Value of Rule - Rail after contacting object ball for Rotation games

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In all pool games after contacting the object ball, a ball must be pocketed or driven to a rail. (Snooker doesn't have this rule and English 8 ball has an exception to the rule when the player is snookered)
The rule is a great rule for almost every pool game. It makes safety play more difficult and keeps games from getting really boring. Here are some reasons it is needed in particular games.

1. 8 ball - Safety play would be far too easy and it is already easy because unless both players are on the 8, they have to shoot at different balls. So without rule you could just roll the cue ball up to your ball resulting in too many easy safeties.
2. One pocket, straight pool - games where the balls aren't spread from the rack - roll up to the pack to leave opponent no good shot. It is an easy safety.

Question #1. What does this rule accomplish in Rotation games like 9 ball, 10 ball, and Rotation, and is it beneficial?
It does prevent cue balls being rolled up on ball unless that ball is almost touching a rail. I see how that speeds up the game and lessens safety play. It makes it easier in general to play a safety because you don't have to worry about hitting the ball hard enough.
Question #2. Would it be better to suspend this rule (like they to in English 8 ball) when the player was snookered? This way after the player makes a 5 rail kick to hit the ball they don't have to worry about getting a rail afterwards!!! I am not talking about the practicality of implementing it, just the fairness of it at this point.
My thoughts are also coming out of a perspective that Jump Cues should be banned and that a great kick shouldn't be a foul because of no Contact with the rail afterwards.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think I would be OK with the rule change that if you can't see the ball it's OK to call a good hit with no rail afterward. I've seen some good hits (including from myself) that were tough to hit even, but did not hit a rail due to knocking into another ball or something.

I can't stay I'd lobby for this change to be made, but it's not something I'd complain about as being unfair or making the game too easy if it was changed.
 

bdorman

Dead money
Silver Member
The rule at our community center table is that CB or OB must hit a rail -- but it doesn't matter if it's before or after contact with the OB. It works for us because 90% of the players are lucky to contact the OB on a 1-rail kick.

I'd prefer we play the traditional "after contact" rule, but I don't want to discourage other players by calling a foul on them after they've achieved something they didn't think they'd do: hit the OB on a kick shot.
 

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
Well, let me ask this - why should we remove the rail requirement?
The five rail kick is extremely rare and it's even more rare to get no rail after.
Why change a rule thats been around for decades just to make one uncommon situation slightly easier?

You still need to legally hit the object ball so it's not like removing the rail requirement
will make the game really interesting and better... if you hit hard enough to hit the object ball,
it's likely something will hit a rail after. But say you hit softly and don't... what's the outcome?
The object ball is probably just a foot from the cue ball or less. That's almost never good.

The snooker variation works because there are lots of balls on the table and most of them are
concentrated in the lower half of the table. If you had to kick hard enough to get a rail, it removes
virtually all hope of leaving the other guy safe after... there are many possible balls to shoot
so every kick would probably sell out.

Whereas in 9 ball, there's just one legal target, so a hard kick could easily leave you terrible on it.
 

krupa

The Dream Operator
Silver Member
In all pool games after contacting the object ball, a ball must be pocketed or driven to a rail. (Snooker doesn't have this rule and English 8 ball has an exception to the rule when the player is snookered)
The rule is a great rule for almost every pool game. It makes safety play more difficult and keeps games from getting really boring. Here are some reasons it is needed in particular games.

1. 8 ball - Safety play would be far too easy and it is already easy because unless both players are on the 8, they have to shoot at different balls. So without rule you could just roll the cue ball up to your ball resulting in too many easy safeties.
2. One pocket, straight pool - games where the balls aren't spread from the rack - roll up to the pack to leave opponent no good shot. It is an easy safety.

Question #1. What does this rule accomplish in Rotation games like 9 ball, 10 ball, and Rotation, and is it beneficial?
It does prevent cue balls being rolled up on ball unless that ball is almost touching a rail. I see how that speeds up the game and lessens safety play. It makes it easier in general to play a safety because you don't have to worry about hitting the ball hard enough.
It accomplishes the same thing as in 8-ball and yes, it's beneficial.

Question #2. Would it be better to suspend this rule (like they to in English 8 ball) when the player was snookered?
Hell no.

This way after the player makes a 5 rail kick to hit the ball they don't have to worry about getting a rail afterwards!!!

And what if the player misses contact on a rudimentary, 1-rail kick?

I am not talking about the practicality of implementing it, just the fairness of it at this point.
My thoughts are also coming out of a perspective that Jump Cues should be banned and that a great kick shouldn't be a foul because of no Contact with the rail afterwards.

