[IROCK]

We talk abut rules that should be changed in pool. What are some you would like to see changed. This is the one we have discussed on Pool Chat and it bugs me the most. I really hate seeing it happen during a Pro match I am watching.

#1. When the breaker does not make a ball on the break, but unintentionally leaves no shot. The next shooter should not be punished for someone else making a bad break. He should be able to shoot or pass the shot back.

[CocoboloCowboy]

When talking rules are you talking, BCA, BCAPL, ACS, APA, or what set of rules?????

[Pelican]

IROCK, on Jun 27 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

We talk abut rules that should be changed in pool. What are some you would like to see changed. This is the one we have discussed on Pool Chat and it bugs me the most. I really hate seeing it happen during a Pro match I am watching.

#1. When the breaker does not make a ball on the break, but unintentionally leaves no shot. The next shooter should not be punished for someone else making a bad break. He should be able to shoot or pass the shot back.

This rule is used a lot in ring games. Prevents players from soft breaking to leave a bad rack for every one following.

Pel

[IROCK]

I like the rule, how about you Pel?

[IROCK]

Pick your poison C Cowboy. Are they all that different. Hell sounds like traffic laws in all the states, nothing is the same.

[Pelican]

IROCK, on Jun 27 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

I like the rule, how about you Pel?

Yes, I like it also IROCK. They also have in the rules at Southern Billiards for their ring game: 1st foul incoming shooter has option to pass shot back to fouler. 2nd foul incoming shooter gets ball in kitchen or pass same to fouler. 3rd foul incoming shooter get BIH and must take it.

[IROCK]

I like it Pel. Should have had that back when I was a pup learning the game. It was hard playing in a ring game with a couple guys you didn't know or trust. This would have kept them a little more honest. They couldn't set each other up.

[MitchAlsup]

I am going to disagree with you on this rule::

I think that if somebody breaks and does not pot a ball (but commits no fouls) then the opponent gets the table as it lies. This is the same rule for every other time the inning is passed between player and opponent (without a foul)--why is the break "so" special?

For the same rational, I dislike the push-out shot.

[IROCK]

That is what makes this board unique, we can have different opinions on things. I think with out the push out rule it would even make a bad rule even worse. But i do respect your opinion. Here are a couple other things for us to kick the tires on. What do you think about breaking every other break vs winner breaks. When I am playing nine ball I like the alternate break format. In our pool league every year rules get voted in that makes it lot easier for the better players. It is usually in my favor because I am one of the better players. However rules like having the option of shooting solids or stripes in eight ball after pocketing a ball and using the eight to pocket a ball in the beginning and continuing to shoot or just a few that have been introduced through the years. I really don't want to see it get so lop sided that the lesser player has absolutely no chance.

[MitchAlsup]

IROCK, on Jun 30 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

I think <9 ball> with out the push out rule it would even make a bad rule even worse.

Which rule was that?
The one where if you don't make a ball on the break your inning ends?
Or the one where if you get a bad break on the break you get a cheap shot to atempt to screw the opponent?
Or the one where if your cheap shot does work, he can give it back to you?

Quote

Here are a couple other things for us to kick the tires on.

What do you think about breaking every other break vs winner breaks. <?>

I have given this much consideration over the last 6 months. I started out liking the alternate break format, but I have become convinced that this adds luck to the game and overall is ill advised. Sure it works at the lower league levels to allowssomeone to appear to be playinig better than one realloy is. However consider that Pool is a game of skill and the most skillful player at the table <that night> should win. Winner breaks allows a good player to string together 3-4-5 racks (or more) in a single inning. To beat a playe of this caliber requires the opponent to rise to the challenge and run 3-4-5 racks himself (or more). This removes what small modicum of luck that remains from the game.

The TV matched which convinced me was a 9-ball match (race to <some big number>) where each player put together 3-to-5 rack runs more than once. Talk about excitement, this raises the penalty for missing, raises the reward for excellent safety play, allows the better players to show off--all at the same time. Prior to watching this, I had become ambivalent, not caring one way or the other. But the excitement, here, was just fabulous. Far outstripping the alternating break format.

In alternating break, if you make a mistake on the other guys break, you don't get much punishment; but if you make the same mistake on your own break you get punished greatly. Should a simple mistake not be punished rather equally both times?

Quote

When I am playing nine ball I like the alternate break format. In our pool league every year rules get voted in that makes it lot easier for the better players. It is usually in my favor because I am one of the better players. However rules like having the option of shooting solids or stripes in eight ball after pocketing a ball and using the eight to pocket a ball in the beginning and continuing to shoot or just a few that have been introduced through the years. I really don't want to see it get so lop sided that the lesser player has absolutely no chance.

So, in effect, you like luck to be added to the playing environment, lessening the skill necessary to achieve a win. Tha's alright, for lower leagues. But I ask you to throughly consider this over a couple of weeks to months and determine if you want more luck involved in who wins, or less.

I don't care about stripes or solids (personally). I do have frineds that want one or the other, and in general I will give it to them even when that group is in better position. This simply causes me to rise to the occasion and play better to catch up and pass the opponent.

I play the 8 as either neutral or interfering depending on my opponent. Just make sure you ask the opponent before doing one or the other at the beginning of a match.

Better players should vote in rules that elimiate luck to the extent possible, lesser players will choose oppositely.

[IROCK]

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I still like alternate breaks.


There will always be an element of luck in the game in one form or another. It creates a chance for upsets, like David taking down Goliath in a matter of speaking. And upsets always create a buzz. What is your take on 9 on the break, you get the win or spot it and keep shooting.

[MitchAlsup]

IROCK, on Jul 1 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

What is your take on 9 on the break, you get the win or spot it and keep shooting.

Played 9-ball for money back in college. $1 on the 5 and 7 $2 on the 9. Drop the nine and the game is over--and I don't care what shot it is (break or other). So you could win $2, $3, $4, or break even and still win. So if you broke, ran through the 8 and missed the nine, your opponent makes the nine and the money is a wash. The person who potted the 9 got to break.

Now, here, we did not have a rule about the "open" break, although everyone I played did use one, it was not mandated. Much ofthe time we were not in condition to count to 4 balls (hitting rails)...but that is a story for a different time. IF you could find some way to strike the 1 ball and have something contact a rail, if nothing dropped your opponent got the table "as it lies". This leads to something more like 14.1 and is quite enjoyable even without the money aspect.

Now what really disappoints me on modern 9-ball is being able to use a pushout shot to pot the 9-ball and get it out of "easy victory" position for your opponent. and this is one of the reason I think modern 9-ball is "Not such a good game". a) wrong ball on the head spot, push shot, c) open break, d) shot clock, e) alternating break.

I suspect that if you took the game back to where it used to be rule wise, that the issues of the jump cues, phenolic tips, and unsportsmanlike conduct would diminish.

[IROCK]

I grew up playing nine ball two different ways. We usually played the five and nine balls as money balls. As long as a legal hit was made and one of them fell you collected on them and they were spotted up as long as there were at least two lower balls left than them and you kept shooting. But when we played only on the nine, once the nine went in the game was over. We usually played slop but once in a while we played call shots.