Video of "The Shot" on The Action Report
- Thread starter JCIN
- Start date
I don't even think anything is wrong with the rule. It's pretty normal ring game rules. If you did not have this or similar rule i'm afraid you would end up with alot more problems, safes etc. I don't see anything wrong with passing the shot back. Passing forward is not a good idea, creates bigger problems and bih to the incoming player is just to easy.
That helps but without knowing where the line from the edge of the one to the edge of the two points, it's hard to say how hard the shot really was. Does the one fit straight to the pocket or do you have to slide it off the side rail (which was the way it was made). Let me place the two, and I'll take half of Jay's action.JCIN said:
What problems do you feel it causes?ginsu said:
The picture of the layout is kind of deceiving. At first glance it looks like the rail is alot closer to the 1-ball, and that the 1-ball doesn't pass the 2-ball into the corner. The reason why is because it's very difficult to see the edge of the rail, it's kind of melded in with the color of the cloth. If you really look and try to see the faint line that is the rail, you will notice that the 1-ball is not that close to the rail and it does indeed have about 4/5th's of a pocket. It still is a pretty tough shot, and with all that money riding on it, even tougher. I'm kind of confused why Shane would pass this shot up, since it definately is makeable and position is there as long as you hit it real good. My guess is that Shane thought that being jacked up created too much of a risk of clipping the 2-ball and selling out. JMHO
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
I was going to post this earlier but got sidetracked. I enlarged the picture and put a line where the rail was. I also put a line where the outside points of the pockets were. I couldn't really tell where the point was on the nearest pocket was so I put it approximately the same distance from the metal on the corner of the table as the farthest pocket. As long as the pockets are the same this should be pretty close. I think the 2 ball was slightly in the way on that shot.
Attachments
Rubyron said:
That's nice homework!
Rubyron said:
Awesome work! It shows just how great of a shot this was - including getting shape on the 2! It was not a hanger, and it is NOT a shot that the average player would be capable of making with any consistency. I shoot pretty damn good and I still think that I would have been prone to shooting the one into the rail unintentionally - so would many other players!
Last edited:
John Barton
New member
Bob Jewett said:
Well it could cause the following problem. Player A plays safe and Player B has the option to take the shot or pass it forward to Player C. Player C then leaves Player A with a makeable shot and Player B loses the game without having had a decent shot at all.
On net the idea of Passing Back combined with the Must Shoot at Visible Balls is the best way to go in my opinion. These rules would make the game totally aggressive and provide way less opportunity to get cut up.
I just don't like the idea of the incoming player being punished with the choice to GIVE UP a chance to shoot and thereby losing a turn. Why punish the incoming player when it was the previous player that made a foul? Make the previous player have to deal with the situation they created UNLESS the ball is visible in which the incoming player must shoot it.
JCIN said:
First of all, thank you and your friends for your efforts JCIN. You're doing
pool a great service!
I really like the option of passing it forward. This option will give everybody
a chance to get out or dog it out. McMinn passing it forward to Orcullo, Dennis
doesn't like it, passed it up for the original shooter to finish his mess up.
The original shooter (Banks) got a tough out and Dennis couldn't blame
anybody but himself for passing it up. No complaints from anyone but the
stake horse (Macwhatever) who just lost because his horse copped out.
JamieMcWhorter
Banned
Jay where does my cue ball need to be to be considered good shape or at least as good as he got??
How bout the tables there you have never answered that??
Is it the same conditions??????
I dont have 2 million but I will gladly win the max you are willing to lose on this...........
How bout the tables there you have never answered that??
Is it the same conditions??????
I dont have 2 million but I will gladly win the max you are willing to lose on this...........
I did much the same thing using PhotoShop CS
I did much the same thing using PhotoShop CS. I think your line for the outside of the cushion is very slightly off at the side pocket but very little. One issue I think is that the cushion edge is not really 100% straight in the image because of lens distortion.
However your image is very close and working on the image and watching and pausing the video over and over showed me a few things. One is that the cue ball hit the rail very near the second diamond and with the english completely backwards for making the one ball to be able to get shape. Of course that six ball looms huge trying to come off of that far rail and even the nine can come into play with a shot a hair off. Considering the amount of side english needed that shot was threading a needle with both the one and the cue ball.
