Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules

[yobagua]

Ok I can see to a shot clock. But like in poker let the player call for it. Cause only a player can understand the depth of the situation. Let the player call for a 60 second shot clock and the referee still keep the slow play rule in effect as well.

The reason I acquaint it with deeper forms of art is in response to general unknowing public who make comment like "One pocket is like watching paint dry". That's not it. Its that they don't know what they are watching. Its those same boobs who hate baseball and prefer a game where 2 opponents smash into each other with brute force. Now that's easy to understand.

People hate the uptable game because they don't know what they are seeing. Balls being put into position. Defense moves to put the rock solid against the rail or frozen to another ball. People hate to see other people think. They prefer a punch in the face and some blood spilling right now. Like art you have to know what youre looking at before you can appreciate it. But then you have to change not the game.

PS Billy I hate your solution to a any 3 foul you lose the game rule. The 3 game foul/ loss in succession is already a compromise. Its corrupting the game and making it just a faster one for those who are nonplaying it. Would you make the same rule for 14.1 or 9 ball? Any 3 fouls you lose. Wake up Bill. Youre trying to satisfy someone who cant be satisfied because they don't know the game.

 

[lfigueroa]

Ok I can see to a shot clock. But like in poker let the player call for it. Cause only a player can understand the depth of the situation. Let the player call for a 60 second shot clock and the referee still keep the slow play rule in effect as well.

The reason I acquaint it with deeper forms of art is in response to general unknowing public who make comment like "One pocket is like watching paint dry". That's not it. Its that they don't know what they are watching. Its those same boobs who hate baseball and prefer a game where 2 opponents smash into each other with brute force. Now that's easy to understand.

People hate the uptable game because they don't know what they are seeing. Balls being put into position. Defense moves to put the rock solid against the rail or frozen to another ball. People hate to see other people think. They prefer a punch in the face and some blood spilling right now. Like art you have to know what youre looking at before you can appreciate it. But then you have to change not the game.

PS Billy I hate your solution to a any 3 foul you lose the game rule. The 3 game foul/ loss in succession is already a compromise. Its corrupting the game and making it just a faster one for those who are nonplaying it. Would you make the same rule for 14.1 or 9 ball? Any 3 fouls you lose. Wake up Bill. Youre trying to satisfy someone who cant be satisfied because they don't know the game.

Well, I'm not one of those guys who doesn't appreciate the up table game. Having been in a bunch of US Open One Pockets I have come to appreciate their subtlety. And I think Billy suggestion has merit. So I'm not sure why you think guys like Billy and myself and others willing to entertain changes (like Grady) "don't know the game."

Lou Figueroa

 

[Fatboy]

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

a finite clock would be better, not a shot clock. that way if a guy needs lots of time to get out of the break because there isnt a obvious shot thats ok, but he looses if he burns up all his time. they do that in backgammon, you can take all the time you like on any move you choose, but if your time is up and you aint closed it out-game over.

it would be difficult to set up a finate closck on a match but it could be started each rack for say 30 minutes, that way each guy has 15 minutes


hell that dont even work come to think of it,

leave it be, or do what BS said take the 2 corner balls off, that would speed things up a good bit, and change the break, more offensive game.

 

[yobagua]

Well, I'm not one of those guys who doesn't appreciate the up table game. Having been in a bunch of US Open One Pockets I have come to appreciate their subtlety. And I think Billy suggestion has merit. So I'm not sure why you think guys like Billy and myself and others willing to entertain changes (like Grady) "don't know the game."

Lou Figueroa

I do not mean to cast aspersions to your lack of knowledge and respect your interest in making beneficial changes to the game. However Grady was speaking as a producer of an event. You and Stu were speaking as viewers.
I myself do not and will not play under those conditions. If that makes your tournament easier to live with than as I said I have nothing to say about that. If you want to add neon colored balls or bathing beauties with inning cards to announce game status then fine. Don't laugh Ive seen worse suggested.
But to institute rules that changes the game does not set right with me.
One pocket came from the back room of pool halls when games ran after curfew for folks who gambled. A game where losing meant sleeping in the street. and gave wisdom and strategy over those with brute strength and force. Its rule did not come from a committee. In fact it was a game looked down upon by those in the billiards establishment. The rules came from the professionals that played it.
The any 3 foul loss rule is ridiculous. Try that in 14.1 or 9 ball and see how those that love that game respond. And for why? To speed up the game? To keep you awake at ringside?
If they had disqualified Ali for ropa doping instead of coming out to fight George Foreman in the center of the ring we would have missed one of the greatest strategical fights ever. Nope I disagree with Billy and think even he thinks its a compromise.

