US Open Racking Questions and Comments
- Thread starter Twebble
- Start date
Jerry Forsyth
Well-known member
Spot the Nine
The Canadian 9-Ball Tour has always had the rule that if the 9 goes on the snap that it spots and the breaker keeps shooting. In two years they have had not a single argument. To me it has always been pitiful that the pro game of choice (9-Ball) can be won by luck. If I wrote the rules the 9 would spot and the game would be call shot. Luck has no place in the pro arena.
The Canadian 9-Ball Tour has always had the rule that if the 9 goes on the snap that it spots and the breaker keeps shooting. In two years they have had not a single argument. To me it has always been pitiful that the pro game of choice (9-Ball) can be won by luck. If I wrote the rules the 9 would spot and the game would be call shot. Luck has no place in the pro arena.
Amen. Testify.Jerry Forsyth said:
I feel that if the nine go's on the break it is a win. You shouldn't change the games rules for other accommodations. I do feel, and insist on, any match that I have anything to do with, that if it's rack your own, then the opponent has the right to reject a rack if he feels it is not racked correctly, according to the rules.
Dick
Dick
rhncue said:
Not all players know what a good rack is versus a bad rack. If the 9 is allowed to be made on the break than that gives those that have seen Joe Tuckers "Racking Secrets" a lot more of an advantage than those that haven't.
Make it half way then, like at the Predator 10 ball championships, cannot be made in the bottom corners or it is respotted, anywhere else is good.
Just my 2 cents.
Twebble said:
I agree!
However, last time I went to the U.S. Open, they were racking the balls with the 9-ball placed on the spot, using the Sardo rack.
I don't know if it is the same now or not.
Also, at one U.S. Open, on the TV table, using the Sardo rack, BCn was giving away 500 bucks to any player who made the 9 on the break.
Believe it or not, there weren't too many 500 bucks given out that year, not as many as one might think!
JAM
yeah, I think the little gap is needed to make the 9 on the break. If the top 3 are tight, or the entire rack is tight from a sardo, it's got about 0 chance of going in except for a lucky kiss from another ball.
I want to agree with Jerry, but I kinda wonder if it'd be the #1 game in the pro arena if all the luck were removed. It wouldn't get as much TV attention prolly.
I want to agree with Jerry, but I kinda wonder if it'd be the #1 game in the pro arena if all the luck were removed. It wouldn't get as much TV attention prolly.
One morning at the 2003 U.S. Open, I think it was, Carmine Sardo and I ate breakfast together at the Holiday Inn (host hotel) buffet. This was the year that BCn was offering 500 bucks for any player who made the 9 on the break on the TV table. Every player who got the chance to play on that TV table was gunning for the 9 on the snap. 
It was interesting to hear the players sharing breaking strategies to make the 9 on the snap throughout the event. Everybody seemed to have an opinion what worked best. I can't remember how many people did do it, but it was only a handful, surprisingly.
At breakfast, I decided to ask Carmine what the best break was for the Sardo rack. He stated that a medium-speed break -- not too hard and not too soft -- was the BEST break for the Sardo rack.
Picture of Carmine Sardo and Keith McCready at the 2004 U.S. Open.
JAM
It was interesting to hear the players sharing breaking strategies to make the 9 on the snap throughout the event. Everybody seemed to have an opinion what worked best. I can't remember how many people did do it, but it was only a handful, surprisingly.
At breakfast, I decided to ask Carmine what the best break was for the Sardo rack. He stated that a medium-speed break -- not too hard and not too soft -- was the BEST break for the Sardo rack.
Picture of Carmine Sardo and Keith McCready at the 2004 U.S. Open.
JAM
Attachments
Yes, I totally agree that the nine ball on the break should be spotted if made in the bottom two pockets in a rack your own format. (Definately in a tournament as huge as the US Open). Even if a player doesn't try and set the rack intentionally, it just seems to go at critical times that it should'nt. I've been on the losing end and the winning end of hill-hill matches where the nine ball has gone on the break and someone always seems to get upset. I lost a match in the US open a couple years back where I had five nine balls broken in on me in a rack your own format! I kept checking the rack as my opponent openly advised me to, and as the rack looked perfect to me ,the nine just kept shooting in? I've found that certain tables have "hot spots", where the nine just seems to always travel to the corner pockets. Now a days almost all of the pro events are aternating break format. Now this can be extremely frustrating when a player battles back from way down to tie a match hill-hill ,only to watch your opponent have the break and blast the nine straight in because of a loose ball in the rack. Alot of times now when I have matched up with players in tournaments or in money games one of us has asked the other one if we would like to spot the nine off the break and the other has completely agreed. The Blaze tour has switched to this rule this season and it seems like 99% of the players love this rule and would'nt change it for anything!
