BCA Rule Change?
Ken Bour
There have been some "incidents" in our 8-ball league where certain
players have taken advantage of intentional fouls. Take the following
situation:
Corner ) (_______________) (_________
|8
|S
|
|Q
|
Where 8 = 8-ball; S = Striped ball; Q = Cueball
It is the solid player's shot. He can't "see" the 8-ball and is afraid
of scratching on a kick, so he intentionally knocks the S ball (his
opponent's ball) into the 8 just hard enough to leave it in the jaws.
This is an intentional foul (some might say a terrific safety) which
leaves the stripes player almost no way out. If he hits Q into S a
second time, even if softly, the 8 drops and he loses.
Some players in our league think that this is "dirty" pool and we have
been discussing a rule change that could eliminate this kind of
non-skill pool tactic.
How about the following 8-ball rule change?
If a player shoots and first makes contact with a ball of his opponent's
color (whether intentional or accidental), the player commits a foul and
the next player shall have the option of:
a) playing the resultant position with ball-in-hand
b) spotting the first ball fouled and shooting with ball-in-hand
c) requiring the player who committed the foul to continue shooting
Options (b) and (c), although different, may serve the same purpose;
therefore, only one or the other may be needed to achieve the objective
which is denying a positional advantage to a player who executes a foul.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ron Shepard
> There have been some "incidents" in our 8-ball league where certain
> players have taken advantage of intentional fouls. Take the following
> situation:
>
> Corner ) (_______________) (_________
> |8
> |S
> |
> |Q
> |
>
> Where 8 = 8-ball; S = Striped ball; Q = Cueball
>
> It is the solid player's shot. He can't "see" the 8-ball and is afraid
> of scratching on a kick, so he intentionally knocks the S ball (his
> opponent's ball) into the 8 just hard enough to leave it in the jaws.
> This is an intentional foul (some might say a terrific safety) which
> leaves the stripes player almost no way out. If he hits Q into S a
> second time, even if softly, the 8 drops and he loses.
>
> Some players in our league think that this is "dirty" pool and we have
> been discussing a rule change that could eliminate this kind of
> non-skill pool tactic.
But this is the essence of 8-ball. Many tactics in 8-ball do not require
skill. That is the nature of the game.
In this particular case, I would say that the player shooting the 8-ball
has a positional advantage (perhaps he as worked hard this game in order
to achieve it?), and it is up to the player with stripes to try to turn
the tables somehow.
Indeed, just to play devil's advocate, the player with stripes could have
easily put the other player in this position by playing a safety off of
his last stripe, another 8-ball move that requires very little skill. Now
you want to reward this player with an unearned game for making such a
cheap move in the first place?
> How about the following 8-ball rule change?
>
> If a player shoots and first makes contact with a ball of his opponent's
> color (whether intentional or accidental), the player commits a foul and
> the next player shall have the option of:
> a) playing the resultant position with ball-in-hand
> b) spotting the first ball fouled and shooting with ball-in-hand
> c) requiring the player who committed the foul to continue shooting
I don't understand b)? What is the "firt ball fouled"?
> Options (b) and (c), although different, may serve the same purpose;
> therefore, only one or the other may be needed to achieve the objective
> which is denying a positional advantage to a player who executes a foul.
It was not the foul that gave him the positional advantage, the player had
the advantage before the shot. Moving the 8-ball toward the pocket was a
risky aggressive move, considering that he could have pocketed the 8-ball
and lost or left enough space between the two balls to give his opponent
an easy win. And, of course, he hasn't won the game yet, he still must
execute a kick shot in order to win, and there are still several ways to
lose the game on the kick shot (scratching, hitting the stripe first and
pocketing the 8-ball, hitting the stripe first and selling out, etc.).
The striped players goal is to try to make these other things as likely as
possible. This is an interesting 8-ball situation, and the rules
shouldn't be changed to allow either player to win easily. I don't think
there should be a "saved by the bell" rule for this situation; both
players should be allowed to finish the game.
Using cheap tactics that require little skill is the nature of 8-ball. It
is because the two players are shooting at different sets of balls that
such moves are so easy. This is exactly why many players don't like
8-ball, and exactly why many others do. In other words, this is a
"feature" not a "bug". ;-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
JBL
Ken Bour wrote in message <34B0332B...@erols.com>...
>There have been some "incidents" in our 8-ball league where certain
>players have taken advantage of intentional fouls. Take the following
>situation:
>
>Corner ) (_______________) (_________
> |8
> |S
> |
> |Q
> |
>
>Where 8 = 8-ball; S = Striped ball; Q = Cueball
>
>It is the solid player's shot. He can't "see" the 8-ball and is afraid
>of scratching on a kick, so he intentionally knocks the S ball (his
>opponent's ball) into the 8 just hard enough to leave it in the jaws.
>This is an intentional foul (some might say a terrific safety) which
>leaves the stripes player almost no way out. If he hits Q into S a
>second time, even if softly, the 8 drops and he loses.
>
>Some players in our league think that this is "dirty" pool and we have
>been discussing a rule change that could eliminate this kind of
>non-skill pool tactic.
>
>How about the following 8-ball rule change?
>
>If a player shoots and first makes contact with a ball of his opponent's
>color (whether intentional or accidental), the player commits a foul and
>the next player shall have the option of:
> a) playing the resultant position with ball-in-hand
> b) spotting the first ball fouled and shooting with ball-in-hand
> c) requiring the player who committed the foul to continue shooting
>
>Options (b) and (c), although different, may serve the same purpose;
>therefore, only one or the other may be needed to achieve the objective
>which is denying a positional advantage to a player who executes a foul.
>
>
>Ken Bour
>Sterling, VA
Ken,
In most orginized leagues, the ruling is if the player with solids didn't
contact a solid first, in this case the 8, and drive anything to a rail, the
player on stripes would have ball in hand and the stripe moved would be
played where it lies.
If you don't use ball in hand, or you play the player must try to pocket a
ball, then your shot is somewhat unethical.
Just start using ball in hand on a bad hit and I will bet they will try to
kick at their 8 ball as in the diagram.
Ron Shepard
In article <19980105033...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, goa...@aol.com
(GOATIN) wrote:
> With the first guy pushing the oppnent's ball into his own (8ball) that would
> be 1-Foul, the oppnent would push cueball slightly back up table his 1-foul,
> first guy pushs stripe closer to 8-ball 2-Fouls, oppnent reminds first guy
> "Thats 2 Fouls" and repeats his 1st foul so he has 2-fouls, Now the first guy
> has to make a legal shot or it is a loss of game. IT IS CALLED "THREE FOUL
> RULE" That is how you stop guys from playing what they think is good pool by
> giving them a tast of thier own medicine BUT the oppent has to be good enough
> player to remember the rule and how to use it in a game in a barroom or
> poolroom. The purpose of the rule is to elminate (your quote "Non-Skill pool
> tactic") Check the BCA rule book.
BCA 8-ball does not have a 3-foul rule. 14.1, 9-ball, and one-pocket do,
but 8-ball doesn't. I think that the reason is that it is too easy to
play snookers in 8-ball, and most games would probably be decided by the
3F rule rather than by shooting balls; it would be a major change to add a
3F rule to 8-ball.
BTW, I played in a 9-ball tournament recently that did not use the 3-foul
rule. So what happens when you are snookered? You have two choices to
consider, going for the hit and trying to leave your oppoenent tough, or
tying up balls so that he can't run out even from ball-in-hand. You don't
really have to know anything about banks or kick shots. All in all, it's
a lousy game compared to the real thing.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ed Mercier
One foul, ball in hand. That's the only way eight ball should be played.
However in the situation you described, even playing one foul ball in hand, the
player may still be smart to play the balls just as you described as long as
they can leave the stripe and the eight ball close enough together that no shot
can be attempted even with ball in hand. This is good, skillfull pool. More
people should play safeties, and even intentional fouls, in eightball when the
situation warrants it. Let's banish the term "dirty pool."
GOATIN
Ron Hudson
This is like one of those reading comprehension tests from school.
Remember them, the ones that you flunked when you didn't understand a
key point because you failed to read something completely? The
opponent's foul will cost him the game, so there won't be a 2nd foul
by "first guy".
Ron
Bob Jewett
Ken Bour (kb...@erols.com) wrote:
[cozying the eight up to the pocket situation with a foul.]
: ... which
: leaves the stripes player almost no way out. If he hits Q into S a
: second time, even if softly, the 8 drops and he loses.
The stripes player takes ball in hand, places the cue ball so he can
play a safe on his last ball that leaves no shot at the eight but moves
the stripe a little off the rail. In another inning or two, he may
have a shot.
The problems with the proposed rule change are first that it may well
introduce some other problem situation, and secondly that it makes the
rules more complicated.
Bob Jewett
Ken Bour
I think you missed the point of my example. Yes, the opponent does have
ball-in-hand, but what shot does he have? If he touches the striped
ball (legal), he pockets the 8 and loses. The argument I'm making is to
take the advantage out of intentional fouls.
Ken Bour
JBL wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
GOATIN
When I said look at BCA rule book I was meaning that it is a good place to find
how Three Foul Rules are used. The gentlemen stated his problem, and I was
offering a standard ruling that in my humble opinion was a better rule than the
A, B, C, ideas he had outlined. I never assumed that he was using any Rules
other than his local poolleague rules.
Rand
An intentional foul in the case you describe is not dirty pool, it's
incredibly smart pool. It's a major risk kicking at the eight-ball -- if you
miss the eight completely, you give your oppent ball-in-hand anyway
(according to APA rules), and if you should hit the eight, you risk a double
kiss which could result in a scratch and loss of game at that point. The
safety, whether it's intentional or not, is the best way to play it.
Intentional fouls are used in every one of the games of billiards. In
nine-ball, if you're completely snookered and the nine is hanging in a
pocket, the smart shot is to make the nine and eliminate a quick ending to
the game with a combination. In straight pool, tapping the cue ball into the
pack and not driving a ball to the rail is a real safety option. Granted,
you lose a point, but in many cases that would be preferable to leaving an
open table where your opponent can easily run many balls. And here's a case
of a smart intentional foul in one-pocket. (I saw this in a match about a
year ago). The two players were tied at 7, so they each needed a ball.
Player A left the object ball so far in his pocket, there was no way to
clear it. Player B's only option was to make the ball in Player A's pocket
and follow it with the cue ball. Because the ball was not pocketed legally,
Player A doesnt' get the game winning ball. Player B loses a ball of his
own, which is then spotted with the other one. Now player A is at the table
with two balls frozen on the spot and ball-in-hand behind the line.
