Time to Revise 1Pocket Rules

[lfigueroa]

Here's the only/perfect solution for making the game faster, that at the same time, wouldn't change the rules at all ----> make the pockets bigger for the tournament - I'd do that in a heartbeat, before I would change the game in any way.....play on 5" pockets - that'll get guys shooting at their hole more, taking a chance on tougher straight in shots, tougher banks, tougher combinations, tougher caroms & 'trick shots'...this change, besides speeding the game up, would make the games much more exciting to watch.

- Ghost

I don't think that's practical.

Lou Figueroa
bring in
the pocket
enlargers!

 

[BasementDweller]

Yes, what I am recomending is that simply the penalty for a foul is changed from the fouler spotting or owing a ball to the fouler transferring a ball from his side to his opponents side (or owe one to his opponent if he has no balls). This will keep the game moving forward at all times, and reward a player for playing a great trap/safety.

I said in an earlier post that an acceptable modification (to answer Creedo's concern about hanging a ball at the end of the game) would be to not allow a transfer for the game ball that would put someone out, so that in that situation the fouler would only spot a ball, like now.

I think you are on the right track. I think you might be going just a ball too far though.

As it is now, if you foul you lose a ball.

What you are proposing is if you foul you not only lose a ball, but your opponent also gains one.

Why not split the difference, and have your opponent gain a ball if you foul?

This would keep the game moving along, but not cost a player 2 balls every time they foul. A two ball penalty is just too much in my book.

 

[genomachino]

I agree with your assessment Lou............

After what I witnessed at the US Open One pocket this year, I believe it is time to consider a couple of rule changes. I do not make these suggestions lightly, but believe that it's time to address the increasingly slow pace of the game, given current styles of play.

And so I would like to suggest two changes:

First, that a shot clock, similar to a chess clock, be utilized at major events. You come back to the player's chairs and stop your clock and start your opponent's. I do not believe players should be allotted a finite amount of time to play a game or match. However, I do believe that 30-45 seconds is plenty of time for a shot, with a 30-45 second extension, once a game, being allowed.

Second, I think it's time to get rid of or modify the three foul rule. In too many matches players are accumulating too many coins in front of their pockets.

It's boring. Even for a dyed-in-the wool 1pocket players.

Lets keep things moving. I think the "three foul rule" needs to be changed to a "two foul rule." Two consecutive fouls and it's loss of game.

What say you?

Lou Figueroa

your on the right track there for sure.

I don't play much one pocket. I played a guy that was probably 2 balls lower than me. He kept the game going for 2 hours. Bump bump and more bumps. Foul foul foul.

I'm usually trying to stay in stroke a little so i shy away from one pocket. Valuable time I can work on my own game or give some lessons.

I limit my time on the computer to 15 minutes. Don't like poker because you sit in one spot for too long.

One pocket, you better have allot of patients and time.

Good call lou...........

 

[darmoose]

I think you are on the right track. I think you might be going just a ball too far though.

As it is now, if you foul you lose a ball.

What you are proposing is if you foul you not only lose a ball, but your opponent also gains one.

Why not split the difference, and have your opponent gain a ball if you foul?

This would keep the game moving along, but not cost a player 2 balls every time they foul. A two ball penalty is just too much in my book.

BasementDweller

I personally don't mind making fouls worth two balls cause I would like to deter intentional fouls being taken to escape traps. I'd like to see anything that would make em shoot their way out, and speed the game up a lil at the same time. I play a bit of a defensive game and I'd like to see "moving" rewarded a bit more. I also don't scratch as much as I see other players I have observed, cause I believe in taking care of "Whitey" above all else.

Having said all that, I think making all fouls result in adding a ball to the "foulees" score might be enough to serve the purpose or purposes. Its certainly better that what we have currently which does not move the game forward.

For those that may think that a two ball swing is too much, I might be OK with that. The problem I see tho, is where does the ball come from if you don't take it from the "fouler"?. I don't like trying to keep everything straight with coins (too much potential confusion)

 

[darmoose]

Well I gotta say it's an interesting idea. Have you played this way?

Lou Figueroa

Lou

I haven't played this way yet, I think its going to be tough to get any gamblers to try it.

I also think basementdwellers modification is worth some thought.

 

[bstroud]

Bigger pockets.

Bill S.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou

I haven't played this way yet, I think its going to be tough to get any gamblers to try it.

I also think basementdwellers modification is worth some thought.

I agree on both count, moose. It's been an interesting discussion.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Bigger pockets.

Bill S.

ya, well, we'll just make sure to ship those in every tournament.

Lou Figueroa
let's be practical

 

[bstroud]

Lou,

You just don't have a clue.

Bigger pockets were the norm longer than you have been alive.

The best players still won just like on smaller pockets.

All smaller pockets do is slow down the game.

Bill S.

 

[naji]

I think you are on the right track. I think you might be going just a ball too far though.

As it is now, if you foul you lose a ball.

What you are proposing is if you foul you not only lose a ball, but your opponent also gains one.

Why not split the difference, and have your opponent gain a ball if you foul?

This would keep the game moving along, but not cost a player 2 balls every time they foul. A two ball penalty is just too much in my book.