Just my opinion, but I don't think you should take the Nine on the Break out of the game. Just as I think Winner Breaks is better. Removing these two things takes a lot of the excitement out of 9-Ball.
I think it's great to see a player string racks. And then his opponent must do the same when it's his turn, to get back into the match. THAT is exciting! And so is seeing the Nine go on the Break.
Just put them on tough tables and none of this is easy to do. People argue that alternate breaks makes the game more "fair". I disagree totally. Take a look at Straight Pool. One guy comes to the table and runs 100+ balls. It can take 45 minutes or longer, and his opponent must sit there and take it. When he finally gets a turn, he better make a high run also or he's done.
Pool is not an equal opportunity sport, like Tennis or Golf. That is one thing that makes it unique. You can keep your opponent in his chair if you play good enough. This is part of the allure of the game. Change the rules and 9-Ball becomes boring. Then people say we need a "new" game. RUBBISH!
9-Ball (or Ten Ball) is damn exciting with the old rules. Leave it alone!
I think it's great to see a player string racks. And then his opponent must do the same when it's his turn, to get back into the match. THAT is exciting! And so is seeing the Nine go on the Break.
Just put them on tough tables and none of this is easy to do. People argue that alternate breaks makes the game more "fair". I disagree totally. Take a look at Straight Pool. One guy comes to the table and runs 100+ balls. It can take 45 minutes or longer, and his opponent must sit there and take it. When he finally gets a turn, he better make a high run also or he's done.
Pool is not an equal opportunity sport, like Tennis or Golf. That is one thing that makes it unique. You can keep your opponent in his chair if you play good enough. This is part of the allure of the game. Change the rules and 9-Ball becomes boring. Then people say we need a "new" game. RUBBISH!
9-Ball (or Ten Ball) is damn exciting with the old rules. Leave it alone!
stick8 said:
well i guess you didnt get to break often in the match, but could you not break from the same spot??
Ended up getting beat about 11-6 if I remember correctly. We were both breaking from about the same spot. Which was about right in between center spot and the right rail. While the nine seemed to move for me I unfortunately did not have the same results. Most of the nine balls went towards the end of the match. I think it was like 4-4 and he broke three in a row and then at 8-6 broke in two more. So no I didn't get to shoot much after 4-4
But like I said I checked the racks pretty good but obviously there was something I was missing and just could'nt figure it out
Matt Krah said:Ended up getting beat about 11-6 if I remember correctly. We were both breaking from about the same spot. Which was about right in between center spot and the right rail. While the nine seemed to move for me I unfortunately did not have the same results. Most of the nine balls went towards the end of the match. I think it was like 4-4 and he broke three in a row and then at 8-6 broke in two more. So no I didn't get to shoot much after 4-4
Matt,
I know what you are saying. Sometimes the 9 gets kicked in by another ball - if a player is picking up on how the balls are reacting - he/she can use this to their advantage no matter how tight or perfect the rack is. Seldom will you se the 9 move clearly towards those two corners unless the back two balls have a gap.
I completely agree with Jerry Forsyth - luck has no business in pro 9 ball, and I believe that should also be the case when the 9 gets $hit in on some stab in the dark desperation shot. It may be cool to see that when it happens - but as pros we should set the standards a little higher than that. I also agree that alternating break sucks. IMO, a player should stay at the table until you miss, no questions asked.
Kudos to Jerry F. and David S.! Amen, Right on, and Hubba-hubba! The 9-on-the-break, along with some of the other silly rules used today qualify 9-ball as a game of chance. Now that's okay, as long as guys don't start thinking it's a game of skill.
I think watching the 9 go on the break is about as exciting as dropping your wallet into the toilet!
Doc
I think watching the 9 go on the break is about as exciting as dropping your wallet into the toilet! Doc