I'd put my odds of making the one pretty high, without getting shape on the two where he did. I'd put my odds of getting his shape on the two at not much better than fifty-fifty, focusing on that with a high probability of touching the two or jawing the one. Add these odds to the odds of running that table being only fair at best after making the one and two and it becomes a no-brainer to pass it back. Had Dennis had a tall stack I would still have passed the shot back thinking my chances were better after the person before me dealt with some of the headaches and his odds poor of running all of the way out. Of course myself and all the armchair quarterbacks have had hours and an overhead view to analyze options, some luxuries none of the players had.
Bottom line, I think a canny player would have played the odds and passed this shot back in a two player game making DO's position and chip stack irrelevant to the decision.
Hu
Rubyron said:
I did much the same thing using PhotoShop CS. I think your line for the outside of the cushion is very slightly off at the side pocket but very little. One issue I think is that the cushion edge is not really 100% straight in the image because of lens distortion.
However your image is very close and working on the image and watching and pausing the video over and over showed me a few things. One is that the cue ball hit the rail very near the second diamond and with the english completely backwards for making the one ball to be able to get shape. Of course that six ball looms huge trying to come off of that far rail and even the nine can come into play with a shot a hair off. Considering the amount of side english needed that shot was threading a needle with both the one and the cue ball.
I'd put my odds of making the one pretty high, without getting shape on the two where he did. I'd put my odds of getting his shape on the two at not much better than fifty-fifty, focusing on that with a high probability of touching the two or jawing the one. Add these odds to the odds of running that table being only fair at best after making the one and two and it becomes a no-brainer to pass it back. Had Dennis had a tall stack I would still have passed the shot back thinking my chances were better after the person before me dealt with some of the headaches and his odds poor of running all of the way out. Of course myself and all the armchair quarterbacks have had hours and an overhead view to analyze options, some luxuries none of the players had.
Bottom line, I think a canny player would have played the odds and passed this shot back in a two player game making DO's position and chip stack irrelevant to the decision.
Hu
JamieMcWhorter said:
Jay,
To add to this, have you showed this shot to Tang? You said somewhere in an earlier thread that Tang said these tables are buckets. I'd like to hear Tangs' take on it because he plays their speed and has first hand knowledge of how easy those tables play. IMO, this shot is a joke on a 7' Valley table. On this shot, going to a bucket pocket, the ball can hit the rail at the 2nd diamond and still go in easy.... On a tight 9'er it's a different story all together!
Saw
MrSchon9 said:
The reality is that the same thing would have happened it Banks Jr. and Ocrollo had reverse chip counts Shane would have obviously shot so that he and Dennis would have had two shots at crippling Banks Jr. It was all about the chip stacks and the rules, had nothing to do with who the players were.
-don
Damn, are you still guys debating the shot and pass-back?
It's time to move forward and think about a remedy to kind of situation, so we don't this kind of thread again.
Good thing this sourness only happened here on the board, just imagine if it happened on the streets (oh well, parking lot.)
It's time to move forward and think about a remedy to kind of situation, so we don't this kind of thread again.
Good thing this sourness only happened here on the board, just imagine if it happened on the streets (oh well, parking lot.)
I agree completely with Shooting Arts assessment, with the one exception of knowing that strange things happen in a ring game, shooting often times is your best option. I do not think the shot on the one is as hard as the majority of responses seem to indicate. I am by no means a great player, but I knock the balls around quite a bit and I would have tried to get out, especially considering that this is a bar table, and not a 9-footer with tough pockets. Finally I think the results speak for themselves; the shooter made the shot and in fact did get shape on the two, which in my opinion speaks volumes... If the shot did not go, then passing back would have met my sensibilities.
John Barton said:
I disagree, HONEST EFFORT also applies to not giving up on the table layout for the fear that you will just open up the table. This is what James Walden was a little upset about. Every player SHOULD attempt a run-out.
What happened in there was OK, but in the gambling world specially if you want to the play same player in the future, there are just some de-quorum that need to be followed.
Last edited: