15 May 2004 14:36:54
Willee
Pool rules changes ...

What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?

Willee




15 May 2004 15:21:23
Tom Touch
Re: Pool rules changes ...

On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com >
wrote:

>What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>
>Willee
>
If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
.

" Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "

Stay cool if you can.
TomTouch


15 May 2004 15:30:53
Willee
Re: Pool rules changes ...

WOW .. Tom, that is the way it used to be.

Willee


"Tom Touch" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
> >
> >Willee
> >
> If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
> should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
> .
>
> " Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "
>
> Stay cool if you can.
> TomTouch




15 May 2004 10:58:05
Tom Runge
Re: Pool rules changes ...

As far as I know, this rule has been changed in some sanctions, but
not all. I played league 8 ball for over ten years, and the absolute
WORST rule in eightball is the rule that if you make a solid on the
break, you have solids. (or if you make two solids and one stripe, you
have solids) Invariably, you end up with the worst balls on the
table, while your opponent has 5 ducks by the pockets, and 2 out in
the middle that can go in any pocket. The table should be open until
a ball is pocketed AFTER the break, allowing the shooter to decide
which balls he wants. At this time, combinations with mixed balls
would be allowed, since the table is open. (not sure if that should
include the 8 ball.) Should he miss a ball after making the break,
the table is open for the other shooter. I think BCA has made this
rule change, but other sanctioning bodies have not, to my knowledge.
I have not played league eightball for over 6 years, so this could be
a universal rule change now. Also not too happy about the way jump
cues have changed the game. I know this issue has been hashed to
death, but I hope jump shots are completely outlawed. Nothing worse
than playing a great safety then watch the oponent hop over the
offending ball and make a shot. Sort of takes the fun out of it.



On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:21:23 GMT, Tom Touch
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>>
>>Willee
>>
>If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
>should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
>.
>
>" Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "
>
>Stay cool if you can.
>TomTouch



15 May 2004 15:34:45
Tom Touch
Re: Pool rules changes ...

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:30:53 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com >
wrote:

>WOW .. Tom, that is the way it used to be.
>
>Willee
>
>
>"Tom Touch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>> >
>> >Willee
>> >
>> If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
>> should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
>> .
>>
>> " Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "
>>
>> Stay cool if you can.
>> TomTouch
>
Ah, the good old days.
.

" Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "

Stay cool if you can.
TomTouch


15 May 2004 19:09:23
rhncue
Re: Pool rules changes ...

I've never heard of this rule in any game in the last fifty years that
I've played. With a bad hit or no hit it was played that way but not just
for missing and getting safe.
The rule I would like changed is the ball in hand for a foul. I liked
the old rule where the shooter could take the shot or have it revert back to
the player who fouled. You seen a lot better shot making and more runs when
a player took a chance at a tuff shot instead of playing a easy safe to get
ball in hand when they got out of line.
That won Earl a million dollars when he ran all those racks in a
tournament, taking tuff shots that he would normally have played a safe on.
Dick

--
Building and repairing of custom pool cues
for real pool players. Over 35 years exp.
Richard Neighbors 318 Linden st.
Cincinnati OH. 45216
PH# (513) 242-1700
e-mail [email protected]
"Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> WOW .. Tom, that is the way it used to be.
>
> Willee
>
>
> "Tom Touch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
> > >
> > >Willee
> > >
> > If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
> > should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
> > .
> >
> > " Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "
> >
> > Stay cool if you can.
> > TomTouch
>
>




15 May 2004 19:45:05
Willee
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"rhncue" <[email protected] > wrote

> That won Earl a million dollars when he ran all those racks in a
> tournament, taking tuff shots that he would normally have played a safe
on.

Dick

No it didn't.
The insurance company refused to pay the million and he settled for a lot
less.

Willee




15 May 2004 21:13:57
Ray Fichthorn
Re: Pool rules changes ...

Any game's rules where "slop" counts..... (including 9-ball)

For "most" games.. the ball should be spotted. Incoming shooter can play where the cue lays, behind
headstring, or pass shot to his opponent

*"slop" needs to be better defined by other rules... so you'd have to change more than 1.

Ray

Willee wrote:

> What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>
> Willee
>
>



15 May 2004 23:57:12
dalecue
Re: Pool rules changes ...


Tom Touch wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>>
>>Willee
>>


>If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
>should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.

pardon me fro being blunt, but:

this is a REALLY lame idea
one of the most important parts of advanced play is the 'shot to nothing'
sometimes referred to as a two-way shot

Dale

>.
>
>" Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "
>
>Stay cool if you can.
>TomTouch




16 May 2004 01:30:39
Tom Touch
Re: Pool rules changes ...

On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:57:12 GMT, "dalecue"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>
>Tom Touch wrote in message ...
>>On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>>>
>>>Willee
>>>
>
>
>>If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
>>should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
>
>pardon me fro being blunt, but:
>
>this is a REALLY lame idea
>one of the most important parts of advanced play is the 'shot to nothing'
>sometimes referred to as a two-way shot
>
>Dale
>
" UN-CALLED SAFE"........ Could not a person declare a " safe" and
shoot the "two-way shot"?
As in 7 ball were ball in hand is the penalty for a missed shot.
This is avoided by calling safe and there's no penalty if the object
ball is made. Understanding that there may be a max number of safes
allowed per rack but that would not be necessary in all game.

Might be lame but it might prevent a player from advancing his
position at the table with luck. After all, our position here is one
of ability and skill.
.



" Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "

Stay cool if you can.
TomTouch


16 May 2004 01:34:44
Willee
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"dalecue" <[email protected] > wrote:

> this is a REALLY lame idea
> one of the most important parts of advanced play is the 'shot to nothing'
> sometimes referred to as a two-way shot
>
> Dale

Dale, I know you think I am an idiot but please ...
A two way shot has two possibilities of being successful and can hardly be
considered as a "shoot to nothing" shot. Am I misunderstanding somethng
here?

Willee




17 May 2004 07:01:18
dalecue
Re: Pool rules changes ...


Tom Touch wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:57:12 GMT, "dalecue"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Tom Touch wrote in message ...
>>>On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>>>>
>>>>Willee
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>If an un-called safe ( hook ) happens then the up comming player
>>>should have the option to accept or pass the shot back.
>>
>>pardon me fro being blunt, but:
>>
>>this is a REALLY lame idea
>>one of the most important parts of advanced play is the 'shot to nothing'
>>sometimes referred to as a two-way shot
>>
>>Dale
>>
>" UN-CALLED SAFE"........ Could not a person declare a " safe" and
>shoot the "two-way shot"?

this is not the two-way shot
if you CALL-A-SAFE and pocket the ball, you do not shoot again

look at thye part about 'advanced play'



>As in 7 ball were ball in hand is the penalty for a missed shot.
>This is avoided by calling safe and there's no penalty if the object
>ball is made. Understanding that there may be a max number of safes
>allowed per rack but that would not be necessary in all game.
>
>Might be lame but it might prevent a player from advancing his
>position at the table with luck.

>After all, our position here is one
>of ability and skill.

and that would be why the shot-to-nothing is so very important

Dale
>.
>
>
>
>" Whisky for my men, beer for the horses "
>
>Stay cool if you can.
>TomTouch




17 May 2004 07:03:08
dalecue
Re: Pool rules changes ...


Willee wrote in message ...
>
>"dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> this is a REALLY lame idea
>> one of the most important parts of advanced play is the 'shot to nothing'
>> sometimes referred to as a two-way shot
>>
>> Dale
>
>Dale, I know you think I am an idiot but please ...
>A two way shot has two possibilities of being successful and can hardly be
>considered as a "shoot to nothing" shot. Am I misunderstanding somethng
>here?

just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?

Dale
>
>Willee
>
>




17 May 2004 07:12:49
bp
Re: Pool rules changes ...

On Sat, 15 May 2004 10:58:05 -0500, Tom Runge <[email protected] > wrote:

>Nothing worse
>than playing a great safety then watch the oponent hop over the
>offending ball and make a shot. Sort of takes the fun out of it.

If that happens was it really a great safety ?

You may need to learn how to make greater safes ;)


17 May 2004 07:17:16
bp
Re: Pool rules changes ...

On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com >
wrote:

>What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
>
>Willee

Get rid of legal slop shots.

I can't for the life of me figure out why a person should be allowed
to totally pork a shot have it go 6 rails and slop in and be rewarded
for it.
>



17 May 2004 13:02:09
William Lee
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"dalecue" <[email protected] > wrote

> >Dale, I know you think I am an idiot but please ...
> >A two way shot has two possibilities of being successful and can hardly
be
> >considered as a "shoot to nothing" shot. Am I misunderstanding somethng
> >here?
>
> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
>
> Dale
> >
> >Willee

I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
advantageous outcome.

William Lee




17 May 2004 13:06:02
William Lee
Re: Pool rules changes ...

Kinda like in Poker where you are sitting on the 99% winning hand and the
other guy catches an inside straight to beat you on the last card.

If there were no luck involved in pool it would be a very boring game.
Once the players were rated they would never need to actually play.