Defense is an integral part of pool, and in many bar leagues, anytime you
play a safety, whether it's just a good shot or an intentional foul, it's
considered dirty pool. But just like in any other sport where one individual
plays another or one team plays another, defense should be half the game.
Where would football be if there was only offense? I know that's a radical
comparison, but one to think about, none-the-less.
Randee
JBL wrote in message <68pnc9$a...@newsops.execpc.com>...
>
>Ken Bour wrote in message <34B0332B...@erols.com>...
>>There have been some "incidents" in our 8-ball league where certain
>>players have taken advantage of intentional fouls. Take the following
>>situation:
>>
>>Corner ) (_______________) (_________
>> |8
>> |S
>> |
>> |Q
>> |
>>
>>Where 8 = 8-ball; S = Striped ball; Q = Cueball
>>
>>It is the solid player's shot. He can't "see" the 8-ball and is afraid
>>of scratching on a kick, so he intentionally knocks the S ball (his
>>opponent's ball) into the 8 just hard enough to leave it in the jaws.
>>This is an intentional foul (some might say a terrific safety) which
>>leaves the stripes player almost no way out. If he hits Q into S a
>>second time, even if softly, the 8 drops and he loses.
>>
>>Some players in our league think that this is "dirty" pool and we have
>>been discussing a rule change that could eliminate this kind of
>>non-skill pool tactic.
>>
>>How about the following 8-ball rule change?
>>
>>If a player shoots and first makes contact with a ball of his opponent's
>>color (whether intentional or accidental), the player commits a foul and
>>the next player shall have the option of:
>> a) playing the resultant position with ball-in-hand
>> b) spotting the first ball fouled and shooting with ball-in-hand
>> c) requiring the player who committed the foul to continue shooting
>>
>>Options (b) and (c), although different, may serve the same purpose;
>>therefore, only one or the other may be needed to achieve the objective
>>which is denying a positional advantage to a player who executes a foul.
>>
>>
>>Ken Bour
>>Sterling, VA
>
>
Bob Jewett
Rand (rpa...@iu.net) wrote:
...
I agree, with one small nit-pick:
: Intentional fouls are used in every one of the games of billiards. ...
That should be "pool" rather than the general term "billiards." At
snooker -- and at English eight ball? -- intentionally fouling to gain
an advantage is not permitted. I know of no way to take an intentional
foul at carom, except perhaps by playing a deliberate safe at
3-cushion, and that is not permitted.
Bob Jewett
Ken Bour
[SNIP my original example]
> > Some players in our league think that this is "dirty" pool and we have
> > been discussing a rule change that could eliminate this kind of
> > non-skill pool tactic.
>
> But this is the essence of 8-ball. Many tactics in 8-ball do not require
> skill. That is the nature of the game.
Seriously? I think of 8-ball as a highly skilled game. It makes no
sense to me that one would want to reward a player who commits an
intentional foul, or said another way, create a set of rules which would
encourage a player to foul intentionally. As I understand the meaning
of the word "foul", it is something to be avoided and discouraged.
> In this particular case, I would say that the player shooting the 8-ball
> has a positional advantage (perhaps he as worked hard this game in order
> to achieve it?), and it is up to the player with stripes to try to turn
> the tables somehow.
But the positional advantage was created by intentionally fouling, i.e.
striking the opponent's ball first. Although ball-in-hand is granted to
the opponent, in this example, it's hardly an advantage. My rule change
would allow the rule-abiding player to force the fouling player to shoot
again -- now he's got a problem of his own creation! Seems eminently
fair to me.
> Indeed, just to play devil's advocate, the player with stripes could have
> easily put the other player in this position by playing a safety off of
> his last stripe, another 8-ball move that requires very little skill. Now
> you want to reward this player with an unearned game for making such a
> cheap move in the first place?
Yes, but striking stripes first (by the striped ball player) is a proper
shot and within the spirit of the 8-ball rules. I disagree that it
requires little skill, depending upon the circumstances. Where was the
other striped ball that he used to land in the position of my example?
Shooting at my opponent's ball to box him/her in is not, at least in my
mind, within the spirit of the game even if it is "legal." My
contention is that it should be more severely punished -- make the
player shoot again if the offended player doesn't like the turnout.
This is not much different than what happens on a push shot in 9-ball
after the break.
> > How about the following 8-ball rule change?
> >
> > If a player shoots and first makes contact with a ball of his opponent's
> > color (whether intentional or accidental), the player commits a foul and
> > the next player shall have the option of:
> > a) playing the resultant position with ball-in-hand
> > b) spotting the first ball fouled and shooting with ball-in-hand
> > c) requiring the player who committed the foul to continue shooting
>
> I don't understand b)? What is the "firt ball fouled"?
I could strike several of my opponent's balls (stipes in my example) in
succession before hitting any of the solids. Should all of the "fouled"
balls be spotted or just the first one? I am beginning to think that
Rule (b) should be dropped in favor of (c). If the harmed player
doesn't like the outcome, let the offending player shoot again...
> > Options (b) and (c), although different, may serve the same purpose;
> > therefore, only one or the other may be needed to achieve the objective
> > which is denying a positional advantage to a player who executes a foul.
>
> It was not the foul that gave him the positional advantage, the player had
> the advantage before the shot. Moving the 8-ball toward the pocket was a
> risky aggressive move, considering that he could have pocketed the 8-ball
> and lost or left enough space between the two balls to give his opponent
> an easy win.
I contend that the foul DID give the player a positional advantage, but,
as you correctly point out, not without some risk. In my somewhat
contrived example, I had hoped to avoid the kind of argument that you
are making. I would ask you to assume that locking-up the other player,
in this position, is a relative duck. I hoped to interest you, not so
much with the various possibilities open to the two players, but with
the unfairness of permitting intentional fouls to occur. This was my
poor attempt at an example to stimulate that discussion.
> And, of course, he hasn't won the game yet, he still must
> execute a kick shot in order to win, and there are still several ways to
> lose the game on the kick shot (scratching, hitting the stripe first and
> pocketing the 8-ball, hitting the stripe first and selling out, etc.).
> The striped players goal is to try to make these other things as likely as
> possible. This is an interesting 8-ball situation, and the rules
> shouldn't be changed to allow either player to win easily. I don't think
> there should be a "saved by the bell" rule for this situation; both
> players should be allowed to finish the game.
If you take my example as worded, the stripes player has lost by virtue
of the intentional foul. If he touches his stiped ball, he will knock
the 8-ball into the corner. I meant that to be a premise in my
example. Now, it is true that the striped player could foul in turn by
inching the cueball in the opposite direction (not striking his ball
first either). If he gives ball-in-hand to the solids player, it's a
simple matter to just touch the 8-ball and pocket it in the corner. So,
the offending player DID create a situation in which he forces his
opponent to lose by intentionally fouling. That is the example that I
tried to craft, however poorly.
> Using cheap tactics that require little skill is the nature of 8-ball.
Oh, please say it ain't so, Ron.
> It
> is because the two players are shooting at different sets of balls that
> such moves are so easy. This is exactly why many players don't like
> 8-ball, and exactly why many others do. In other words, this is a
> "feature" not a "bug". ;-)
I would prefer to conclude that the rules are not yet "perfected" and
there are still some situations that allow (if not encourage)
intentional fouling to compromise what would otherwise be a highly
skillful game.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
GOATIN wrote:
>
> With the first guy pushing the oppnent's ball into his own (8ball) that would
> be 1-Foul, the oppnent would push cueball slightly back up table his 1-foul,
> first guy pushs stripe closer to 8-ball 2-Fouls, oppnent reminds first guy
> "Thats 2 Fouls" and repeats his 1st foul so he has 2-fouls, Now the first guy
> has to make a legal shot or it is a loss of game. IT IS CALLED "THREE FOUL
> RULE" That is how you stop guys from playing what they think is good pool by
> giving them a tast of thier own medicine BUT the oppent has to be good enough
> player to remember the rule and how to use it in a game in a barroom or
> poolroom. The purpose of the rule is to elminate (your quote "Non-Skill pool
> tactic") Check the BCA rule book.
As pointed out by others, there is no 3-foul rule in BCA 8-ball. If my
recommendation concerning a rule change is not acceptable to the
cogniscenti (as sure seems to be the case), then I would happily favor
your suggestion.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
[SNIP my original post]
>
> In most orginized leagues, the ruling is if the player with solids didn't
> contact a solid first, in this case the 8, and drive anything to a rail, the
> player on stripes would have ball in hand and the stripe moved would be
> played where it lies.
>
> If you don't use ball in hand, or you play the player must try to pocket a
> ball, then your shot is somewhat unethical.
>
> Just start using ball in hand on a bad hit and I will bet they will try to
> kick at their 8 ball as in the diagram.
The cueball and/or striped ball DID contact a rail. That is not the
foul to which I am calling attention. I thought I stated, in my
example, that the stipes player DID get ball-in-hand. The problem is
that, even with ball-in-hand, there is no way to avoid losing. If he
strikes his striped ball, ever so gently, the 8-ball goes into the
corner.
The fouling player has created a situation, by intentionally violating
the rules, that puts his opponent into a hopeless mess. I am advocating
a rule change that would not allow that to happen. Do you have an
opinion about my rule change recommendation? I'm liking (a) and (c),
but not (b) as this thread develops...
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
Rand wrote:
>
> An intentional foul in the case you describe is not dirty pool, it's
> incredibly smart pool. It's a major risk kicking at the eight-ball -- if you
> miss the eight completely, you give your oppent ball-in-hand anyway
> (according to APA rules), and if you should hit the eight, you risk a double
> kiss which could result in a scratch and loss of game at that point. The
> safety, whether it's intentional or not, is the best way to play it.
OK, thanks for understanding the example and dealing with it as I
outlined.
> Intentional fouls are used in every one of the games of billiards. In
> nine-ball, if you're completely snookered and the nine is hanging in a
> pocket, the smart shot is to make the nine and eliminate a quick ending to
> the game with a combination. In straight pool, tapping the cue ball into the
> pack and not driving a ball to the rail is a real safety option. Granted,
> you lose a point, but in many cases that would be preferable to leaving an
> open table where your opponent can easily run many balls. And here's a case
> of a smart intentional foul in one-pocket. (I saw this in a match about a
> year ago). The two players were tied at 7, so they each needed a ball.
> Player A left the object ball so far in his pocket, there was no way to
> clear it. Player B's only option was to make the ball in Player A's pocket
> and follow it with the cue ball. Because the ball was not pocketed legally,
> Player A doesnt' get the game winning ball. Player B loses a ball of his
> own, which is then spotted with the other one. Now player A is at the table
> with two balls frozen on the spot and ball-in-hand behind the line.
You make some very persuasive points above. I will counter with the
following situation: why, after a 9-ball break, if a player pushes out
(permitted, but a shot which voilates the normal rules), does his/her
opponent have the option to shoot or require the first player to
continue? That's all I'm saying in my 8-ball example. If a player
fouls by striking his opponent's ball first, the next player can play
the resultant position or, alternatively, require the first player to
shoot again.
> Defense is an integral part of pool, and in many bar leagues, anytime you
> play a safety, whether it's just a good shot or an intentional foul, it's
> considered dirty pool. But just like in any other sport where one individual
> plays another or one team plays another, defense should be half the game.
> Where would football be if there was only offense? I know that's a radical
> comparison, but one to think about, none-the-less.
To me, it is not "dirty pool" if one plays a safety without fouling. It
is a very skillful shot and I remain in awe of those who can execute
these shots well. I am only taking up against those who win by
violating the rules, in your football analogy, by holding or clipping
and, thereby, creating a winning situation.
>
> Randee
[SNIP]
Ken Bour
Bob:
If intentional fouling is not permitted in billiards, then why would it
be allowed in pool?
Shouldn't the rules be structured so that intentionally violating the
rules does not create an advantage to the fouling player?
I think that Rules (a) and (c) in my suggestion would accomplish the
objective.
I have given up on (b) because I think that it would be too complicated
to administer. Clearly, forcing your opponent to "shoot again", after
any foul, is not unlike requiring a 9-ball player to continue who, after
a break, executes a push-out that is not acceptable.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
Ed Mercier wrote:
>
> One foul, ball in hand. That's the only way eight ball should be played.
Why? In 9-ball, after the break, if a player cannot "see" the lowest
ball and pushes out (permitted, but not normally a legal stroke),
his/her opponent can force the first player to shoot again. This is
accepted in 9-ball -- why not for an 8-ball foul?
> However in the situation you described, even playing one foul ball in hand, the
> player may still be smart to play the balls just as you described as long as
> they can leave the stripe and the eight ball close enough together that no shot
> can be attempted even with ball in hand. This is good, skillfull pool. More
> people should play safeties, and even intentional fouls, in eightball when the
> situation warrants it. Let's banish the term "dirty pool."
Wow, Ed, you and I have a very different view of the game. You seem to
be arguing that intentionally fouling is a "good" thing. I don't
disagree that, given the rules the way they are, the solids player
should intentionally foul in order to win, but, is that the way you want
the game to be played?
I'm trying to point out that, by altering the rules a tad, we might make
the game less subject to such tactics and let skill prevail.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
Bob Jewett wrote:
>
> Ken Bour (kb...@erols.com) wrote:
>
> [cozying the eight up to the pocket situation with a foul.]
>
> : leaves the stripes player almost no way out. If he hits Q into S a
> : second time, even if softly, the 8 drops and he loses.
>
> play a safe on his last ball that leaves no shot at the eight but moves
> the stripe a little off the rail. In another inning or two, he may
> have a shot.
You have changed my condition which is that, if the striped player just
touches the S ball, the 8 will be pocketed resulting in a loss. You may
argue that no such possibility can be contrived on a real pool table,
but, for the sake of argument, go along with me on this one. I am
really trying to generate some discussion on whether intentional fouling
is to be avoided or encouraged in the game of 8-ball. I am
disillusioned by so many of our RSBers who, rather than contemplate a
possible rule change, would so quickly defend the "intentional foul" as
a natural part of the game. Ouch!
> The problems with the proposed rule change are first that it may well
> introduce some other problem situation, and secondly that it makes the
> rules more complicated.
I don't see that rule change (a) is complicated. That is the current
rule now. I have introduced (b) and (c) but, after reading some of the
responses, I think that only (c) need remain. There is nothing
especially complicated about requiring the fouling shooter to stay at
the table and shoot again.
Introducing another unforseen problem is, of course, a legitimate
concern, but I hoped to stimulate someone to contrive a counter example
that we couldn't countenance. The mere possibility that another problem
situation could be created does not seem enough weight to stop a rule
change that could produce some good. I developed my example so that
there would be a concrete situation to examine where harm is done by a
foul. Incidentally, this case was taken from a real game but I was not
involved.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ron Shepard
>[SNIP my original example]
>
>> > Some players in our league think that this is "dirty" pool and we have
>> > been discussing a rule change that could eliminate this kind of
>> > non-skill pool tactic.
>>
>> But this is the essence of 8-ball. Many tactics in 8-ball do not require
>> skill. That is the nature of the game.
>
>Seriously? I think of 8-ball as a highly skilled game. It makes no
>sense to me that one would want to reward a player who commits an
>intentional foul, or said another way, create a set of rules which would
>encourage a player to foul intentionally. As I understand the meaning
>of the word "foul", it is something to be avoided and discouraged.
I think that there are situations in all pool games in which a player is
better off taking a foul penalty than executing a stupid shot. In this
particular situation, the penalty is giving ball in hand to his opponent,
the stupid shot is playing a kick shot that is 90% sure to scratch. [I
guess in BCA 8-ball it would not be a loss in this case to scratch, but it
is a loss in APA 8-ball.]
It is like fouls in other games. Say in basketball, when a player is
going in for an easy layup. The only choice left for the defender is to
foul him and give him the free throw. It is just a matter of percentages.
Or in baseball, when a pitcher decides to walk a good hitter so he can
strike out the next batter. He risks something, but it is a matter of
odds.
Or in chess when you sacrifice a piece in order to develop your position.
You risk something, but you figure you are better off, given the choices.
>> In this particular case, I would say that the player shooting the 8-ball
>> has a positional advantage (perhaps he as worked hard this game in order
>> to achieve it?), and it is up to the player with stripes to try to turn
>> the tables somehow.
>
>But the positional advantage was created by intentionally fouling, i.e.
>striking the opponent's ball first.
No, I meant that he had an intentional advantage before he took the shot,
because the 8-ball was blocking his opponent's ball. He may have worked
very hard to achieve this advantage, and the stripes player may not have
worked very hard to put him in the position.
>Although ball-in-hand is granted to
>the opponent, in this example, it's hardly an advantage.
And it shouldn't be an advantage for him. If it were, the other player
perhaps should not have taken the intentional foul.
>My rule change
>would allow the rule-abiding player to force the fouling player to shoot
>again -- now he's got a problem of his own creation! Seems eminently
>fair to me.
Do you mean to shoot again with ball-in-hand, like he was willing to give
to his opponent? The player with stripes can shoot without giving up ball
in hand, and that is what he should do. It is always possible to feather
off the outside ball in these situations. The stripes player has better
options than giving up ball in hand, the solids player didn't.
>> Indeed, just to play devil's advocate, the player with stripes could have
>> easily put the other player in this position by playing a safety off of
>> his last stripe, another 8-ball move that requires very little skill. Now
>> you want to reward this player with an unearned game for making such a
>> cheap move in the first place?
>
>Yes, but striking stripes first (by the striped ball player) is a proper
>shot and within the spirit of the 8-ball rules. I disagree that it
>requires little skill, depending upon the circumstances. Where was the
>other striped ball that he used to land in the position of my example?
>Shooting at my opponent's ball to box him/her in is not, at least in my
>mind, within the spirit of the game even if it is "legal."
I think this is exactly what tactics in 8-ball is about. And furthermore,
that is why many players like the game!
>My
>contention is that it should be more severely punished -- make the
>player shoot again if the offended player doesn't like the turnout.
>This is not much different than what happens on a push shot in 9-ball
>after the break.
Giving up ball in hand is more of a penalty than giving his opponent an
option with ball in place. For example, with a push-out option rule, he
could simply roll the cue ball out to where he could cut in the 8-ball
without leaving a shot on the last stripe. I don't see why you would
prefer this option over the current rule, at least if you want to punish
the solids player most severely.
>> > How about the following 8-ball rule change?
>> >
>> > If a player shoots and first makes contact with a ball of his opponent's
>> > color (whether intentional or accidental), the player commits a foul and
>> > the next player shall have the option of:
>> > a) playing the resultant position with ball-in-hand
>> > b) spotting the first ball fouled and shooting with ball-in-hand
>> > c) requiring the player who committed the foul to continue shooting
>>
>> I don't understand b)? What is the "firt ball fouled"?
>
>I could strike several of my opponent's balls (stipes in my example) in
>succession before hitting any of the solids. Should all of the "fouled"
>balls be spotted or just the first one?
Are you talking about spotting balls that aren't pocketed on bad hits?
This would be a *very* major change to 8-ball.
>I am beginning to think that
>Rule (b) should be dropped in favor of (c). If the harmed player
>doesn't like the outcome, let the offending player shoot again...
But he has ball in hand? If he can't exploit ball in hand, he can already
give ball in hand back to his opponent, so this doesn't accomplish
anything. And in the situation you described, this is not the striped
player's best move.
>> > Options (b) and (c), although different, may serve the same purpose;
>> > therefore, only one or the other may be needed to achieve the objective
>> > which is denying a positional advantage to a player who executes a foul.
But it is possible that he *earned* the positional advantage before he was
forced to take the foul. Such rules could easily give an unearned win to
the stripes player.
>> It was not the foul that gave him the positional advantage, the player had
>> the advantage before the shot. Moving the 8-ball toward the pocket was a
>> risky aggressive move, considering that he could have pocketed the 8-ball
>> and lost or left enough space between the two balls to give his opponent
>> an easy win.
>
>I contend that the foul DID give the player a positional advantage, but,
>as you correctly point out, not without some risk. In my somewhat
>contrived example, I had hoped to avoid the kind of argument that you
>are making. I would ask you to assume that locking-up the other player,
>in this position, is a relative duck. I hoped to interest you, not so
>much with the various possibilities open to the two players, but with
>the unfairness of permitting intentional fouls to occur. This was my
>poor attempt at an example to stimulate that discussion.
Perhaps you need to find another example of the situation you really want
to discuss, even a contrived one.
>If you take my example as worded, the stripes player has lost by virtue
>of the intentional foul. If he touches his stiped ball, he will knock
>the 8-ball into the corner.
