What rule(s) would you change?

[RakRunr]

1. The problem with "ball-in-hand behind the line" is that I can deliberately foul when the lowest numbered ball is in the kitchen, and my opponent needs to kick up and down table to hit it. It is usually not really a penalty for me; it doesn't make sense.

2. "Cue-ball foul only" can avoid some arguments (and create others) when there's no referee. Unlike #1 above, this does not really affect the nature of the game.

3. Spotting the balls made in a foul actually benefits the player who has committed the foul and penalizes the incoming player e.g. more balls on the table, spotted ball blocking otherwise make-able balls, etc. This rule doesn't make sense.

I wasn't suggesting a return to any of these rules, just demonstrating how the rules had changed since my youth. I think if we're going to have BIH, it should be all the time, not with a special rule after the break.

4. If your idea of eliminating "win on a break" is because the money ball should not be treated special during the break, then I don't see why the breaker should get ball-in-hand if he makes the money ball during the break.

That's a good point, and on second thought, I think I agree with you on that, especially since we already have the push rule.

5. Without the three-foul rule, what should we do with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja9y8Lv_A1s? Or, how do you think it should be resolved?

I watched the video, and I don't think there is anything to resolve. Two thoughts come to mind:

1) If there was no three-foul rule, the players would never have selected those shots in the first place. Strategically speaking, the wise thing to do would be to play safe so your opponent fouls AND break the balls up so with BIH you have a shot.

2) In the unlikely case that you have an extended volley of fouls, meaning both sides are consistently fouling, something I think would be exceptionally rare, you could institute a stalemate rule. That rule would simply have the players start the rack anew, say after 6 consecutive [combined] fouls.

Whlie we're on the subject of three-foul rules, no one has mentioned one-pocket yet, so I'll go ahead and jump in there as well. The official rules of one-pocket include a three-foul rule, but I've never seen anyone play this way. I'm not sure if it is out of ignorance or if people are just choosing to ignore a ridiculous rule, but I do think it should be stricken. Or perhaps enhanced, like in 14.1: give the opponent BIH in the kitchen or something. That could be interesting, but I'm just thinking out loud here.

6. It's hilarious that some people think 10-ball is by definition call-shot and 9-ball is not. You can always add the call-shot rule to 9-ball or remove it from 10-ball. I wrote about a twist to this here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=400506&page=2

If "by definition" you mean "based on the rules", then 10-ball IS inherently call pocket http://upatour.com/official-billiard-rules/u-s-10-ball-rules/ and 9-ball IS NOT inherently call pocket http://upatour.com/official-billiard-rules/u-s-9-ball-rules/. I don't see the problem with people making assumptions on how to play the game based on the rules.

Of course, you can always amend the rules for your personal use however you see fit, but that doesn't change the generally accepted method of play. At my home club, no one plays 10-ball as call shot, except on the 10-ball itself, so it really is almost just a glorified version of 9-ball.

As an interesting aside, Rule 1-3 of The Rules of Golf is basically an agreement that the players won't alter or ignore the rules of golf. In a way, it should go without saying...

 

[Bob Jewett]

I ... you could institute a stalemate rule. ...

There already is a stalemate rule.

 

[GideonF]

Strategically speaking, the wise thing to do would be to play safe so your opponent fouls AND break the balls up so with BIH you have a shot.

But with no 3 foul rule, the opponent has no incentive to try to hit the ball to break up a cluster. If you hook him, he can just "take a foul" and keep doing so. The first person to commit the foul has to be at a disadvantage and either eventually make a legal shot or suffer a serious penalty (loss of game in 9-ball, 15 points and re-rack in 14.1).

Gideon

 

[david(tx)]

NOTE: I'm fairly new around here, so if this has been done before I apologize for the repeat.

Not that I'm that old, but when I was a kid we played 9-ball a little differently:
1) Scratches and fouls were BIH behind the line.
2) We played all-ball fouls: accidentally moving a ball with your hand or stick was a foul.
3) Balls made on fouls or scratches were spotted, including on the break.

Around that time, "Texas Express" rules became popular because they sped the game up and were better for TV. It helped make the game a bit more accessible during it's American heyday. The serious players in my area looked down on it because it wasn't considered "playing by the real rules". I took a 20 year hiatus and started playing again last fall only to find that these now ARE the "real" rules.

This is not a complaint: rule changes can be good, and the game should evolve. My question to the members here is "what rule(s) would you change if you could?"

Here are a couple examples to get the ball rolling (sorry for the pun!):

I would eliminate a win on the break. I think it is wrong that ANY game can be won on the break. So, in 8-9-10-ball, a winning ball on the break should be spotted, and the breaker should be given ball in hand. I know there are some tournaments that have local rules to address this, usually something like "9-ball on the break does not win in the bottom corner pockets". Let's just extend this and admit that a single break shot does not a game make.