William Lee


"bp" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
> >
> >Willee
>
> Get rid of legal slop shots.
>
> I can't for the life of me figure out why a person should be allowed
> to totally pork a shot have it go 6 rails and slop in and be rewarded
> for it.
> >
>




17 May 2004 14:07:28
dalecue
Re: Pool rules changes ...


William Lee wrote in message ...
>
>"dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> >Dale, I know you think I am an idiot but please ...
>> >A two way shot has two possibilities of being successful and can hardly
>be
>> >considered as a "shoot to nothing" shot. Am I misunderstanding
somethng
>> >here?
>>
>> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
>> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
>>
>> Dale
>> >
>> >Willee
>

>I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
>advantageous outcome.

not even close

Dale

>
>William Lee
>
>




17 May 2004 14:22:06
William Lee
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"dalecue" <[email protected] > wrote

> >> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
> >> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?

> >> Dale


> > I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
> >advantageous outcome.

> >Willee


> not even close

> Dale



That somehow comes as no big surprise. <g >

Would you care to enlighten me?

William Lee




17 May 2004 13:17:38
Sherm Adamson
Re: Pool rules changes ...



"bp" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:36:54 GMT, "Willee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What would be the one pool rule you would change if you could?
> >
> >Willee
>
> Get rid of legal slop shots.
>
> I can't for the life of me figure out why a person should be allowed
> to totally pork a shot have it go 6 rails and slop in and be rewarded
> for it.
> >
>

I for one feel just the opposite. I see no need for a shot to EVER be
called! It only makes for an area of contention, something to argue about!

In the real world, it's seldom a factor in the outcome of a match! Just how
often do you think a good pool player misses a shot by such a margin that it
goes in another pocket? It happens once in great while, a factor of luck
that could as easily go in the other players favor!

If you think you're going to "rule out" luck in pool, you're very naive!
There is a luck factor in nearly every aspect of the game! From the
"Tournament Draw", the table you're assigned to, the "Flip for the break",
the outcome of the break, and on through the game! If your opponent misses a
shot, he's expected to make, you have to feel a little lucky! Why try to
legislate the "call shot"?

Having owned a few poolrooms and pool bars, I know that it's counter
productive and even dangerous to have areas of contention like this around
people consuming alcohol! Like it or not, most everyone turns in to an
asshole when they drink, it's just a matter of how much alcohol is added to
reach this affect! Unfortunately, most amateur pool takes place in venues
where alcohol is not only available, but almost pushed on you! The simpler
the rules are, the less arguments! No need for people to get in a fight over
a stupid rule! This is just the kind of thing that results in pools bad
image.

I had a sign hung in my pool bar (Sherm's Hideout) declaring "SLOP" as the
"HOUSE RULES" and we never had any fighting. On the rare occasion when
someone "shits" a ball in, it's just cause for a chuckle, sometimes an
apology maybe, but no one has a reason to get upset!

--
just more hot air! 8^)

Sherm
aka "cuesmith" in yahoo
Sherm Custom Billiard Cues by,
Sherman Adamson
3352 Nine Mile Rd., Cincinnati Ohio 45255
Shop (513)553-2172, Cell (513)509-9152
http://www.shermcue.com Over 20 years experience
almost a decade in "The American Cuemakers Association"





20 May 2004 23:01:35
Bob
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"William Lee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > >> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
> > >> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
>
> > >> Dale
>
>
> > > I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
> > >advantageous outcome.
>
> > >Willee
>
>
> > not even close
>
> > Dale
>
>
>
> That somehow comes as no big surprise. <g>
>
> Would you care to enlighten me?
>
> William Lee

I take it you don't play alot of snooker?

Bob





21 May 2004 11:56:18
William Lee
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"Bob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "William Lee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > >> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
> > > >> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
> >
> > > >> Dale
> >
> >
> > > > I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
> > > >advantageous outcome.
> >
> > > >Willee
> >
> >
> > > not even close
> >
> > > Dale
> >
> >
> >
> > That somehow comes as no big surprise. <g>
> >
> > Would you care to enlighten me?
> >
> > William Lee
>
> I take it you don't play alot of snooker?
>
> Bob

No, what little I play is mostly 8 and 9 ball.
Is "shoot to nothing" a common snooker term?