This is never true. With ball in hand, there is always a way to feather
the outside ball and play a snooker. It may take a couple of nudges, but
he can eventually move his last stripe away from the 8-ball, and force the
solids player to kick at the 8-ball, or to give up a shot on the last
stripe to his opponent. The solids player here has a 70-80% advantage,
but it is not a lock. And it is likely that the outcome will be
determined by a mistake (a missed snooker or sinking the 8-ball
illegally).
>> Using cheap tactics that require little skill is the nature of 8-ball.
>
>Oh, please say it ain't so, Ron.
This is one reason why I don't think 8-ball is a good game for beginners.
They can spend too much time with this stuff instead of learning how to
shoot shots and play position.
>> It
>> is because the two players are shooting at different sets of balls that
>> such moves are so easy. This is exactly why many players don't like
>> 8-ball, and exactly why many others do. In other words, this is a
>> "feature" not a "bug". ;-)
>
>I would prefer to conclude that the rules are not yet "perfected" and
>there are still some situations that allow (if not encourage)
>intentional fouling to compromise what would otherwise be a highly
>skillful game.
I'll wait to see another sample shot setup that demonstrates your point.
I don't think this one does.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Andrew McLeod
Bob Jewett wrote:
> Rand (rpa...@iu.net) wrote:
> ...
> I agree, with one small nit-pick:
>
> : Intentional fouls are used in every one of the games of billiards. ...
>
> That should be "pool" rather than the general term "billiards." At
> snooker -- and at English eight ball? -- intentionally fouling to gain
> an advantage is not permitted. I know of no way to take an intentional
>
Now, I have to be careful with my terminology, butat English 8 ball,
playing your opponents set
directly when you are not snookered (possibly
even if you are if it is not an attempt to escape
the snooker) is immediate loss (under EPA rules).
You can however, deliberately/intentionally (whichever
it is, I'm not sure I remember the disctinction)
you can intentionally play your ball into your opponents
to pot it and thus commit a normal foul rather than
a game losing one. Although, in English pool following
a foul your opponent gets two visits the choice of putting
the cue ball in the kitchen, and the first shot after a foul
you are allowed to pot anything (apart from the black unless
you are on it) and count it as part of your first visit.
However, even with such a great penalty following a foul
(hence, you learn early on the lessons about safety play)
the above mentioned deliberate/intentional foul still has
it moments (mainly when they are blocking one pocket near
which you have some balls, and you are blocking two or more
near which they have some....the sacrifice foul to then
gain control of that pocket and leave them with at least
two blocked pockets is a good move --- they can use their
first visit to free one pocket, but they still have to
waste a shot getting the remaining nasty ball away from a pocket).
Phew.....its easier to demonstrate than explain.
Cheers,
Andy McLeod
Rand
>You make some very persuasive points above. I will counter with the
>following situation: why, after a 9-ball break, if a player pushes out
>(permitted, but a shot which voilates the normal rules), does his/her
>opponent have the option to shoot or require the first player to
>continue? That's all I'm saying in my 8-ball example. If a player
>fouls by striking his opponent's ball first, the next player can play
>the resultant position or, alternatively, require the first player to
>shoot again.
Push outs don't violate the rules for either BCA or Texas Express. The push
shot is perfectly legal, and occurs only at a specific time in the game. At
no other time in any of the pool games would that type of shot not result in
ball-in-hand.
FYI, The BCA web page detailing its rules says this:
5. PUSH OUT. The player who shoots the shot immediately after a legal break
may play a push out in an attempt to move the cue ball into a better
position for the option that follows. On a push out, the cue ball is not
required to contact any object ball nor any rail, but all other foul rules
still apply. The player must announce his intention of playing a push out
before the shot, or the shot is considered to be a normal shot. Any ball
pocketed on a push out does not count and remains pocketed except the
9-ball. Following a legal push out, the incoming player is permitted to
shoot from that position or to pass the shot back to the player who pushed
out. A push out is not considered to be a foul as long as no rule (except
rules 7. and 8.) is violated. An illegal push out is penalized according to
the type of foul committed. After a player scratches on the break shot, the
incoming player cannot play a push out.
Texas Express' web page also has the rule:
Push Out (also referred to as a Roll Out): The player who shoots the shot
immediately after a legal break has the option to push out (shoot the cue
ball) to any area on the table by executing a legal shot. There is no
requirement for the cue ball to strike any ball or rail. The player may
strike or sink any ball. The only ball to spot is the 9-ball. If the player
at the table executes a push out after the break, the incoming player
reserves the option to execute a shot or they may allow the opponent to
shoot (Referred to as a pass). The push out must be declared to the opponent
and the opponent must acknowledge. If the player fails to declare the push
out and executes a shot, it will be considered an attempted legal shot and
all rules pertaining to fouls will apply.
>To me, it is not "dirty pool" if one plays a safety without fouling. It
>is a very skillful shot and I remain in awe of those who can execute
>these shots well. I am only taking up against those who win by
>violating the rules, in your football analogy, by holding or clipping
>and, thereby, creating a winning situation.
I think the basic question here is, why shouldn't you be allowed to play the
best shot on the table, even if it involves intentionally fouling and giving
your opponent ball-in-hand? Why should those be a violation of the rules?
Holding and clipping are not allowed, but for different reasons than you
suggest intentional fouls not be allowed in pool. Holding and clipping
(particularly clipping) are not allowed in football because of the potential
risk of physical injury to one of the players. An intentional foul doesn't
run the risk of blowing someone's knee out.
I played in a tournament last night where my opponent was giving me the
eight. The eight and nine were tied up on the long rail in a way the only
way the eight could be made was a cross side shot with a lot of throw (the
nine was blocking the part of the eight you'd normally need to hit for a
bank shot without English). The nine couldn't be caromed in, unless it was a
carom bank shot cross corner. My opponent couldn't see the eight and would
have to kick at it. If he attempted the kick, all he would have done is
break up the balls and possibly leave me an open shot on the 8. He chose to
tap the balls and leave me to try the cross side bank on the eight. It was
still an intentional foul. I missed the bank but didn't blame it on my
opponent for losing the game. He played an excellent safety shot that
required no skill other than thinking the game well. In my opinion, he
should be congratulated for the shot, rather than being blasphemized for
playing an intentional foul.
Rand
Rand
Ken Bour wrote in message <34B440F3...@erols.com>...
>I am only taking up against those who win by
>violating the rules, in your football analogy, by holding or clipping
>and, thereby, creating a winning situation.
>
You only execute an intentional foul when the penalty to you more favorable
to you than not fouling. In pool, an intentional foul would give an opponent
ball-in-hand rather than breaking up ball or leaving an easy shot. The
player still gets penalized, but he thinks he thinks he's better off that
way.
Intentional fouls are also used in football. Two cases I can think of
off-hand. Your team is on your opponent's 35-yard-line, fourth down, under 2
minutes to play and you're ahead. If you try the 49-yard field goal and
miss, you give them the ball on the 42. If you punt, you'll probably cause a
touchback and give it to them on the 20. If you go for it and miss, you give
it to them on the 35. All are undesirable. What you could do, and what is
perfectly allowed by the rules, is let the play clock run down and take a
five-yard delay of game penalty. You're willing to take the five yard
penalty (and run the time off the clock) because punting from the 40 gives
you a better chance to avoid the touchback. Another case of intentionally
fouling in football would be pass interferance (not that it's always
intentional, but sometimes it is.) You're playing corner and the receiver
has you beat. He's going long and there's no one between him and the
endzone. You could intentionally interefere with the pass. You're willing to
give him the ball at the spot of the foul, but you might have saved him from
scoring.
And in the last seconds of a basketball game, how many times do you see the
players foul their opponents in order to stop the clock? They're willing to
give them two free throws in the hope of getting the ball back and possibly
scoring.
Rand
Ron Shepard
>>You make some very persuasive points above. I will counter with the
>>following situation: why, after a 9-ball break, if a player pushes out
>>(permitted, but a shot which voilates the normal rules), does his/her
>>opponent have the option to shoot or require the first player to
>>continue? That's all I'm saying in my 8-ball example. If a player
>>fouls by striking his opponent's ball first, the next player can play
>>the resultant position or, alternatively, require the first player to
>>shoot again.
>
>Push outs don't violate the rules for either BCA or Texas Express. The push
>shot is perfectly legal, and occurs only at a specific time in the game. At
>no other time in any of the pool games would that type of shot not result in
>ball-in-hand. [...]
Perhaps some perspective on this can be gained by looking at the
alternatives that have been tried in 9-ball. 9-ball used to be played
with no penalty, other than loss of turn, for fouls. If a player failed
to hit the lowest ball, he simply lost his turn. Illegally pocketed balls
were spotted, often forming clusters that prevented the opponent from
running out. This made the game dull, which doesn't mean boring but
rather that the player wasn't punished for mistakes.
So to sharpen up the game, various rule modifications were tried in the
60's and 70's. Illegally pocketed balls stayed down, punishing the
shooter by making it easier for the opponent to run out. In some of these
rulesets, the incoming player after a foul always had the option of making
his opponent play the shot. The problem with this game was that player's
seldom had to kick at snookered balls, or to shoot difficult shots; they
could always just roll the cue ball to a neutral position.
So two-shot roll-outs were tried. After the first foul, the incoming
player had the option, but after two fouls, the opponent could take ball
in hand anywhere on the table. The problem with this rule was that after
the second foul, the player wasn't really forced to take the shot. He
could just tie up even more balls, making the runout even more difficult
for his opponent even with ball in hand.
So then one-shot roll-outs were tried. The opponent always got ball in
hand after the first foul. This helped sharpen up the game, but it didn't
eliminate the problem of tying up balls.
So the 3-foul rule was added. Other games had a 3-foul rule (14.1 for
example) that worked, so this was not a new innovation in 9-ball. This
helped stop players from just tying up balls every time they got out of
position, or had to give up the table, because they were threatened with
loss of game after the second foul.
And to force the player to kick at balls and take hard shots, the
roll-outs were eliminated except for just after the break.
So this brings us to the modern 9-ball game, roll-out after the break
only, ball-in-hand after one foul, and loss of game after 3 consecutive
fouls. In my opinion, this is really the best of all 9-ball games. And
yes, I've played all of them, lots, although I know that other players
sometimes say they prefer one of the old variations. It merges sharp
offense and defense very well. Knowledgable players can use banking and
kicking skills to their advantage. And the game is rich in tactics. None
of the other 9-ball games had such a good combination of tactics, offense,
and defense.
If this evolution worked for 9-ball, why not for 8-ball? The reason is
that snookers are too easy to play in 8-ball. The players are shooting at
different sets of balls, so this is an inherent aspect of the game. It is
very easy for a player to hit one of his balls and hid behind either it,
or another, or both. The ball-in-hand rule was carried over from 9-ball
to 8-ball, but the various roll-out rules and 3-foul rule just don't fit
with the nature of 8-ball.
Imagine the common situation where a player is running balls and gets out
of line with an option roll-out rule. He could just roll the ball to play
a snooker on his opponent, but where he had an easy shot to continue the
runout. His opponent would have no chance for offense or defense, yet he
would have to take the shot to prevent his opponent from winning. So he
would probably roll the cue ball to some place good for him, but bad for
his opponent. Then the opponent would roll it back to the first place.
Ad nauseum. Stupid rule, stupid game, right? With the current
ball-in-hand rule, at least balls must be contacted and moved around,
which tends to limit these perpetual-safety situations.
So, back to the 8-ball endgame situation. Many 8-ball players think this
is the interesting part of 8-ball. 8-ball is so often just a run-out
game, with the winner being the first one who has a shot after the break.
It is these tight tactical situations that give the game its appeal. I
think you gave up too quickly on the player shooting the stripes (or maybe
he gave up too quickly). Yeah, he is probably at a disadvantage, but he
still has a chance. If his opponent can't kick very well, he has a pretty
good chance. And if his opponent screws up, he has the win. If you want
to change the rules to 8-ball, you should not try to eliminate these kind
of interesting, tight, tactical situations, you should instead be trying
to make them more common, more interesting, and sharper. 8-ball needs to
be sharper, not duller.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
>Intentional fouls are also used in football. Two cases I can think of
>off-hand. [take a delay-of-game penalty for better position...] [pass
interference...]
Another situation in football comparable to an intentional foul is running
out of bounds to stop the clock rather than getting tackled in bounds with
the clock running.
Actually there are several out-of-bound situations like this in football.
Out of bounds in football is analogous to jumping a ball off the table in
pool.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ed Mercier
I'll give you alot of credit Ken, you sure are willing to respond to many posts. We
do have a very different opinion of the game. I don't think fouling is a good thing,
however it is certainly not unethical, or illegal, dishonest. I will always run out
rather than foul if the situation warrants it. But I play percentage pool, and if
the best chance I have to win the game is to play an intentional foul, that is what I
do.
I find your very question a little funny. Everyone I play with, and this represents
nearly every strong pool player in the state of Wisconsin at one time or another over
the past 20 years, plays the same way. None of them would have any qualms, or moral
ambiguity about taking an intentional foul.
I think from the responses you received that it is pretty clear in this newsgroup the
majority do not agree with your suggestion. IMHO you should take a message from this
and reconsider your approach to eight-ball.
Ken Bour wrote:
> > However in the situation you described, even playing one foul ball in hand, the
> > player may still be smart to play the balls just as you described as long as
> > they can leave the stripe and the eight ball close enough together that no shot
> > can be attempted even with ball in hand. This is good, skillfull pool. More
> > people should play safeties, and even intentional fouls, in eightball when the
> > situation warrants it. Let's banish the term "dirty pool."
>
> Wow, Ed, you and I have a very different view of the game. You seem to
> be arguing that intentionally fouling is a "good" thing. I don't
> disagree that, given the rules the way they are, the solids player
> should intentionally foul in order to win, but, is that the way you want
> the game to be played?
>
Ed Mercier:
Many intentional fouls are not easy shots to execute, and take great deal of skill.
They help to make eightball a very tactical game. Any change solely intended to
eliminate intentional fouls would certainly take away some of the beauty of the
game. It is generally the more skillful player that is able to come up with an
intentional foul to get out of a seemingly impossible jam. The weaker player is
often left commiserating with his teammates about what a rotten thing that was to do.
Laura Friedman
I wonder if people who have a "moral" problem with intentionally fouling
in 8-ball also have a problem with the common use if the intentional
foul in one pocket (shooting your opponents ball in their hole, then
stratching behind it) or straight pool (taking a foul when your opponent
is on two fouls to force them into selling out).
Laura
Bob Jewett
Ken Bour (kb...@erols.com) wrote:
...
: You make some very persuasive points above. I will counter with the
: following situation: why, after a 9-ball break, if a player pushes out
: (permitted, but a shot which voilates the normal rules), does his/her
: opponent have the option to shoot or require the first player to
: continue?
At nine ball, the push-out rule was introduced into tournament play
around 1986 to prevent the very bad rolls (for both players) that occur
on the break.
: ... That's all I'm saying in my 8-ball example. If a player
: fouls by striking his opponent's ball first, the next player can play
: the resultant position or, alternatively, require the first player to
: shoot again.
Ball in hand is nearly always a sufficient penalty for a wrong-ball-
first foul. Why complicate the game?
: To me, it is not "dirty pool" if one plays a safety without fouling. It
: is a very skillful shot and I remain in awe of those who can execute
: these shots well. I am only taking up against those who win by
: violating the rules, in your football analogy, by holding or clipping
: and, thereby, creating a winning situation.
While this approach is standard on the snooker table, pool has a very
long tradition of fouling by design. In fact, safety play at 14.1
would be largely unrecognizable if such fouls were more severely
penalized or forbidden as unsportsmanlike. I would guess that you do
not play 14.1 or one pocket.
There are penalties for fouls. If it is to a pool player's advantage
intentionally to take a shot that is a foul, he should take that foul.
Pool is not snooker. You can argue whether the penalty is sufficient,
but I doubt that you will ever convince pool players to change the
rules to the extent you seem to want.
Bob Jewett
Ken Bour
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> In article <34B43C19...@erols.com>, Ken Bour <kb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >[SNIP my original example]
> better off taking a foul penalty than executing a stupid shot. In this
> particular situation, the penalty is giving ball in hand to his opponent,
> the stupid shot is playing a kick shot that is 90% sure to scratch. [I
> guess in BCA 8-ball it would not be a loss in this case to scratch, but it
> is a loss in APA 8-ball.]
>
Excellent points! I cannot argue that there will be times when some kind
of foul will be a better idea than playing legally, whether in 8-ball,
basketball, chess, or other sports. I guess I'm wondering if the 8-ball
game, in particular, might be advantaged by a rule change that would
tend to minimize any advantage created by fouling (intentional or not).
In the examples you offered, the fouler did not create an advantage --
but a last ditch effort to prevent a loss.
[SNIP my stuff]
> No, I meant that he had an intentional advantage before he took the shot,
> because the 8-ball was blocking his opponent's ball. He may have worked
> very hard to achieve this advantage, and the stripes player may not have
> worked very hard to put him in the position.
I missed your original point - now I see it. What if the S and 8-ball
position resulted from an accidental collision? Does that change
anything?
> >My rule change
> >would allow the rule-abiding player to force the fouling player to shoot
> >again -- now he's got a problem of his own creation! Seems eminently
> >fair to me.
>
> Do you mean to shoot again with ball-in-hand, like he was willing to give
> to his opponent?
No. The fouling player does not get ball-in-hand, but must play the
position that he created by fouling. That's the only way it would make
any sense.
[SNIP a bunch]
> Are you talking about spotting balls that aren't pocketed on bad hits?
> This would be a *very* major change to 8-ball.
I concur and have concluded that option (b) would be too much to ask. I
have not given up on option (c) make the fouling player shoot again.
> But it is possible that he *earned* the positional advantage before he was
> forced to take the foul. Such rules could easily give an unearned win to
> the stripes player.
I see your point, yet, I am still inclined to suggest that a "foul"
should not be able to put the offender in an advantageous position.
[SNIP my stuff]
> Perhaps you need to find another example of the situation you really want
> to discuss, even a contrived one.
>
> >If you take my example as worded, the stripes player has lost by virtue
> >of the intentional foul. If he touches his stiped ball, he will knock
> >the 8-ball into the corner.
> This is never true. With ball in hand, there is always a way to feather
> the outside ball and play a snooker. It may take a couple of nudges, but
> he can eventually move his last stripe away from the 8-ball, and force the
> solids player to kick at the 8-ball, or to give up a shot on the last
> stripe to his opponent. The solids player here has a 70-80% advantage,
> but it is not a lock. And it is likely that the outcome will be
> determined by a mistake (a missed snooker or sinking the 8-ball
> illegally).
Bob J. made a similar point, but I had hoped to persuade you that the
striped player's position was hopeless. I have failed and concede the
point. Still and all, should a fouling player get a 70-80% advantage by
such tactics?
[SNIP]
> I'll wait to see another sample shot setup that demonstrates your point.
> I don't think this one does.
I'll give is some more thought...
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ed Mercier
I suspect they do. And then the next question is how soon can they be at my pool
hall so we can play some "friendly" games. If it's not too far, I may chip in for
gas money.
Ron Shepard
In article <34B6B98D...@erols.com>, Ken Bour <kb...@erols.com> wrote:
[...]
> Bob J. made a similar point, but I had hoped to persuade you that the
> striped player's position was hopeless. I have failed and concede the
> point. Still and all, should a fouling player get a 70-80% advantage by
> such tactics? [...]
I think the answer depends on what might have happened before. If the
solids player had no chance of winning before, but somehow manages an 80%
advantage by fouling, then it might not seem fair. But if he had a 99%
advantage before, and the stripes player managed to roll the cue ball and
the last stripe into that position with blind luck, then you probably
would think that reducing the odds down to only 80% was pretty good for
the stripes player, and that he does not deserve more than that with a
rule that eliminates the potentially interesting endgame situation.
Of course, the rule that covers the situation cannot know about the
previous history of the game. It must be flexible enough for both types
of histories.
But in general, the rule should be designed to make the game as
interesting and as fair as possible. It would not be interesting to me if
the player shooting solids was forced to lose just because he was
snookered on the 8-ball. This is a not uncommon house rule, by the way,
_any_ foul on the 8-ball is a loss of game. However, most players think
this is not as interesting as the APA and BCA type of rule sets in which a
snooker is not rewarded quite so strongly.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ken Bour
Ed Mercier wrote:
>
> I'll give you alot of credit Ken, you sure are willing to respond to many posts. We
> do have a very different opinion of the game. I don't think fouling is a good thing,
> however it is certainly not unethical, or illegal, dishonest. I will always run out
> rather than foul if the situation warrants it. But I play percentage pool, and if
> the best chance I have to win the game is to play an intentional foul, that is what I
> do.
>
> I find your very question a little funny. Everyone I play with, and this represents
> nearly every strong pool player in the state of Wisconsin at one time or another over
> the past 20 years, plays the same way. None of them would have any qualms, or moral
> ambiguity about taking an intentional foul.
>
> I think from the responses you received that it is pretty clear in this newsgroup the
> majority do not agree with your suggestion. IMHO you should take a message from this
> and reconsider your approach to eight-ball.
My interest in responding to all of the posts comes from a sincere
interest in the original question. A good friend of mine (and league
pool shooter) is actually the one who was nailed by this intentional
foul scenario. He remains adamant about the need to alter the rules
and, after working on me for awhile, has succeeded in raising my
consciousness in this matter. Because of my respect for this NG, I put
the issue on the public table. I am eager to defend it for the purposes
of establishing whether such a rule change would be a good thing or
not. I guess I believe that one shouldn't give up too soon on any new
idea or no changes will ever occur. As you point out, I have not
received much in the way of support -- quite the contrary! I hope that
the reason is because our idea has serious flaws rather than because of
limitations in my skill in putting it forward properly.
Just for the sake of clarity. I do not consider a player who makes such
a foul to be a "dirty" player. My friend would disagree, but that it is
HIS plight. My issue is with the rules -- not the players who use them
to their advantage. If a rule permits an intentional foul and that
creates an advantage for a player, I would execute it proudly the same
way that you would. Notwishtanding my comments in earlier posts, we
really do not disagree here.
I would, however, like to see a situation where it would not be possible
to intentionally foul and, thereby, generate an advantage. I am coming
to the view that it may not be possible in pool or in any other sport.
[SNIP my stuff]
> Ed Mercier:
>
> Many intentional fouls are not easy shots to execute, and take great deal of skill.
> They help to make eightball a very tactical game. Any change solely intended to
> eliminate intentional fouls would certainly take away some of the beauty of the
> game. It is generally the more skillful player that is able to come up with an
> intentional foul to get out of a seemingly impossible jam. The weaker player is
> often left commiserating with his teammates about what a rotten thing that was to do.
Yes, I could agree that certain intentional fouls are difficult to
execute so that the intended result is achieved. I'm not sure that
8-ball, in particular, would become less "beautiful" if its rules
prohibited the kind of fouls that we have been discussing. But, then,
I'm reminded that "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. (-:
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
Rand:
I think you mayu be misinterpreting the point of my interest in a rule
change.
I am not maintaining that players who intentionally foul are bad people
or are doing anything wrong, deceitful, or treacherous. I believe, as
you do, that using the rules (however poorly conceived) to one's
advantage is SMART tactics; to do otherwise, is DUMB.
My issue is with the RULES, not the players. I am sorry that I did not
make this clear.
I am wondering, considering, asking, entertaining, etc. if the game
would be improved by reducing the opportunities for fouling. Clearly,
"fouls" are not a good thing for the game or they wouldn't be called
"fouls."
I'm sure that we all can agree that the rules are designed to
reduce/eliminate fouls but, because of the complexities of the game,
they cannot cover every possible situation. My recommended rule change
is only meant to make the game better, that is, more skillful within the
spirit of the rules (in this case, strike your own ball first).
I am not making a value judgment about players in these threads.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Frank Glenn
Laura Friedman wrote in message <694k6s$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Ron Shepard wrote:
>>
>> In article <zsat.6$9p.1...@news1.atlantic.net>, "Rand" <rpa...@iu.net>
wrote:
<<snipped>>
>I wonder if people who have a "moral" problem with intentionally fouling
>in 8-ball also have a problem with the common use if the intentional
>foul in one pocket (shooting your opponents ball in their hole, then
>stratching behind it) or straight pool (taking a foul when your opponent
>is on two fouls to force them into selling out).
>
>Laura
I have been known to shoot an opponents ball in in my 8 ball league.
Especially if the other balls are clustered such that ball in hand would not
give the incoming player a real advantage. I have been both praised and
fussed at for this (by different people for the same instance). I call this
"strategy". I do not feel this is cheating, it is like the football
situations mentioned that were snipped. Moving a ball, or double hitting and
no one sees it and not fessing up to the foul would be cheating. Most good
players in my league will recognize this as a "safe" of sorts. It is no
different from thinning one of your balls, and locking the cueball behind
it. Most beginning players don't do this, because they are still in the "try
to run out" phase of learning. I fish, and it was difficult to start "catch
and release", but once I let a few 5# bass loose, it became easy. Now I let
all the fish I catch loose. I have become comfortable with it. Not running
out is the same thing. Once you get a few 10-0 (1 point per ball and 2
points for the win-that's how we score it in league) games, it is less
important to try to do this. Everyone likes to hit a home run, but you
strike out a lot trying. I would rather get a single every time at bat, and
never get a homer. Your batting average would be 1000. You would always find
yourself on a winning team, because the coaches would love you. When I make
a good safe, and my opponent grouses about it, I just let it go. I figure
either they don't know a good tactic when they see it, or are just a whiner.
In either case, I made legal shots, and the tournament director has backed
this up.
Frank
Ron Shepard
[...]
> I would, however, like to see a situation where it would not be possible
> to intentionally foul and, thereby, generate an advantage. I am coming
> to the view that it may not be possible in pool or in any other sport.
[...]
As I've argued previously, the player had the advantage _before_ the
intentional foul, not as a result of it.
Since this was the result of an actual situation, let me ask a few
questions. Why didn't the stripes player run out on his last shot?
Exactly how did he manage to leave his opponent in that situation? At
what time did the stripes player think he had an advantage, and at what
time did he think that he lost it?
Also, I think that ball-in-hand for the opponent is a more severe penalty
than giving the opponent the option to pass with ball-in-place. You seem
to think the opposite. Can you give any reason why you think this? Have
you ever actually tried to play 8-ball with such a roll-out-with-option
rule, or is this just a hypothetical rule change you are considering?
Have you ever played with the rule that any foul on the 8-ball is a loss
of game? If not, then you should try it. Such a rule eliminates many
interesting end-game situations. It also changes very much the tactics
when one player is down to the 8-ball and the other still has balls left
to play snookers with. Focus on the idea of "cheap tactics" and play a
few games like this and you will see what I mean. A big fraction of games
are not decided by pocketing the 8-ball, but by fouling on the 8-ball.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mike Hu
Words spoken by a wise man. Well, at least wise in the pool sense. I
just played a money match this evening, meaning I gambled. I won, and
some of the games I won were off of safeties. That is, I called a
"safety", pocketed a ball, my opponent had 1 ball left on the table
('cause he failed to run out and such), and was hooked behind my balls.
Actually this happened on 2 separate games, and in 1 game, I played
either 2 or 3 safeties in it. These kicks were very hard, he ended up
missing all of them (I think), giving me ball-in-hand, and I proceded to
run-out the remainder of my balls. I just LOVE the safety rule/option,
it's a super deadly weapon if you know when/where to use it.
Ken Bour
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
[SNIP Ken B's stuff on 9 ball push outs]
[SNIP 9-ball History]
> If this evolution worked for 9-ball, why not for 8-ball? The reason is
> that snookers are too easy to play in 8-ball. The players are shooting at
> different sets of balls, so this is an inherent aspect of the game. It is
> very easy for a player to hit one of his balls and hid behind either it,
> or another, or both. The ball-in-hand rule was carried over from 9-ball
> to 8-ball, but the various roll-out rules and 3-foul rule just don't fit
> with the nature of 8-ball.
The historical perspective on what happened to 9-ball rules is the most
persuasive argument that I've read so far as to why the 8-ball rules
should not be altered. The point that I take is: thousands and
thousands of situations are confronted over the years and the rules have
to be able to deal with these varied combinations and permutations. The
one example that I cited is, in a way, "out of context." OK, so in this
one isolated instance, maybe a foul creates an unintended advantage.
But, what about all the other unforseen consequences (that B. Jewett
intimated) if the rule were changed? I would like to hear some examples
of the negative side of changint the 8-ball rules to:
If player 1 fouls by hitting a ball that is not of the proper color
(a) player 2 can accept the table with ball-in-hand (or)
(b) he/she can make player 1 shoot again (exact position - not BIH)
> Imagine the common situation where a player is running balls and gets out
> of line with an option roll-out rule. He could just roll the ball to play
> a snooker on his opponent, but where he had an easy shot to continue the
> runout. His opponent would have no chance for offense or defense, yet he
> would have to take the shot to prevent his opponent from winning.
In my rule change above, player 1 fouled (if I understood your example);
therefore, player 2 could insist that player 1 shoot again. Now, player
1 could continue to "foul around" endlessly and that would be a problem
ultimately leading to some finite limit on number of fouls permitted.
[SNIP]
> If you want
> to change the rules to 8-ball, you should not try to eliminate these kind
> of interesting, tight, tactical situations, you should instead be trying
> to make them more common, more interesting, and sharper. 8-ball needs to
> be sharper, not duller.
I am also interested in making 8-ball more interesting and sharper. I
don't yet see that the rule change I have suggested moves us in that
direction. Certainly as the thread progresses, more light is being shed
on the subject -- which was/is my whole intent.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
> A football team is leading by seven points but they are pinned on their own
> one yard line with less than two minutes left in the final quarter, fourth
> down. Oh no, the quarterback is going back to pass. Could this be trickery? No,
> it's an intentional safety. What a smart move!!!! Now, they will only be up by
> five points but their opponent will have to drive the length of the field.
> Would this be a similar situation Ken? Is this also tantamount to cheating?
Nope. The team is using the existing rules to their maximum advantage.
A point I have not taken issue with... I am not a football enthusiast,
but I can imagine some coach (or coaches) getting together and crafting
a rule change that would prohibit certain kinds of plays, like the one
you cited, when they give the fouling team a distinct advantage (as
would seem to be the case in your example). Maybe the only reason that
they haven't is that it would be difficult to tell an "intentional"
safety from an unintentional one.
Let's forget about "dirty", "cheating", etc. I am not talking about the
players -- but the RULES. Should football allow a team to execute a
safety in this situation? Perhaps, Yes, perhaps, NO. The intentional
grounding penalty was instituted to stop quarterbacks from getting out
of predicaments where they were certain to be sacked. What's the
difference? Why was that done? The QB was only "following the rules"
at the time. But, someone thought that a rule change would advance the
game -- and I don't hear anyone arguing now that QB's should be allowed
to ground intentionally? But, I'll bet that there were legions opposed
to the idea when it was first introduced (as I am finding out)!!!
[SNIP]
> Two things separate good players from the top players in a league or tournament
> event. One, of course, may be more ability. But I think the other is strategy
> and lack of strategy often establishes who finishes on the top or in the top
> twenty.