The one thing it encourages is a player shooting in his opponent's hall to gain a ball, that changes the game strategy IMO. Sure you can make a rule that all balls pocketed by opponent comes out but it makes things worse.
I think if you just reduce amount of balls needed to win when opponent fouls and not transfer balls, game remains less messy and easier to keep track of.

Example, in beginning of game both need 8, player a fouls, player b need 7 now, player a fouls again, player b needs 6, and so on. Say both players need 1 ball, then if one fouls game over, you still can scratch behind it to prevent the win, but only cost you if you need less than 8. Example
player a needs 1 ball, player b needs 5, player a shoots and hang a ball, player b scratches behind it so it comes out, and player b has to go to 6 now, player a still needs 1.
bottom line never any player will need more than 8. They can take intentional as much as they want, but they know they will have much less chance of wining with a game of say 11-8 vs a game of 8-5!

Still all other rules in effect ob or cb has to hit a rail, three fouls in a raw loss of game.


I do like the idea of larger pocket, or better yet make a rule if a ball comes withing a range of the pocket it is good ball to keep, proximity pool, like the $100 trick shot.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

You just don't have a clue.

Bigger pockets were the norm longer than you have been alive.

The best players still won just like on smaller pockets.

All smaller pockets do is slow down the game.

Bill S.

I have no clue?

Well, perhaps. But at least I have my integrity.

Lou Figueroa

 

[rhatten]

"Progressive 1 Pocket" -Foul Rule adjustment

I think you are on the right track. I think you might be going just a ball too far though.

..
Why not split the difference, and have your opponent gain a ball if you foul?

This would keep the game moving along, but not cost a player 2 balls every time they foul. A two ball penalty is just too much in my book.

BasementDweller
.....

For those that may think that a two ball swing is too much, I might be OK with that. The problem I see tho, is where does the ball come from if you don't take it from the "fouler"?. I don't like trying to keep everything straight with coins (too much potential confusion)

"Progressive 1 Pocket" - 'Progressive' Foul Rule adjustment...

I think you guys are right on target here... as for as the "COIN confusion" goes there's an easy fix...there IS really LESS confusion if the coins now only represent a reduction in required balls for the opponent...

So lets say a spot is agreed to be 9-6 at the start...ie Player A goes to 9 and Player B goes to 6, from the start (basic balls spotting rules apply for game spots that larger than 15 balls,etc). Now lets say Player A gets 2 balls bringing the Score to 7-6. Now Player A chooses to take a foul (leaving player B in the stack lets say). After the foul Player A will NOW place a coin on Player B's side indicating Player B now goes to 1 less the "starting spot" of 6. Coins stay in place for the whole game for easy real time game assessment.

No balls should ever "leave from the fouler's pocket" (ie Player A in this case) nor will Player A ever Post a coin on his side of the table because he 'owes a ball'. This will never happen in ' "Progressive 1 Pocket" ' - Only the 'foulee' benefits from the foul. Now the last ball (game ball) in this Progress Foul Rule game the shooter has to make the shot to win the game... Pretty simple and a much faster game to boot.


NOW my pet peeve on 1P .... Pissed in 1 whole shots.... There needs to be a rule that you must call the BALL that goes... otherwise THAT ball or BALLS (the non-called pocketed ball IN EITHER PLAYERS POCKET) spots after that inning (or immediately if the game ball for the shooter) and now the in coming player shoots....

Scenario 1- Player A Kicks 2 rails into the back of the stack firm enough to kick (or carom) a ball(s) towards his hole... a great shot we all agree right!... but has no idea what he trying to do- ie doesn't call a ball. Mis-Kicks so bad and get a pissed in ball instead of the intended ball'.... and of coarse 8 outs... this is a mis-characterization of both the game and the LUCKY SOB 'skills'...

Scenario 2- Player A Kicks (or carom's) 2 rails into the back of the stack firm enough to kick (or carom) a ball(s) towards his hole... a great shot again we all agree right!... but this time it 3 rails back across to player B's pocket an goes into Player B hole. Again not the intended shot why should Player B get that credit?... that ball should be spotted immediately as well. Its Player B shot now as usual.

Scenario 3- Player A shoots (or banks) a 'called ball' towards his hole and makes it in his hole!...but in the same shot he caroms (or contaminates) a ball (even the opponents 'game ball') into Player B's hole unintentionally or intentionally, Player B should NOT get that ball and it should be spotted at either the end of the inning or immediately if its the last ball on the table. ...the Shooter must shoot in the Game ball to win! imo

At a 'higher skill level' (players or games), pissed in balls (Games or matches...ie balls) ruins the 'game of pool' for all interested parties. It degrades a person's skills and sloppily rewards failure, not to mention how it makes the opponents (and their fans and backers) feel about investing more in our sport... Think about where 9 ball is...its now a gaff game at best- hence the reinvent of 10 ball and games like the NEW 'American Rotation' ... call everything and ONLY get/give credit where credit is due. ONLY this approach will invite "FAIRNESS" and more interest back into pool for the players and promoters and more importantly into the public perception at large.

This game (pool in general) is 'self limiting' enough with the safety rules of the games and the equipment of today. Rewarding failure (a bad effort) is a limiting gesture for our great sport. Let's make rule changes that invite a more positive 'sporting' and/or 'gaming' culture... and I'll say PLEASE hurry.


Randy