I would eliminate the three-foul rule. While playing safe is an integral part of the game, the goal is to legally pocket the winning ball. A good safety already rewards the player with BIH, which should help towards that end. Doing it three times in a row is just humiliating. At the very least, let's say a scratch on the break doesn't count towards the three-foul rule.

In 9-ball, a game should not be won on slop. 8-ball and 10-ball already address this, and it goes hand in hand with the "no win on the break" rule (by eliminating the purely lucky win). I'm OK with slop on the non-winning balls, but the 9-ball should be called.

I know not everyone will agree, all I want to start here is an honest discussion of the rules and how we could make them better. I look forward to hearing other ideas or refutations. Debate on!

If you have no 3 foul rule and a player moves a ball with his hand , since it isn't a foul will you move it back to it's original position on the table since it isn't a foul ?Who moves it ? I'd be happy of each bar would post it's house rules on the wall for everyone to see for 8 ball , and tell people that if your playing a stranger they will prevail .

 

[Zphix]

I think at one point or another everybody gets fed up with some 9 ball rules and they contemplate what rules would make the game better.

I'd make it call the 9, and no early 9s on the hill.
Then, I'd allow only 2 slop shots per rack (call pocket on non-obvious shots after your two slop shots).

Basically, allowing some room for slop and luck but keeping the important parts of the game to skill and playing ability.

 

[NervousNovice]

My current desired 10-ball rules:
- Jump cues are allowed.
- Rack your own, any pattern except for the 1-ball and 10-ball.
- Use racking template whenever possible.
- The trailing player decides who breaks.
- Break as soft or hard as you wish.
- The winning score must be at least 2 games ahead (like tennis's deuce).
- Pocketing the 10-ball on the break is spotted up.
- All-ball foul.
- 3-foul rule.
- Call shot but the "pass back" can only be used if the lowest numbered ball goes into an unintended pocket.
- No need to call safe.

But with no 3 foul rule, the opponent has no incentive to try to hit the ball to break up a cluster. If you hook him, he can just "take a foul" and keep doing so. The first person to commit the foul has to be at a disadvantage and either eventually make a legal shot or suffer a serious penalty (loss of game in 9-ball, 15 points and re-rack in 14.1).

Gideon

That is a good logical argument for 3-foul rule, unless I hear a better counter argument.

I think at one point or another everybody gets fed up with some 9 ball rules and they contemplate what rules would make the game better.

I'd make it call the 9, and no early 9s on the hill.
Then, I'd allow only 2 slop shots per rack (call pocket on non-obvious shots after your two slop shots).

Basically, allowing some room for slop and luck but keeping the important parts of the game to skill and playing ability.

1. What if the 9-ball is in front of the pocket blocking the lowest numbered ball?
2. Two slops per rack is a lot. Maybe your rules can be fun for the amateurs. But even one slop per match can be a game changer for the pro's.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

Instead of changing rules I just wish every league and every tournament played by the exact same rules. This would have a lot of advantages, and if there were rules that needed to be adjusted there would be an annual review process under a governing body. That's how most sports work, but it's more or less a pipe dream for pool.

*I'm aware pool has a rule making governing body in the WPA, but the pool world as a whole does not follow those standardized written rules with each tournament and league using a bastardized version.

 

[hang-the-9]

1. The problem with "ball-in-hand behind the line" is that I can deliberately foul when the lowest numbered ball is in the kitchen, and my opponent needs to kick up and down table to hit it. It is usually not really a penalty for me; it doesn't make sense.

2. "Cue-ball foul only" can avoid some arguments (and create others) when there's no referee. Unlike #1 above, this does not really affect the nature of the game.

3. Spotting the balls made in a foul actually benefits the player who has committed the foul and penalizes the incoming player e.g. more balls on the table, spotted ball blocking otherwise make-able balls, etc. This rule doesn't make sense.

4. If your idea of eliminating "win on a break" is because the money ball should not be treated special during the break, then I don't see why the breaker should get ball-in-hand if he makes the money ball duing the break.

5. Without the three-foul rule, what should we do with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja9y8Lv_A1s? Or, how do you think it should be resolved?

6. It's hilarious that some people think 10-ball is by definition call-shot and 9-ball is not. You can always add the call-shot rule to 9-ball or remove it from 10-ball. I wrote about a twist to this here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=400506&page=2



Some people think the "magic rack" is too perfect and good players are exploiting it so we should use the wooden rack and every rack will be more different. It's like asking to use a different unbalanced weird 8 ball each game because otherwise the equipment would be too perfect. What kind of logic is that?



I prefer the trailing player to decide who will break.

#1 in real rules, if the ball you need to hit is also behind the line, it gets spotted so you can hit it. Only in bar rules do you need to kick.

#4, the player does not get ball in hand if you make the 9 (or 10), it just counts as a made ball but is spotted, the player shoots from where the cueball ended up.