>
> You had better change your game to include intentional fouls because more and
> more bar players are discovering that it is a good move.
You misunderstand me. I would perform an intentional foul as often as
the next player -- as long as it remains in the current rules. I am
suggesting that the rules be altered so that it is not possible (so
much) to generate an advantage by intentionally fouling.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ken Bour
[SNIP]
> At nine ball, the push-out rule was introduced into tournament play
> around 1986 to prevent the very bad rolls (for both players) that occur
> on the break.
Fine. There was a reason for the push-out rule. Something "unfair"
happened enough times that prompted the rule-makers to introduce a
change. I am suggesting nothing other than that.
[SNIP]
> Ball in hand is nearly always a sufficient penalty for a wrong-ball-
> first foul. Why complicate the game?
Firstly, my suggested rule change is not complicated by any standards.
If Player 1 fouls, then:
(a) Player 2 may accept the position with ball-in-hand (today's BCA
rule)
OR (b) Player 2 may force Player 1 to shoot again without
ball-in-hand
That is hardly a difficult rule to understand or implement. My 9-ball
push-out rule was cited because it is already in the billiards
repertoire.
> : To me, it is not "dirty pool" if one plays a safety without fouling. It
> : is a very skillful shot and I remain in awe of those who can execute
> : these shots well. I am only taking up against those who win by
> : violating the rules, in your football analogy, by holding or clipping
> : and, thereby, creating a winning situation.
>
> While this approach is standard on the snooker table, pool has a very
> long tradition of fouling by design. In fact, safety play at 14.1
> would be largely unrecognizable if such fouls were more severely
> penalized or forbidden as unsportsmanlike. I would guess that you do
> not play 14.1 or one pocket.
You are correct;I know very little about 14.1 or one-pocket. And, I am
someone who would stand down on the basis of TRADITION. However, I have
seen/heard of enough rule changes to 8-ball in recent times to believe
that tradition is not THAT strong -- such that what I proposed would be
absolutely inconceivable.
> There are penalties for fouls. If it is to a pool player's advantage
> intentionally to take a shot that is a foul, he should take that foul.
> Pool is not snooker. You can argue whether the penalty is sufficient,
> but I doubt that you will ever convince pool players to change the
> rules to the extent you seem to want.
Yes, my argument, is precisely that the the penalty for fouling in
8-ball is insufficient. I am beginning to believe that I cannot
convince anyone to even CONSIDER this idea. Mostly, it seems, the
change seems to be rejected BECAUSE it is a change! I would love to see
a post that begins with, "OK, suppose that the rule is changed as you
recommend, let's consider the following scenario... Now, we can see that
this rule would add __________ undesirable consequence. The rules,
however imperfect, would not be advantaged by the change you suggest."
Sincerely, THE RULES COMMITTEE.
Ron's last post about the difficulties in changing 9-ball rules was the
best example yet as to why even small changes in rules can be
problematic. Still, it would be interesting to postulate how my rule
change could "go wrong" in the game of 8-ball.
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
PoolCue
>My interest in responding to all of the posts comes from a sincere interest in
the original question. A good friend of mine (and league pool shooter) is
actually the one who was nailed by this intentional foul scenario. He remains
adamant about the need to alter the rules
and, after working on me for awhile, has succeeded in raising my consciousness
in this matter. Because of my respect for this NG, I put the issue on the
public table. I am eager to defend it for the purposes of establishing whether
such a rule change would be a good thing or
not. I guess I believe that one shouldn't give up too soon on any new idea or
no changes will ever occur. As you point out, I have not received much in the
way of support -- quite the contrary!
A football team is leading by seven points but they are pinned on their own
one yard line with less than two minutes left in the final quarter, fourth
down. Oh no, the quarterback is going back to pass. Could this be trickery? No,
it's an intentional safety. What a smart move!!!! Now, they will only be up by
five points but their opponent will have to drive the length of the field.
Would this be a similar situation Ken? Is this also tantamount to cheating?
I have to say, my 8-ball game has picked up considerably over the last couple
years from playing in Regional and National events. I have learned that if you
have an out, you better go for it against good players on a bar box. Because if
you don't leave them locked up, especially if you're down to your last ball or
two, you may never see the ball again.
However, if you have nothing and there is an opportunity to play a good safe,
you had better do that or you will be pulling out quarters if you want to play
again. This would include playing an intentional foul if it puts you in a
better position.
Two things separate good players from the top players in a league or tournament
event. One, of course, may be more ability. But I think the other is strategy
and lack of strategy often establishes who finishes on the top or in the top
twenty.
You had better change your game to include intentional fouls because more and
more bar players are discovering that it is a good move.
Dick Moecia
poo...@aol.com
Ed Mercier
I like these ideas much better than the ones you presented earlier in this thread. I have
never tried the rules you proposed. If they accomplished what you are asking for, without
introducing any other serious problems, I would probably be in favor of them.
Unfortunately, it takes a long, concerted effort to really try out a new set of rules, to
test many different situations, and different players approaches to them. I am pretty
satisfied with the rules as they are written, and thus don't have a lot of motivation for
trying a change.
If those in your league really think you have a better idea for a set of 8 ball rules, I
strongly suggest you implement them for a season or two, and really try them out, see if
they have any flaws. It would be a great experiment, and I'm sure many of us in rsb would
be interested in hearing the results.
On the other hand, if the primary motivation is your friend who feels having someone play
an intentional safe against him makes them a "dirty" player, I would question the wisdom of
following his lead towards improving the game of eightball. It doesn't seem he has a very
good understanding of the game at the present.
Ken Bour wrote:
> I hope that
> the reason is because our idea has serious flaws rather than because of
> limitations in my skill in putting it forward properly.
>
> Just for the sake of clarity. I do not consider a player who makes such
> a foul to be a "dirty" player. My friend would disagree, but that it is
> HIS plight. My issue is with the rules -- not the players who use them
> to their advantage. If a rule permits an intentional foul and that
> creates an advantage for a player, I would execute it proudly the same
> way that you would. Notwishtanding my comments in earlier posts, we
> really do not disagree here.
>
> I would, however, like to see a situation where it would not be possible
> to intentionally foul and, thereby, generate an advantage. I am coming
> to the view that it may not be possible in pool or in any other sport.
>
Ken Bour
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> In article <34B80894...@erols.com>, Ken Bour <kb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > to intentionally foul and, thereby, generate an advantage. I am coming
> > to the view that it may not be possible in pool or in any other sport.
>
> As I've argued previously, the player had the advantage _before_ the
> intentional foul, not as a result of it.
To me, it's not important how we arrived at the alignment of balls just
before the foul occurs. It could have been caused by an accidental
collision of balls during the match, it got that way on the break, the
solids player might have planned it that way, or the stripes player may
have knocked his S ball in that vicinity by accident. For the purposes
of my rule change, I don't see that it matters. You seem to want to
take the position that the solids player arranged all of this by design
just so that he could foul and cause graver problems for his opponent.
I would argue, let's forget about the history in this particular game,
and just look at the situation as it is. Should the rules allow the
solids player to do what he did? If we changed the rules, as I have
suggested, would it give the stripes player another option that is
somewhat fairer than today's rules? If we did so, would other problems
emerge -- that have not occurred to me -- resulting in worse
predicaments?
It's hard for me to see that any player(s) would be disadvantaged by
allowing another OPTION, i.e., (a) either play the layout with B-I-H or
(b) make the fouling player shoot again in the exact position that he
created (i.e. NO B-I-H).
> Since this was the result of an actual situation, let me ask a few
> questions. Why didn't the stripes player run out on his last shot?
> Exactly how did he manage to leave his opponent in that situation? At
> what time did the stripes player think he had an advantage, and at what
> time did he think that he lost it?
I'm sorry, but I did not get these details from my friend. I also don't
think that it should matter for the purposes of examining my suggested
rule change.
> Also, I think that ball-in-hand for the opponent is a more severe penalty
> than giving the opponent the option to pass with ball-in-place. You seem
> to think the opposite. Can you give any reason why you think this? Have
> you ever actually tried to play 8-ball with such a roll-out-with-option
> rule, or is this just a hypothetical rule change you are considering?
I agree that B-I-H is a severe penalty, but, as I have pointed out,
there are situations where it is not necessarily an advantage. I am not
advocating that we get rid of the B-I-H rule. I am suggesting that the
"offended" player have two options: (1) B-I-H or (2) make the fouling
player shoot again without B-I-H. So far, this is a hypothetical rule
change, Ron. I am considering trying it out with my friend this morning
(we play on Sundays) just to see how it might work out in practice.
Since neither my friend or I are huge defensive players, we might play
all morning and never see a case where my "shoot again" option is ever
exercised. But, we'll give it a try anyway and I'll report on the
outcome...
> Have you ever played with the rule that any foul on the 8-ball is a loss
> of game? If not, then you should try it. Such a rule eliminates many
> interesting end-game situations. It also changes very much the tactics
> when one player is down to the 8-ball and the other still has balls left
> to play snookers with. Focus on the idea of "cheap tactics" and play a
> few games like this and you will see what I mean. A big fraction of games
> are not decided by pocketing the 8-ball, but by fouling on the 8-ball.
In our league, I have played with the variant that scratching on the
8-ball is a foul and loss of game. I have disagreed with that rule and
we have recently adopted the standard BCA rules for all league 8-ball
play. Thinking about my example, I cannot imagine a situation where
scratching deliberately on the 8-ball (assuming it was, by the rules, a
foul) would result in a more unfavorable position for my opponent than
B-I-H anywhere on the table. Hitting my opponents ball first (always a
foul), as I have shown, can result in such an advantage.
I don't think that I am arguing for the elimination of all fouls -- some
are unavoidable and the result of miscues, errors, bad judgment, etc.
It is possible, I think, to construct rules in such a way that we avoid
a certain set of fouls that improves the game. At least, that is what
I'm presenting here for debate and consideration...
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
PoolCue
Ken Boer wrote:
>> I would, however, like to see a situation where it would not be possible to
intentionally foul and, thereby, generate an advantage. I am coming to the
view that it may not be possible in pool or in any other sport.
>>
One reason I quit the bar league scene (until Valley came to town) was because
of the rules. A local league used to have a "honest atttempt" rule but their
was no penalty except after your second infraction.
Anyway, many times throughout the season there were arguements over a person's
intent. (eg. A player calls a shot but actually plays safe and just make it
look like they tried to pocket a ball.) The frequency of this problem seemed to
increase in proportion to the number of beers consumed. Also, teams seemed to
get testy during playoff time and would bring it up frequently in big games.
