shot clock would have helped, but I also think there needs to be a rules tweak to keep guys from taking too many scratches. Otherwise you might as well put a piggy bank in front of each pocket.
Lou Figueroa
Spotting balls to avoid up table game
Here's the link to a match with Silver Ochoa vs Nick Spano where they had to spot balls from the kitchen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7yJPQ1OsYQ
I think it was confusing and added a dimension that I didn't find compelling.
Here's the link to a match with Silver Ochoa vs Nick Spano where they had to spot balls from the kitchen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7yJPQ1OsYQ
I think it was confusing and added a dimension that I didn't find compelling.
You are mischaracterizing my point. I like an up table game too. But at a tournament, some games get too drawn out for anyone to enjoy.
And pool is not Shakespeare. It is a game and all games evolve overtime, often because styles of play evolve and the game and the play need to be put back into balance.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
Right, it's a tournament issue.
And as I've been saying, the chess clock would not assign a finite time to the match, just to the shot. Otherwise, as you point out, guys would game the clock.
Lou Figueroa