 

[darmoose]

How bout this for a starter

Having read all the suggestions, and for tournament play only, I think the first thing to try is a shot clock giving a player a minute or so to shoot, at penalty of a ball to be paid after his inning is over if he violates the rule.

This keeps all the intricacies of the game intact, while putting a gentle pressure on everbody to speed things along.

With this rule a player can still take more time if he feels it is that important, and pay a ball for the privilage, just like an intentional scratch. I don't think he will over use it if he expects to win.

 

[cajunfats]

Novel Idea

Many years ago, I was goofing around with the idea of a table design strictly for one pocket, incorporating a carom table with only two pockets. Also, the pocket openings would be somewhere around 5 and 13/16 to 5 and 15/16 wide. I always thought the ability to utilize the corners uptable would encourage better skilled players to be more offensive to gain position.

I had even purchased a used 10 ft. Gold Crown Carom table back in the 90's to experiment with, but had to shelve the idea when I moved.

Concerning rules for one pocket tournaments, there have to be time limitations and that is understandable. I don't have a problem with the 3 foul rule, but would prefer not having one during tournaments with time restraints.

This thread has me thinking again.

cajunfats

 

[Fast Lenny]

wow, what a great idea about total fouls, Lenny. I don't know about 5 or 6, but maybe 4...

Lou Figueroa

Yeah I think its ridiculous for someone to owe more than 5 balls in a game playing even because usually the game goes into grind gear and its rare that someone does come back.

 

[Paul Schofield]

One-Pocket rules are so simple and beautiful. Get 8 in your hole. That's it.

Call nothing, no stripes/solids, no rotation, far fewer rules than other games.

One-Pocket at it's very best is purely a gambling game. Attempting to convert a gambling pool game to a viable pool tournament game might not be possible without destroying the game itself.

 

[Fatboy]

One-Pocket rules are so simple and beautiful. Get 8 in your hole. That's it.

Call nothing, no stripes/solids, no rotation, far fewer rules than other games.

One-Pocket at it's very best is purely a gambling game. Attempting to convert a gambling pool game to a viable pool tournament game might not be possible without destroying the game itself.

Simplest rules, perhaps the most complex game. Very cool!:smile:

 

[naji]

wow, what a great idea about total fouls, Lenny. I don't know about 5 or 6, but maybe 4...

Lou Figueroa

Apology if someone said this before, i did not read all posts!!

Possible solution, if player A owe 2 balls and fouled again, then reduce amount of balls player B needs to win. Say player A owes 4 then player B only need 6 (8-2) to win. If both owe 2 and one fouled then reduce the owed balls by one, and so on.

Or better yet, do not owe balls, just reduce amount of balls needed to win by other player. this will make a player shoots at his hall and certainly shorten the game time for streamers.

I know one pocket i have been playing it for 30 years; some might say it is test of ones patience, endurance and desire to win skill, sure if they are not in a tournament where everyone is waiting on them.

 

[lfigueroa]

I do not mean to cast aspersions to your lack of knowledge and respect your interest in making beneficial changes to the game. However Grady was speaking as a producer of an event. You and Stu were speaking as viewers.
I myself do not and will not play under those conditions. If that makes your tournament easier to live with than as I said I have nothing to say about that. If you want to add neon colored balls or bathing beauties with inning cards to announce game status then fine. Don't laugh Ive seen worse suggested.
But to institute rules that changes the game does not set right with me.
One pocket came from the back room of pool halls when games ran after curfew for folks who gambled. A game where losing meant sleeping in the street. and gave wisdom and strategy over those with brute strength and force. Its rule did not come from a committee. In fact it was a game looked down upon by those in the billiards establishment. The rules came from the professionals that played it.
The any 3 foul loss rule is ridiculous. Try that in 14.1 or 9 ball and see how those that love that game respond. And for why? To speed up the game? To keep you awake at ringside?
If they had disqualified Ali for ropa doping instead of coming out to fight George Foreman in the center of the ring we would have missed one of the greatest strategical fights ever. Nope I disagree with Billy and think even he thinks its a compromise.

