Which rules don't you like?

Double-Dave

Double-Dave

Developing cue-addict
Silver Member
I personally have a few rules that I don't really like. At nine-ball for instance, when I'm just playing for fun with friends, we usually don't count a nine-break or a nine-combo. Who-ever plays the combo or the break gets ball in hand with the nine being spotted.

I also don't like that I have to tell my oppenent he or she is on two fouls, but the rule that annoys me more then any other, espescially when playing 14.1, is that if a pocket is full with balls and the ball you're pocketing bounces back out, or never even goes in, you're finished.

I won't get into the crazy bar-table rules some places have, most off those are just too silly to get annoyed about.
Anyone else have some rules they would like to see changed?
 
Last edited:
I've always hated the one-foul-ball-in-hand-anywhere rules for 9 ball. They changed the game entirely, made it tactical instead of strategic.
Doesn't have anything to do with rules, but I also hate drop pockets. Why they make tables without ball returns I'll never understand.
That's about it.
 
One of the local poolrooms recently started playing call-the-nine during their weekly tournaments. I don't like that. For me, there's no bigger kick than $hitting in the nine-ball or making it on the snap.:D :)

In another tournament, a ten-ball tournament, the director declared that 10 balls on the break do not earn you a win and must be spotted. This is merely a service to the better players to insure that lesser players don't beat them.
 
Pushout said:
Why they make tables without ball returns I'll never understand.
Click to expand...

I do.
Tables with ball returns sound cheap...almost like coin-op tables.
Just one more mechanism that you don't need.

OT: I'd like 8ball on a break to be rewarded with a win. Much less of a chance than 9 on a snap and no reward?
 
I think getting robbed by a full pocket is wrong. If the ball would have gone in and stayed in had the pocket not been full, it should count and the ball should be dropped in another pocket. That's a rule that's so technical it hurts the game in my opinion.

I prefer drop pocket tables btw... I like to see which pockets I gravitate towards and which ones I stay away from after the game is over, so I know with more certainty that I need to work on side pocket shots or whatever.
 
APA 8-Ball sys you have to take the group you make on the break. I like the Valley rules where the table is always neutral after the break and you can decide what group you want.

Mike
 
acedotcom said:
One of the local poolrooms recently started playing call-the-nine during their weekly tournaments. I don't like that. For me, there's no bigger kick than $hitting in the nine-ball or making it on the snap.:D :)

In another tournament, a ten-ball tournament, the director declared that 10 balls on the break do not earn you a win and must be spotted. This is merely a service to the better players to insure that lesser players don't beat them.
Click to expand...


Not to be argumentative, but I for one prefer any rule that will help insure that the better player wins. Although it can make for some excitement, I really don't like losing a game or a match due to someone making a few complete fluke shots. I don't enjoy winning games or matches that way either. JMO
 
I can play any rules I like with my friends. But when in Rome, I play like the Romans......randyg

PS: You can never just change ONE rule.
 
Rules

That all players had to play Rotational 8 ball (I call it Dakota 8 ball), so players would have to actually work at getting better.

[Funny, you mentioned the drop pockets with balls in them, and a ball popping out - 2 weeks ago I was breaking 8 ball on a coin op Bar table,
and my cueball went into the right corner pocket, came back out, plus
I made 2 balls on the break, so I got to keep shooting ...LOL that doesn't happen often with the cueball]
 
predator said:
I do.
Tables with ball returns sound cheap...almost like coin-op tables.
Just one more mechanism that you don't need.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too, until I played on some *NICE* Gold Crown III's with returns... They are awesome, I don't like drop pockets now, either...but it's no big deal, anyway. What's nice is that you can practice shots by standing at one end and repeated shoot balls into the pockets without shooting and then walking to the other side and then shooting them back, etc... Also when you win a game, you have a second to breath and switch cues rather than hurrying not to keep your opponent waiting on the balls to rack up.
 
Hierovision said:
I think getting robbed by a full pocket is wrong. If the ball would have gone in and stayed in had the pocket not been full, it should count and the ball should be dropped in another pocket. That's a rule that's so technical it hurts the game in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No way, it's your responsibility to empty those pockets.
 
