Who Wrote the WPA 10-Ball Rules ? They need to be put in front of a firing squad !
- Thread starter MikeJanis
- Start date
jsp said:
Yeah, I've never tried it before, but it could be fun. I started a thread on it once, and one of our most knowledgeable posters brought up the fact that it would kill the two-way shot. So that is a huge downside.
I later found out (perhaps from that thread) that Grady had a very similar rule set that he used for some of his tournaments.
You know, I remember that thread...because I posted in that thread. But I think we were talking about something else. In that thread, we weren't talking about call shot. We were talking about calling a safety whenever you're intending to play a safe. If you miss and shot and not call a safety, then the opposing player gets the option of passing the shot back to you. This would eliminate the luck of missing a ball and hooking your opponent, but as sjm (the "one of our most knowledgeable posters" to which you were referring) pointed out, it kills the two-way shot.Cuebacca said:
However, if you have call shot and give the opponent the option of passing back a ball pocketed in the wrong hole, then this doesn't kill the two-way shot at all. If you call the pocket and miss it, and the result ends as a snooker, then good for you. If you make the ball, then good for you as well, since you still called the pocket. So the two-way shot is safe at least for this compromise.
jsp said:
Hey, you're right! Too much posting; not enough thinking. I forgot that the rules I posted were an answer to those who were complaining about about "lucky leaves" after a missed shot. So those rules included both the idea above AND the option to pass the table back after a missed shot. It is the latter that kills the two-way shot. Good catch & sorry for my confusion (on my own idea nonetheless
LOL.). 
Cuebacca said:Hey, you're right! Too much posting; not enough thinking. I forgot that the rules I posted were an answer to those who were complaining about about "lucky leaves" after a missed shot. So those rules included both the idea above AND the option to pass the table back after a missed shot. It is the latter that kills the two-way shot. Good catch & sorry for my confusion (on my own idea nonetheless
All of that said... (LOL)... we would, of course, still lose some two-way shots, or more generally, multi-way shots. Those would be the ones that are purely offensive, such as trying to make the 1 and 9 on the same shot.
I was playing the ghost the other day and got completely stuck with no reasonable offensive shot, but since the game is all offense, I found a way to get several balls moving in the general direction of pockets. A couple of them went in, and I was happy to be allowed to continue the run.
In any case, I think many would agree that if the game is call shot, it should include the pass-back option when a ball is pocketed on a safety.
Now if I could only summarize all my babbling into a suggestion to send to the WPA........
yeah, you'd better try, I'm starting to get lost in multiple variations of "killing two-way shots" attemptsCuebacca said:
And I think your idea about a possibility to turn the table if a ball is pocketed on a safety in 10-ball deserves a try - it could be sort of a push-out, you know. A shooter will keep in mind that possibility and try to leave a shot he could execute and his opponent probably can not.
Follow-up.
I did write several letters to the powers that be at the WPA. I also received several very well presented replies regarding the new 10-Ball Rules. I won't post the replies entirely but I thought everyone should at least know that they are looking into the rules with due diligence.
This line from the President of the WPA sums it up best.
I wish the WPA the best in their endeavors with the new 10-ball rules.
As the governor that started this thread I now enforce a stay of execution for the writers of the new WPA 10-ball rules. LOL
Mj
I did write several letters to the powers that be at the WPA. I also received several very well presented replies regarding the new 10-Ball Rules. I won't post the replies entirely but I thought everyone should at least know that they are looking into the rules with due diligence.
This line from the President of the WPA sums it up best.
I wish the WPA the best in their endeavors with the new 10-ball rules.
As the governor that started this thread I now enforce a stay of execution for the writers of the new WPA 10-ball rules. LOL
Mj
Last edited:
Jay Helfert
Jay, I have RARELY ever disagree with you on anything but have to this time.
It's not just pool vs. tennis, it is pool, as a sport vs. virtually every other major and minor sport.
But name ANY major sport where one person/team can be denied, under the rules, the ability to compete in most or ALL of the event!
Winner breaks is fine for gambling matches but for the above reason, it has no place in professional touring sports...IMHO
And 14.1, which I love, is a poor example to prove any point because the game is very nearly extinct as a spectator sport.
Regards,
Jim
Jay, I have RARELY ever disagree with you on anything but have to this time.
It's not just pool vs. tennis, it is pool, as a sport vs. virtually every other major and minor sport.
But name ANY major sport where one person/team can be denied, under the rules, the ability to compete in most or ALL of the event!
Winner breaks is fine for gambling matches but for the above reason, it has no place in professional touring sports...IMHO
And 14.1, which I love, is a poor example to prove any point because the game is very nearly extinct as a spectator sport.
Regards,
Jim
Bob Jewett said:
First, I agree with your earlier proposition that 10 Ball should be exactly the same as 9 Ball...with one ball added and leave it at that.
But as far as calling shots is concerned that should be no more of an issue than it is in 14.1 where in a referreed event, the ref calls the obvious shot and if that's not what the player has in mind, he says so.
But I'm not on the 10 Ball bandwagon because I don't think 9 Ball is "broken" beyond repair and 10 Ball will just lengthen the average rack time which is clearly not what TV or the pool spectators clearly want.
And without spectator interest, there is no TV and with no TV will be a continuing low ebb of the sport...in the U.S. anyway.
If in 9 Ball the following rules were implemented, it would SERIOUSLY reduce the luck factor in the game without significantly adding to average rack times.
1. The 9 on the break gets spotted and the breaker's inning continues. Draining the 9 is PURE luck (or less lucky only with rack rigging) and should be eliminated.
2. Call ball and pocket...no slop...which is a rule quite prevalent in 8 Ball in many parts of the country. If a called shot is missed and the shooter ends up safe...that's just the way the ball bounces which is a reality in EVERY sport. There is no sport I can think of where luck is entirely eliminated...nor should there be because it adds to the excitement of the game.
3. NO SOFT BREAKS. 3 Balls past the head string for men and 2 for women. If a player can figure out how to get the wing or 1 ball to go consistently on the hard break then that is a SKILL that should be rewarded. We have ALL seen matches where one player was doing so and the other wasn't.
4. Of course, the unprecedented (in any other sport) winner breaks rule, where one player/team can be prevented, BY RULE, from even competing in the event is silly and should be banned from tournament play and reside exclusively in gambling matches
With just those 4 rules, the luck factor in the game would be significantly reduced and people would have MUCH less to complain about. (and rules 1 and 2 would just RETURN the game to rules that were prevalent in the earlier days of the sport).
9 Ball "aint broke"...it just needs some fairly minor repairs.
Regards,
Jim
3. NO SOFT BREAKS. 3 Balls past the head string for men and 2 for women. If a player can figure out how to get the wing or 1 ball to go consistently on the hard break then that is a SKILL that should be rewarded. We have ALL seen matches where one player was doing so and the other wasn't.
I don't get this one ... if everyone can make a ball using soft break, wouldn't they? I think making a ball using soft break is just as much skill as making a ball with hard break.
just my .05 cents worth
I don't get this one ... if everyone can make a ball using soft break, wouldn't they? I think making a ball using soft break is just as much skill as making a ball with hard break.
just my .05 cents worth
It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of a tight rack. If the rack is tight, the wing ball goes in for an apparently wide range of speeds and hits. I measured 90% of the time at one World Championship where they were using the Sardo. Another 5% of the time, some other ball went in (like the one ball) so it was only one rack in 20 that came up dry. Maybe that's a fair way to play but many feel it is not interesting. I saw a video of Bustamante breaking one rack at the recent WC9B, and it looked like a soft stop shot on the one ball. After that, it looked like straight pool.Jazz said:
Nine ball is fundamentally flawed, and no perfect solution has been found.
