That's interesting. I didn't know that. I always thought the three foul rule exisited instead of allowing for a stalemate.
What rule(s) would you change?
- Thread starter RakRunr
- Start date
What if the lowest numbered ball is in the kitchen and there are two balls in front of the spot? Then the incoming player will actually be penalized and need to kick at the lowest numbered ball. He'll be at a disadvantage. It doesn't make sense.
This means a player can push at anytime during the game. Have you thought about this implication?
It's very unlikely but possible that the players continue to play at the same ball and move the cue ball very little. Usually the object ball will freeze and then they have to do something else. I can imaging cue and object ball inside a (large) corner pocket and they could keep playing the kiss-back for the cushion.
It was the way the good players played nine ball back in the 1960's. We didn't play that well so we just tried our best to hit the ball.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it doesn't really clarify anything, since it's still up to the referee to determine if it is a stalemate decision. What if there is no referee? My point is that it should be an explicit part of the rules (assuming we eliminate the three-foul rule).
If both balls are behind the line, the object ball is spotted. The only time you would have to kick at a ball after the other player fouls is in bar rules (AKA No Rules or Made Up On The Spot Rules
)The thing about 9s on the break and slop is that those don't come up very often with strong players. I would leave all that the way it is. Also, certain 2-way shots which would be eliminated by call shot, even more so it it's also call safe.
If you want to reduce the luck factor, you need to do something about the break. This is where the luck occurs: whether a ball goes down, and whether there's a shot on the 1.
The magic rack helps, by making it more consistent and predictable. Beyond that, reducing the luck factor significantly requires something radical.
For example,
1) The breaker keeps shooting whether or not a ball goes down on the break, and
2) On the first shot after the break, the breaker can shoot any ball (except the 9), so even if you can't see the one you can keep running
For top players this will push the break and run percentages very high, well over 50%, maybe 70-80% or so for top pros. To make this work, I would make the sets alternate break and win by two. It would play out kind of like in tennis, where losing your break is a really big deal.
If you want to reduce the luck factor, you need to do something about the break. This is where the luck occurs: whether a ball goes down, and whether there's a shot on the 1.
The magic rack helps, by making it more consistent and predictable. Beyond that, reducing the luck factor significantly requires something radical.
For example,
1) The breaker keeps shooting whether or not a ball goes down on the break, and
2) On the first shot after the break, the breaker can shoot any ball (except the 9), so even if you can't see the one you can keep running
For top players this will push the break and run percentages very high, well over 50%, maybe 70-80% or so for top pros. To make this work, I would make the sets alternate break and win by two. It would play out kind of like in tennis, where losing your break is a really big deal.
I think it's possible to operate without a referee in most cases, but I suppose stalemates present a special problem. So, how about:
If there's no referee, it's a stalemate when the players both agree that there is unlikely to be any progress. If only one player feels that it is a stalemate, the other player is responsible for the table time. And is horse-whipped after an hour.
That sounds like a plan :grin-square:
This comes up in APA sometimes and it is just that.... if the players agree it is a stalemate then the game restarts and the original breaker breaks. However, that very rarely happens in the leagues I shoot in as one of 3 things happens after a few shots.
1.) One of the players gets impatient and breaks them out.
2.) One of the players makes a mistake and opens up the table.
3.) One of the players thinks they have a shot they can make and tries it. Sometimes they fail and other times they succeed, but the game moves on.
Actually, can anyone tell me the history or the motivation for the 3-foul rule? How did it come up? Why 3 but not 4, etc?
There's a small chance that there is a ball near the spot that makes the run-out much more difficult after the 9-ball has been spotted, which actually penalizes the player who is shooting. But I'll take that; it's fun to see people get tortured.
I meant the cue ball and the lowest numbered ball are both in kitchen, and two other object balls are in front of the spot forming a wall. Once the lowest numbered ball is spotted, you can't hit it directly even with ball-in-hand in the kitchen.
There's a small chance that there is a ball near the spot that makes the run-out much more difficult after the 9-ball has been spotted, which actually penalizes the player who is shooting. But I'll take that; it's fun to see people get tortured.
If both balls are behind the line, the object ball is spotted. The only time you would have to kick at a ball after the other player fouls is in bar rules (AKA No Rules or Made Up On The Spot Rules
I meant the cue ball and the lowest numbered ball are both in kitchen, and two other object balls are in front of the spot forming a wall. Once the lowest numbered ball is spotted, you can't hit it directly even with ball-in-hand in the kitchen.
For the proponents of ' call the nine' I like to envision this scenario.....
A player makes all nine balls on the break....the cue ball lands on the spot....
....the nine ball is spotted frozen to the cue ball.....
Yep...let's make the best break ever a liability...
A player makes all nine balls on the break....the cue ball lands on the spot....
....the nine ball is spotted frozen to the cue ball.....
Yep...let's make the best break ever a liability...