William Lee




21 May 2004 07:38:08
Bob
Re: Pool rules changes ...


"William Lee" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "William Lee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > >
> > > "dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >
> > > > >> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
> > > > >> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
> > >
> > > > >> Dale
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
> > > > >advantageous outcome.
> > >
> > > > >Willee
> > >
> > >
> > > > not even close
> > >
> > > > Dale
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That somehow comes as no big surprise. <g>
> > >
> > > Would you care to enlighten me?
> > >
> > > William Lee
> >
> > I take it you don't play alot of snooker?
> >
> > Bob
>
> No, what little I play is mostly 8 and 9 ball.
> Is "shoot to nothing" a common snooker term?
>
> William Lee



Take a look at this, http://www.snookergames.co.uk/glossary7.html



Bob





22 May 2004 12:18:39
dalecue
Re: Pool rules changes ...


Bob wrote in message ...
>
>"William Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> >
>> > "William Lee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> > >
>> > > "dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > >
>> > > > >> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
>> > > > >> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
>> > >
>> > > > >> Dale
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no possible
>> > > > >advantageous outcome.
>> > >
>> > > > >Willee
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > not even close
>> > >
>> > > > Dale
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > That somehow comes as no big surprise. <g>
>> > >
>> > > Would you care to enlighten me?
>> > >
>> > > William Lee
>> >
>> > I take it you don't play alot of snooker?
>> >
>> > Bob
>>
>> No, what little I play is mostly 8 and 9 ball.
>> Is "shoot to nothing" a common snooker term?
>>
>> William Lee
>
>
>



> Take a look at this, http://www.snookergames.co.uk/glossary7.html
>
>
>
> Bob

thanks for the great link
I knew many of the terms used in 'real' snooker - but this looks to be
exhaustive

pool bangers use a somewhat more generalized definition for
'shot-to-nothing' - tho the concept is about the same

it is any shot wherein, if you make<pot > the ball you have a good next shot,
but if you miss, your opponent gets 'nothing'

Dale


>
>
>




22 May 2004 15:59:01
gr8pool
Re: Pool rules changes ...

"dalecue" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Bob wrote in message ...
> >
> >"William Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >> >
> >> > "William Lee" <[email protected]_stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]
> >> > >
> >> > > "dalecue" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> > >
> >> > > > >> just guessing, you are misunderstanding the concept
> >> > > > >> of a shot-to-nothing - do you know what the term means?
> >> > >
> >> > > > >> Dale
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > > I assumed it meant shooting when there was little or no
possible
> >> > > > >advantageous outcome.
> >> > >
> >> > > > >Willee
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > not even close
> >> > >
> >> > > > Dale
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > That somehow comes as no big surprise. <g>
> >> > >
> >> > > Would you care to enlighten me?
> >> > >
> >> > > William Lee
> >> >
> >> > I take it you don't play alot of snooker?
> >> >
> >> > Bob
> >>
> >> No, what little I play is mostly 8 and 9 ball.
> >> Is "shoot to nothing" a common snooker term?
> >>
> >> William Lee
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> > Take a look at this, http://www.snookergames.co.uk/glossary7.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
>
> thanks for the great link
> I knew many of the terms used in 'real' snooker - but this looks to be
> exhaustive
>
> pool bangers use a somewhat more generalized definition for
> 'shot-to-nothing' - tho the concept is about the same
>
> it is any shot wherein, if you make<pot> the ball you have a good next
shot,
> but if you miss, your opponent gets 'nothing'
>
> Dale
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Also called "good for me, bad for you"




23 May 2004 02:00:45
Mailman Mike
Re: Pool rules changes ...

Very interesting. Guess you're never too old to learn something. I've been
around pool/billiards (but not snooker) for about 50 years and have never
heard this strategy referred to as "shot to nothing"!

Everyone I ever knew simply called this a "two-way shot" -- i.e.: make the
shot and get good shape or automatically CYA if you happen to miss. It's
amazing how often this strategy is employed in just one game.

Now, I've got some great, new, highly technical sounding billiards
terminology with which to thrill BOTH of my avid admirers.

Mike Collier === >>> WHAT avid admirers? -- saves a lot on beer money
Oak Harbor, WA





23 May 2004 14:55:57
dalecue
Re: Pool rules changes ...


Mailman Mike wrote in message <[email protected] >...
>Very interesting. Guess you're never too old to learn something. I've
been
>around pool/billiards (but not snooker) for about 50 years and have never
>heard this strategy referred to as "shot to nothing"!

'shot-to-nothing' is pretty much a snooker term, as noted in previous posts,
pool players prolly use 'two-way-shot more', tho IMHO s-t-n is a better
description - two terms - one concept

Dale


>
>Everyone I ever knew simply called this a "two-way shot" -- i.e.: make the
>shot and get good shape or automatically CYA if you happen to miss. It's
>amazing how often this strategy is employed in just one game.
>
>Now, I've got some great, new, highly technical sounding billiards
>terminology with which to thrill BOTH of my avid admirers.
>
>Mike Collier ===>>> WHAT avid admirers? -- saves a lot on beer money
>Oak Harbor, WA
>
>
>