 

[Farhan]

I agree about spotting the 8/9/10 ball if potted on a break.
I'm indifferent about the 3-foul rule.
Eliminate winner break -- each player must have a chance to get to the table and the lag should not be such a significant factor except in a hill-hill match.

This last one is for the color-blind viewers: either decide on a universal ball color set (impossible, I know), or have the numbers be more prominent on the balls. Actually, anything to make it more clear what the next object ball is in a rotation game.

 

[NervousNovice]

I agree about spotting the 8/9/10 ball if potted on a break.
I'm indifferent about the 3-foul rule.
Eliminate winner break -- each player must have a chance to get to the table and the lag should not be such a significant factor except in a hill-hill match.

This last one is for the color-blind viewers: either decide on a universal ball color set (impossible, I know), or have the numbers be more prominent on the balls. Actually, anything to make it more clear what the next object ball is in a rotation game.

I suggest the contrary. I think the game would be much more fun if the number 1 to 15 balls go from light gray to black in grayscale. Kind of like http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge

Oh....and 15-second shot clock too, of course. LOL.

 

[RiverCity]

My ideal 9 ball rules:

• 9 on the break spots, all other balls stay down on the break, scratch or not
• All scratches; cb is behind the line, if the low ball is in the kitchen it spots
• Call pocket unless its obvious
• If player A fouls, player B can accept the table in position or make the opponent shoot again. If player A fouls on this second shot, its bih anywhere for player B
• No 3 foul rule
• No jump cues, can jump with full length cue
• 9 ball must be shot last to win, can be used for a called combination in game etc, but respots

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

[*]Call pocket unless its obvious

Definitely. I can't believe, at a professional level, it was ever any other way with 9-Ball.

 

[RakRunr]

But with no 3 foul rule, the opponent has no incentive to try to hit the ball to break up a cluster. If you hook him, he can just "take a foul" and keep doing so. The first person to commit the foul has to be at a disadvantage and either eventually make a legal shot or suffer a serious penalty (loss of game in 9-ball, 15 points and re-rack in 14.1).

Gideon

Since both players share the same target ball, they are both in the same boat. If both players refuse to hit the ball, it would lead to a stalemate. The first player to make the foul would be irrelevant.

 

[RakRunr]

There already is a stalemate rule.

Is there? The only rule I could find indicated that a referee had the right to require a shot or game to be replayed. Is there more I'm missing?

 

[RakRunr]

I agree about spotting the 8/9/10 ball if potted on a break.
I'm indifferent about the 3-foul rule.
Eliminate winner break -- each player must have a chance to get to the table and the lag should not be such a significant factor except in a hill-hill match.

This last one is for the color-blind viewers: either decide on a universal ball color set (impossible, I know), or have the numbers be more prominent on the balls. Actually, anything to make it more clear what the next object ball is in a rotation game.

I would have to disagree on the "every player must have a chance at the table" statement, at least not in a single game since the break and run out is still completely viable. This is one of the reasons I would support alternate break.

 

[RakRunr]

But with no 3 foul rule, the opponent has no incentive to try to hit the ball to break up a cluster. If you hook him, he can just "take a foul" and keep doing so. The first person to commit the foul has to be at a disadvantage and either eventually make a legal shot or suffer a serious penalty (loss of game in 9-ball, 15 points and re-rack in 14.1).

Gideon

Since both players share the same target ball, they are both in the same boat. If both players refuse to hit the ball, it would lead to a stalemate. The first player to make the foul would be irrelevant.

 

[JasBy]

I agree with the no early 9 rule, and in the case given earlier of the 9 blocking the pocket of the next numbered ball, just make it so that pocketing the 9 legally preserves your turn, it gets spotted and you shoot again, eliminating using the 9 ball as a defensive weapon.

 

[pt109]

I agree with the no early 9 rule, and in the case given earlier of the 9 blocking the pocket of the next numbered ball, just make it so that pocketing the 9 legally preserves your turn, it gets spotted and you shoot again, eliminating using the 9 ball as a defensive weapon.

I'm guessing you would've really hated some of the old 9-ball rules, especially in ring games...
...money on the 5-ball, double on the 9....they re-spotted if you made them early.....
....but you got paid for them.....and you didn't have to call them.

 

[Solomon]

I'm not sure if anyone has seen old boxing matches from the early 1900s, but once a boxer was knocked to the canvas the other boxer didn't always have to go to a neutral corner while the referee performed the count. The standing boxer was allowed to stand over the fallen boxer and pummel him as he attempt to get back on his feet.

This is what I liken the winner break format to. In no other professional sport does a team or person score and then get the "ball" back for a chance to score again.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Is there? The only rule I could find indicated that a referee had the right to require a shot or game to be replayed. Is there more I'm missing?

Here is the rule in 9 ball:

2.9 Stalemate
If a stalemate occurs the original breaker of the rack will break again. (See 1.12 Stalemate.)​

Here are all the rules: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play