14.1

"I also don't like that I have to tell my oppenent he or she is on two fouls, but the rule that annoys me more then any other, espescially when playing 14.1, is that if a pocket is full with balls and the ball you're pocketing bounces back out, or never even goes in, you're finished."

That is why you see the referee empty the pockets on tables with no ball return. If there is no referee, it is the player's responsibility to empty the pockets so that this does not happen.
 
djkx1 said:
Not to be argumentative, but I for one prefer any rule that will help insure that the better player wins. Although it can make for some excitement, I really don't like losing a game or a match due to someone making a few complete fluke shots. I don't enjoy winning games or matches that way either. JMO
Click to expand...

I understand your point. As a kid growing up, all I wanted to play was straight pool. No chump is going to run 50 balls on you by accident. I think the same goes today, if you want a game practically devoid of luck, play straight pool.
 
In Snooker, you cannot foul to create a strategic advantage. There are several remedies, in addition to the loss of points, and they do not give advantage to the player who committed the foul.

2006 World Pool Championship, Foldes vs Luong, 13th frame:

Three balls were lined up perpendicular to the side rail. Object ball and cue ball both landed by the rail, but on opposite sides of the the line of three balls.

Luong shot, didn't hit the object ball. It was an honest attempt. First foul.

Foldes hit a ball close to the object ball. First foul and a deliberate foul. He could have place the cue ball and hit the object ball. Now there are four balls blocking the object ball.

Luong could not place the cue ball where he could hit the object ball. Shot and removed two of the balls. Second foul.

Foldes hit a ball close to the object ball, although he could have placed the cue ball to hit the object ball. Second foul and a deliberate foul. Now there are three blocking balls.

Luong still could not place the cue ball to be able to hit the object ball because of the three blocking balls. He placed the cue ball about a foot away, took his jump cue and made the shot, hitting the object ball from above, not making a ball.

Play goes on. Foldes wins the rack, loses the match.
 
Last edited:
I don't like it when they don't have a 30 sec. shot clock at tournaments and on TV. Johnnyt
 
predator said:
I do.
Tables with ball returns sound cheap...almost like coin-op tables.
Just one more mechanism that you don't need.
Click to expand...


Never played on Gold Crown?? I don't see how anyone could call that cheap.
 
NittiFan said:
APA 8-Ball sys you have to take the group you make on the break. I like the Valley rules where the table is always neutral after the break and you can decide what group you want.

Mike
Click to expand...

This also is the rule that torques my jaw. This rule very often penalizes a person for making a ball on the break. IMO, in 8-ball, the table should always be "open" after the break regardless of whether or not a ball is made.

Maniac
 
Have you ever played 8 ball with some random joe in a bar and he informs you that he just won the game because you scratched on the break? Unbelievable! This rule has got to be a myth. Then they act like they are doing you a big favor by letting the game continue.
 
Yeah... that's bar pool. Omigawd.

Each bar ought to post a copy of their house rules, 'cos otherwise, you have no idea how to play, until you've lost a game by each possible method.

Ken
 
Scaramouche said:
In Snooker, you cannot foul to create a strategic advantage. There are several remedies, in addition to the loss of points, and they do not give advantage to the player who committed the foul.
Click to expand...
There is actually one way you can foul in snooker to gain a frame-winning advantage, although I have never seen it happen in a match myself and would hope never to do so.

Let's say Player A is 34 points ahead of Player B, and there is one remaining red ball left on the table along with the six colored balls - so there is a total of 35 points remaining on the table.

Player A is left in a situation where he cannot pot the final red ball, but if he could somehow force that red ball off the table he would have course committed a foul stroke and give away four points to Player B, but he would then be 30 points ahead with only the colored balls totalling 27 points remaining on the table - Player A would have gained an advantage by committing a foul stroke, as Player B would now require one snooker.

No 'miss' could be called by the referee as Player A legally hit the ball on, and it would certainly take a very brave referee to call a foul for 'unsportsmanlike behavior', as how could he prove that Player A deliberately forced the ball off the table.

Best wishes.

Alan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top