If you didn't hit a rail the shot couldn't have been that great, could it? Your argument is based on the idea that since you really hard you shouldn't be punished by giving ball-in-hand to your opponent. Well, in the interest of "fairness" what about your opponent who tried really hard to snooker you in the first place?

Let's apply your logic to another situation, if I break and stop the cue ball dead-center on the table, sink 4 object balls but the cue ball gets kicked into a pocket as well, I should be able to shoot again. After all, it was a great break, and I shouldn't be punished for the random motion of the balls, should I?
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've been playing a lot of 15 ball Rotation and the situation has been coming up where you can get to the ball off a few rails, but not necessarily with enough force to contact a rail after. Rotation in the Philippines is played without the requirement as well.
Would it be a fairer rule for rotation games? Maybe more so for 15 rotation where more kicking is required at the beginning of the rack.
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It accomplishes the same thing as in 8-ball and yes, it's beneficial.


Hell no.



And what if the player misses contact on a rudimentary, 1-rail kick?



If you didn't hit a rail the shot couldn't have been that great, could it? Your argument is based on the idea that since you really hard you shouldn't be punished by giving ball-in-hand to your opponent. Well, in the interest of "fairness" what about your opponent who tried really hard to snooker you in the first place?

Let's apply your logic to another situation, if I break and stop the cue ball dead-center on the table, sink 4 object balls but the cue ball gets kicked into a pocket as well, I should be able to shoot again. After all, it was a great break, and I shouldn't be punished for the random motion of the balls, should I?

You may be misunderstanding my logic! lol
 

Skratch

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've been playing a lot of 15 ball Rotation and the situation has been coming up where you can get to the ball off a few rails, but not necessarily with enough force to contact a rail after. Rotation in the Philippines is played without the requirement as well.
Would it be a fairer rule for rotation games? Maybe more so for 15 rotation where more kicking is required at the beginning of the rack.

I think the rail req. after contact is meant to change the position of the balls, thereby preventing long safety battles. This is most notably shown in a frozen ball when a player opts to lightly leave the CB and OB together...and then the opponent does the same. I like safety battles, but who wants to see a game that is nothing but one safety after another?! If you've ever played straight rail billiards and a person is nursing the balls it can get boring. Merits for consistency, but low marks for creativity.
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe, but what you said is that a good kick shot shouldn't be a foul just because it doesn't meet the requirements of a legal shot.

Yes, that is the question. Should contacting a rail be required in a rotation game when you can't see the ball on? I wasn't suggesting that scratching on the break shouldn't be a foul. You may have a problem with the American Rotation break rules though.
 

krupa

The Dream Operator
Silver Member
Yes, that is the question. Should contacting a rail be required in a rotation game when you can't see the ball on? I wasn't suggesting that scratching on the break shouldn't be a foul. You may have a problem with the American Rotation break rules though.

And your justification for changing the rule is that if it's a "good" (e.g., 5-rail kick shot) shot and contacts the object ball (but not a rail), that should be enough for a legal shot. Why should that be enough? Do you just want a little something for the effort?

I'll ask again, if it's "fair" to make your kick-shot legal, why isn't it "unfair" to your opponent who snookered you in the first place? What if you snookered yourself?
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think the rail req. after contact is meant to change the position of the balls, thereby preventing long safety battles. This is most notably shown in a frozen ball when a player opts to lightly leave the CB and OB together...and then the opponent does the same. I like safety battles, but who wants to see a game that is nothing but one safety after another?! If you've ever played straight rail billiards and a person is nursing the balls it can get boring. Merits for consistency, but low marks for creativity.[/QUO

Yes I agree that the rule is there to prevent long safety battles. ( In 8 ball it prevents very easy hooks as well.)
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And your justification for changing the rule is that if it's a "good" (e.g., 5-rail kick shot) shot and contacts the object ball (but not a rail), that should be enough for a legal shot. Why should that be enough? Do you just want a little something for the effort?

I'll ask again, if it's "fair" to make your kick-shot legal, why isn't it "unfair" to your opponent who snookered you in the first place? What if you snookered yourself?

In English 8 ball the rule is suspended whenever you are snookered. It is the same for both players.
 

MitchDAZB

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
IIRC, in the Accu-Stats rotation (61) match-up at DCC between Efren and Busty several years ago, Efren kicked at a ball near the foot spot, gently hit it, and intentionally did not get a rail. It was a good hit.
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
IIRC, in the Accu-Stats rotation (61) match-up at DCC between Efren and Busty several years ago, Efren kicked at a ball near the foot spot, gently hit it, and intentionally did not get a rail. It was a good hit.

I haven't seen the match. What was the effect of that rule on the game?
 
Top