Now, in your proposal, how are we to tell an intentional foul? Sure, there are
times when the intent is fairly obvious. However, there would be other times
when a player could call a shot while planning all along to foul. In borderline
case where intent isn't clear, where would you draw the line?
I don't like your rule change proposal. I believe the strategy of 8-ball, which
I am really just starting to appreciate the last couple years, is a fairly good
game. If I see a situation where I have no shot nor safety to play, and I don't
think my opponent can get out, I like the alternative to give him ball and hand
and say "OK, big guy, let's see what you know." If my opponent is smart enough
or experienced enough to figure out what to do, then it's not because I took
advantage of a rule, it's because I took advantage of his lack of tactical
ability. I agree with Ron, Ed or whomever made the observation that ball in
your opponents hand is sufficient risk to curb its use.
Dick Moecia
poo...@aol.com
Ken Bour
Ed Mercier wrote:
>
> I like these ideas much better than the ones you presented earlier in this thread. I have
> never tried the rules you proposed. If they accomplished what you are asking for, without
> introducing any other serious problems, I would probably be in favor of them.
Then I'm making some progress. Thanks.
> Unfortunately, it takes a long, concerted effort to really try out a new set of rules, to
> test many different situations, and different players approaches to them. I am pretty
> satisfied with the rules as they are written, and thus don't have a lot of motivation for
> trying a change.
Oh, abolutely. Under the best of circumstances we would be years away
from any rule change. But such things have to start somewhere...? By
the way, I am prett satisfied with the rules as they are also.
> If those in your league really think you have a better idea for a set of 8 ball rules, I
> strongly suggest you implement them for a season or two, and really try them out, see if
> they have any flaws. It would be a great experiment, and I'm sure many of us in rsb would
> be interested in hearing the results.
This is an excellent idea. I doubt that I can get our league to try it
out, but there is nothing stopping me and some friends (esp. my
"offended" buddy) from using this option in our 8-ball play. I was
thinking about doing just that, starting this morning...
> On the other hand, if the primary motivation is your friend who feels having someone play
> an intentional safe against him makes them a "dirty" player, I would question the wisdom of
> following his lead towards improving the game of eightball. It doesn't seem he has a very
> good understanding of the game at the present.
He does have a terrific understanding of the game and is a highly
competent player. To be perfectly fair, I took the same position with
HIM that many in this forum have taken with me. I refused to consider
his argument and basically told him to forget about it. He didn't give
up and, when I finally focused on what he was saying and looked hard at
the situation, I became intrigued. The rest is now in DejaNews...and
may forever end there!
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Ron Shepard
> Ron Shepard wrote:
> >
> > In article <34B80894...@erols.com>, Ken Bour <kb...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > I would, however, like to see a situation where it would not be possible
> > > to intentionally foul and, thereby, generate an advantage. I am coming
> > > to the view that it may not be possible in pool or in any other sport.
> > [...]
> >
> > As I've argued previously, the player had the advantage _before_ the
> > intentional foul, not as a result of it.
>
> To me, it's not important how we arrived at the alignment of balls just
> before the foul occurs.
A rule change must be fair in various kinds of situations. I don't think
a rule should be responsible for turning an advantage for one player into
an advantage for the other player. Skill, or even luck, does this already
based on the laws of physics. The rules don't need to be changed to help
this occur.
>[...] For the purposes
> of my rule change, I don't see that it matters. You seem to want to
> take the position that the solids player arranged all of this by design
> just so that he could foul and cause graver problems for his opponent.
It is possible that the solids player took the table position into account
from the beginning, knowing that not even a lucky roll for his opponent
leading to a snooker was likely to take away that advantage. Now you want
a rule change to turn the tables? That is just one possibility of
course. That is why I asked about this particular situation. We know it
occured once, but how likely was it to occur? If it occurs once every 100
years, then no rule change is necessary to accomodate it. If something
like this occurs every game, then maybe it is worth looking into changing
the rule to promote fairness. Maybe the decision should be to leave the
rule the way it is in order to be most fair? But we must know the
situation in order to judge these things.
> I would argue, let's forget about the history in this particular game,
> and just look at the situation as it is. Should the rules allow the
> solids player to do what he did?
I would say yes, the solids player should be allowed to hit a stripe
first, or even to hit nothing, but there should be some penalty. The
penalty with the current rules for this is ball in hand for the opponent.
This seems fair in general.
>If we changed the rules, as I have
> suggested, would it give the stripes player another option that is
> somewhat fairer than today's rules? If we did so, would other problems
> emerge -- that have not occurred to me -- resulting in worse
> predicaments?
Now I understand, you want the option of ball-in-hand for the opponent, or
ball in position for the shooter. This is different from the usual
roll-out situation as in 9-ball.
> > Since this was the result of an actual situation, let me ask a few
> > questions. Why didn't the stripes player run out on his last shot?
> > Exactly how did he manage to leave his opponent in that situation? At
> > what time did the stripes player think he had an advantage, and at what
> > time did he think that he lost it?
>
> I'm sorry, but I did not get these details from my friend. I also don't
> think that it should matter for the purposes of examining my suggested
> rule change.
But it does matter, since the rule change must be applied to all bad-hit
situations. Giving the opponent another option, as you suggest, makes the
penalty for this offense more severe, and it would affect when and how an
intentional foul might be used in a game.
> [...] So far, this is a hypothetical rule
> change, Ron. I am considering trying it out with my friend this morning
> (we play on Sundays) just to see how it might work out in practice.
> Since neither my friend or I are huge defensive players, we might play
> all morning and never see a case where my "shoot again" option is ever
> exercised. But, we'll give it a try anyway and I'll report on the
> outcome...
I suggest that you also play this situation out a few times with the
current rules. It is not a sure loss for the stripes player. Both
players need to play some skillful pool in order to win.
[...]
> I don't think that I am arguing for the elimination of all fouls -- some
> are unavoidable and the result of miscues, errors, bad judgment, etc.
> It is possible, I think, to construct rules in such a way that we avoid
> a certain set of fouls that improves the game. At least, that is what
> I'm presenting here for debate and consideration...
I don't know what you mean by eliminating all fouls. It is a matter of
which and how severe of a penalty is imposed on the player who commits
one. It can be anything from loss of turn to loss of game. BIH is
somewhere in between. The severity of the penalty determines when, and
how, an intentional foul is used in a game.
A very severe penalty for a foul, e.g. loss of game, eliminates many
otherwise interesting tactical situations from occuring. Same with a too
permissive penalty, interesting tactical situations are prevented because
the players will simply foul repeatedly instead of taking a risky shot.
When you say that you and your friend are mostly "offensive" players, this
suggests that you may not appreciate these tactical situations. This is
what many 8-ball players find most attractive about 8-ball. There are
other games that have different mixes of offense and defense; 14.1 for
example is a game that is mostly offense and is only a small part defense,
and one-pocket is a game at the opposite end of the spectrum. Many
players like 8-ball pretty much where it is now, and they don't see much
need to change.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
H. Hilario
Frank Glenn <_gle...@mnsinc.com> wrote in message
<6992kq$8tr$1...@news1.mnsinc.com>...
>
>Laura Friedman wrote in message <694k6s$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Ron Shepard wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <zsat.6$9p.1...@news1.atlantic.net>, "Rand" <rpa...@iu.net>
>wrote:
><<snipped>>
> >I wonder if people who have a "moral" problem with intentionally
> > fouling
Maybe because less than a handful of us play 1 pocket (or some kind of it),
intentional fouls are not part of our normal game. Whenever I play (almost
all games) my opponent rarely plays a defensive game but more an offensive
one, why?. I believe that this happens because for me (and just me) to hide
a ball (for example: when your opponent hides the Qball behind the 8 and you
have balls left and your opponent is shooting at the 8)is not to play is
just a part of a defense, but to hide your opponents ball while pocketing
yours is more like shotmaking. Whenever I watch ESPN is rare to see
defensive shots (mostly among the men) but more shotmaking along with pin
point position play, this is what I call "playing pool". Of course that's
my way of thinking and playing.
---
Billiards is not a game nor a sport but a delicate
and beautiful art form; and still is more than that,
is an expression of life.
Jim Meador
H. Hilario wrote:
Whenever I watch ESPN is rare to see
> defensive shots (mostly among the men) but more shotmaking along with pin
> point position play, this is what I call "playing pool". Of course that's
> my way of thinking and playing.
We must be watching a diiferent game. We watch and tape ESPN games, so
I’ll have to revisit to check. But, at pro events I see a lot of
safties. If you listen to the dialog of the announcers on ESPN you will
hear them comment on how smart and well done (or poorly) a particular
safety was. Since I started playing safeties I have enjoyed the game
twice as much.
During my last league match I played a safety when I had a clear shot at
making the ball. I hooked the opponent (who would have been on the eight
had I missed) got ball in hand and won the game. As far as I am
concerned, safeties are just as exciting as an offensive shot, and I
appreciate a good one even when it is pulled on me.
Snooker is a very popular game in Europe, even on TV. The name of the
game is taken from a defensive maneuver.
--
:o)
Jim Meador
Billiard World Web Site
<http://www.billiardworld.com>
Mark Allan
In article <34B846C0...@erols.com>, Ken Bour <kb...@erols.com>
writes
Some of the teams in my league have suggested scrapping the deliberate
foul rule (I am in the UK). Anyone got any thoughts on this?
P.S. This is my first posting - sorry if I messed it up.
Regards,
--
Mark Allan
Jeffrey Weiss
Ken Bour <kb...@erols.com>:
>> I like these ideas much better than the ones you presented earlier in this
>> thread.
> Then I'm making some progress. Thanks.
OK, Ken, you're looking for a counter-argument to adding the "shoot again"
option for the incoming player after a foul. How's this:
Whenever a player invokes this option, it will always force the game to a
stalemate immediately. The reason is this: Take your original situation. A
player (Mr. Fowler) is faced with no good shot to make, so he plays an
intentional foul to improve his position somewhat. If the incoming player
(Ms. Smith) makes him shoot again, Fowler would be foolish to do anything but
tap the cueball in place (i.e., not moving it at all), presenting another foul.
The game would be in a situation where neither player will change the layout,
so it's a stalemate. Taking ball-in-hand is Smith's best opportunity to
change the layout to try to improve *her* layout. If she doesn't take this
option, no better opportunity willl ever present itself.
--
jw (NYC)