Quote: Bob Jewett
Nine ball is fundamentally flawed, and no perfect solution has been found.[/QUOTE]
I agree Bob:
It's because it was a hustlers game developed probably during the depression era or before with the sport not a concern during its creation. Back then the hustle was easier, people were allot more naive and there were allot of things one could do with the rack.
The game today for professional play has outgrown 9-ball and the sport and players at the top level want skill to become the prevalant outcome.
I can't think of ANY professional sport that has NOT evolved over time. The only pool game in the states that evolved to its end is 14.1. Now if the game of 14.1 were too be played as much as the rotation games are now, it would undoubtly go through another metamorphisis.
Nine ball is fundamentally flawed, and no perfect solution has been found.[/QUOTE]
I agree Bob:
It's because it was a hustlers game developed probably during the depression era or before with the sport not a concern during its creation. Back then the hustle was easier, people were allot more naive and there were allot of things one could do with the rack.
The game today for professional play has outgrown 9-ball and the sport and players at the top level want skill to become the prevalant outcome.
I can't think of ANY professional sport that has NOT evolved over time. The only pool game in the states that evolved to its end is 14.1. Now if the game of 14.1 were too be played as much as the rotation games are now, it would undoubtly go through another metamorphisis.
Bob Jewett said:
Tight racks...in and of themselves, have nothing to do with automatic or nearly automatic pocketing of the 9 ball. The issue is tapped racks as is done with the Sardo, which was obviously a major mistake to begin with.
However innocently derived, the notion that racks should be perfect and identical backfired in a major way.
For DECADES, pro 9 Ball tournaments have been conducted with professional rackers and player inspections and one player or the other, if not both, have been frustrated by breaking dry...often prompting the players to change breaking positions numerous times...often to no avail.
And besides, in the only sensible format...alternate breaks...whatever flaws...either due to perfectly tight or NOT perfectly tight racks, are canceled out. It is only when tight, tapped racks are combined with winner breaks/slow breaks that we are exposed to a world champion like Feijen sitting in his chair watching Gomez put on a one-man exhibition of half table 8 ball routes (as in 8 balls on the table) which bored a large percentage of the viewing audience to tears.
But if hard breaking is not the answer...which it likely is...then just move the spot. Very little research would be required to find a place and inch or two forward or backward where no particular ball would go routinely.
And EVERY game ever invented...including 14.1 is flawed in some way. It's a matter of degree. And what some people view as flaws, others find interesting and exciting.
9 Ball is not the core issue concerning the difficult state of affairs in pro pool in America. No significantly popular sport in this country is absent a single controlling league/tour organization and rules agency.
Pro pool tours are totally fragmented and threads like this show how much in disarray the rules are.
But the REAL issue, is that compared to the other sports that compete against pool for the time of ticket buying fans and TV viewers, pool...in any form...is not particularly exciting to watch in the view of most Americans.
And yet...astonishingly, tour sponsors/promoters actually decide to allow slow breaks which eliminates one of the most exciting aspects of the game...the power break...and ban jump shots when virtually without exception, a great jump shot will elicit the most audience cheering BY FAR than any other shot in the entire match.
Amazing!
Regards,
Jim
Jazz said:
Hi Jazz,
Thanks for you 5 cents. The issue is not just the soft break but tapped racks as well.
As the WPC showed, just about everyone had the tapped rack/soft break nailed but that was only half the issue. The other half was that it turned the game into "half court basketball" where we sat there and watched 8 balls being run from below the side pockets.
And not only did Gomez make the wing ball almost every time...but the 1 ball ended up sitting in front of the side pocket 8 or 9 times.
The long history of pro 9 Ball with manually racked balls proves conclusively that dry breaks occurred very frequently and even when a ball is made on the break, there was NO guarantee of getting a decent shot on the lowest ball or ANY shot for that matter thereby requiring a push out which shifts the advantage back to the incoming player (slightly).
Just my opinions. Others have theirs which I am sure they feel equally strongly about.
Regards,
Jim