WPA vs WNT break format
- Thread starter skor
- Start date
as a player or a railbird? because those are different preferences.. if i'm playing it's the no break box version
It's hard to believe that the three point rule, among the most ridiculous rules ever used in cuesports, is still around. Far too often, it penalizes a player that breaks hard, which is far too big a price to pay for protecting against the soft break.
At least for me, the three point rule is as outdated as the penny farthing bicycle.
At least for me, the three point rule is as outdated as the penny farthing bicycle.
Last edited:
Why ?? It seems to me that Corey soft-breaks with as good a set of outcomes as anyone that hard-breaks.
Pool is about snatching games from your opponent--any non-fouling means to get that done should be encouraged.
Depends on the format/Race Length.
Soft break brings a predictable outcomes and easy run out.
9ball on the spot and break from the box was supposed make the game more random and harder to run out but the pros cracked this as well, you get less runouts but still the softer the break, the less random the spread, especially that now they also place the 2 ball in one of 3 spots.
A big break is also exciting to watch and makes the game less boring...
Also, in WNT, the referee warns a player if he think that the break is not hard enough. But this should be measurable and not based on what looks like soft to a referee.
Soft breaking makes the game boring and repetitious and it, therefore, makes pool less marketable. Rest assured, the fans didn't like the soft break any more than the players.
Gorst comment.... create a minimum break speed.
Yes, I'd be fine with that, as long as there are some qualifications for very young players and those with any physical handicaps.
Of course, this will only work for matches having referees, but in WNT events, all "last sixteen" matches have a dedicated referee. Automated break speed surveillance in matches not streamed or refereed sounds expensive.
Still, unless the penalties are stiff, it won't be enough to stamp out soft breaking. Perhaps a second break speed violation could be loss of rack and a thrid loss of match.
Filler almost lost his first match in the China Open because, after slamming his final break at 8-8, he failed (barely) to meet the 3-point rule. Fortunately for him his opponent botched a pretty good layout. Seen this too many times with the 3-point rule.
The problem with enforcing a hard break is few refs are willing to do it consistently. Determining what meets the minimum standard for a forceful break is also very subjective in the absence of any tech surveillance. That's why players are allowed to complain to a ref. They know what a hard or soft break is.
Break speed surveillance for all tables would be too expensive. Perhaps WNT could have spot radar checks throughout a tournament. Those found breaking soft would cede control of the table to his opponent for each particular infraction. More than a few infractions could lead to forfeiture.
Not sure this problem is entirely solvable ...
The problem with enforcing a hard break is few refs are willing to do it consistently. Determining what meets the minimum standard for a forceful break is also very subjective in the absence of any tech surveillance. That's why players are allowed to complain to a ref. They know what a hard or soft break is.
Break speed surveillance for all tables would be too expensive. Perhaps WNT could have spot radar checks throughout a tournament. Those found breaking soft would cede control of the table to his opponent for each particular infraction. More than a few infractions could lead to forfeiture.
Not sure this problem is entirely solvable ...
L.S. Dennis
Well-known member
I like this minimum break speed proposal to be calculated by some break speed indicator. And I would go a step further and require that all breaks are with the cue ball on the head spot (we could simply do away with the break box at this point) this would eliminate the one ball in the side that the players have figured out how to do now. This would be more exciting to watch for the fan with the hard break from the head spot and the unpredictably of the break outcome. I'd also go along with Stu's suggestion of qualifications for the young and physically handicapped.
Last edited:
That's a good example of how the three point rule can make a loser into a winner, and this is why the three point rule stinks. Somebody who breaks hard shold not be penalized.
The three point rule, similarly, cost Sanjin Pehlivanovic the European 9ball title at the European
Championships in 2021. The match is remembered for Sanjin's easy miss on the nine ball (time stamp 52:50) but his break at double hill (time stamp 54:20) was an excellent one, breaking hard, making a ball and leaving a hanger on the one. Sadly, the three point rule gave control of the table to Filler, who took care of buiness to win the title.
the three point rule is a suboptimal solution, but it affects both players equally. eventually you're gonna have a good break where some random caroms renders the break not compliant. in that sense it's fair. but much like the predator slug racks, when you're dealt this bad card, you're not gonna philosophize over statistics - you're gonna feel robbed
Since when is a 6 pack boring?? Insane take.