I was not speaking as a viewer. I was speaking as a player who has played in many, many 1pocket tournaments including DCCs and US Opens. And I don't know why you're going off with silly ideas like inning girls and bathing beauties. I, and others, are talking about subtle changes to enhance the game.

Almost all sporting rules evolve.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Having read all the suggestions, and for tournament play only, I think the first thing to try is a shot clock giving a player a minute or so to shoot, at penalty of a ball to be paid after his inning is over if he violates the rule.

This keeps all the intricacies of the game intact, while putting a gentle pressure on everbody to speed things along.

With this rule a player can still take more time if he feels it is that important, and pay a ball for the privilage, just like an intentional scratch. I don't think he will over use it if he expects to win.

I think that would be a smart stet. But I also think something needs to be done about players taking intentionals and ending up with a line of coins in front of their pockets at major events.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Many years ago, I was goofing around with the idea of a table design strictly for one pocket, incorporating a carom table with only two pockets. Also, the pocket openings would be somewhere around 5 and 13/16 to 5 and 15/16 wide. I always thought the ability to utilize the corners uptable would encourage better skilled players to be more offensive to gain position.

I had even purchased a used 10 ft. Gold Crown Carom table back in the 90's to experiment with, but had to shelve the idea when I moved.

Concerning rules for one pocket tournaments, there have to be time limitations and that is understandable. I don't have a problem with the 3 foul rule, but would prefer not having one during tournaments with time restraints.

This thread has me thinking again.

cajunfats

I believe a table like you describe actually existed for a while somewhere in the midwest. Also, Greg Sullivan has talked about making some tables this way, just to see what would happened.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

One-Pocket rules are so simple and beautiful. Get 8 in your hole. That's it.

Call nothing, no stripes/solids, no rotation, far fewer rules than other games.

One-Pocket at it's very best is purely a gambling game. Attempting to convert a gambling pool game to a viable pool tournament game might not be possible without destroying the game itself.

If the game is truly great, which it is, it will certainly survive a minor tweak or two.

Straight pool used to be just bust them wide open every rack until someone figured out that leaving that last ball on the table and making the shooter call it to keep the run going might make for a better game ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Apology if someone said this before, i did not read all posts!!

Possible solution, if player A owe 2 balls and fouled again, then reduce amount of balls player B needs to win. Say player A owes 4 then player B only need 6 (8-2) to win. If both owe 2 and one fouled then reduce the owed balls by one, and so on.

Or better yet, do not owe balls, just reduce amount of balls needed to win by other player. this will make a player shoots at his hall and certainly shorten the game time for streamers.

I know one pocket i have been playing it for 30 years; some might say it is test of ones patience, endurance and desire to win skill, sure if they are not in a tournament where everyone is waiting on them.

Not a bad idea... but it might be a little too radical for some guys. I fear some guy's heads would just burst into flames.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Chess clock is a great idea for pool matches. Clock hits zero...you lose. Throw the cube in there and it's a sport!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[leto1776]

while I.will occasionally ...

Play the game, I'd rather watch paint dry than watch two people play one pocket. It's just not a spectator's game.

 

[Put_upor_shutup]

Chess clock is a great idea for pool matches. Clock hits zero...you lose. Throw the cube in there and it's a sport!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

I think in tournaments a shot clock would be alright. Not for gambling though. I thin the cube should be mandatory in money matches. Makes these boys gamble one time.

 

[galipeau]

I share this opinion, in spades.
While your waiting for you're time at the table, read a book. Catch up on some Facebook shit. Grab a snack. :smile:

love it! lol, talk about Adult ADHD!

I love watching an exciting one pocket match. the game is fantastic as is, but i wouldn't mind watching a match with one of these rule changes mentioned either (just to see how it plays out).

 

[Tobermory]

I found the recent CSI One-Pocket Open very difficult to enjoy.

My biggest complaint is players who come to the table in the eighth or tenth inning when their opponent has moved only one ball on his previous shot and act as if they have to restudy the entire rack. Too many times I could look immediately at a position and say in two seconds, "Well, what you'll do is knock the eight ball to the side rail and hide the cue behind the three." Then the player would study the table for five minutes and finally--you guessed it--knock the eight ball to the side rail and hide the cue ball behind the three!! That is unwatchable.