9ball raking pattern

9ball raking pattern

Post by Jeremy Christoph » Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:51:01


          1
        2   3
      4   9   5
        6   7
          8

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Jamie Bu » Thu, 01 Dec 1994 05:54:11

Quote:

>          1
>        2   3
>      4   9   5
>        6   7
>          8

This is one of many random orientations that 9-ball can be racked. Since
you have to hit the one on your first shot, and the 9-ball is the winning
ball, they are the only two balls that have set places in the rack. The
remainder of the balls are insignificant as to how or when they are pocketed
of the break, so their placement is irrelevent.

JCB

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Greg Remi » Thu, 01 Dec 1994 11:13:03


Quote:

>          1
>        2   3
>      4   9   5
>        6   7
>          8

Not necessarily.  Only the 1-ball and 9-ball have to be where shown, the
rest being immaterial.

--
Grog<aw675>.      The man with the Red Shoes.  Gotta problem?

                     TheMysticalPotatoHeadGrooveThing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Mark Stieffenhof » Thu, 01 Dec 1994 14:42:25

: The
: remainder of the balls are insignificant as to how or when they are pocketed
: of the break, so their placement is irrelevent.

Well.... we did have a discussion in a.s.p a while ago when we talked
about what balls go where on the break. Thus you could rack the balls a
certain way that would be more likely a harder run-out than a random
racking. (1 ball up table, 2 ball down table, 3 -up...)

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Jari Kok » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 00:24:16

Mark Stieffenhofer:

Quote:
>Well.... we did have a discussion in a.s.p a while ago when we talked
>about what balls go where on the break. Thus you could rack the balls a
>certain way that would be more likely a harder run-out than a random
>racking. (1 ball up table, 2 ball down table, 3 -up...)

Do you remember whether we came to a conclusion on if it is
legal to position the other balls or not? ("...other balls at
random...").

Jari

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Ron Shepa » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 08:09:07

Quote:

>Mark Stieffenhofer:
>>Well.... we did have a discussion in a.s.p a while ago when we talked
>>about what balls go where on the break. Thus you could rack the balls a
>>certain way that would be more likely a harder run-out than a random
>>racking. (1 ball up table, 2 ball down table, 3 -up...)

>Do you remember whether we came to a conclusion on if it is
>legal to position the other balls or not? ("...other balls at
>random...").

Yeah, was that "MUST BE IN RANDOM ORDER" or "MAY BE IN ANY ARBITRARY
ORDER"?  I think we were waiting for Bob Jewett to report on this after
the next BCA rules meeting.  Bob, is this going to be clarified in the
'95 rulebook?

And there is also the ambiguity of the ball-frozen-to-the-cushion rule.
That is, if the ball clearly leaves the cushion and returns to it,
because of masse or collision with another ball, does the second contact
with the cushion count towards making it a legal shot?

Here is another situation that is unclear by the present rule.  Say you
have an object ball frozen against the corner of a side pocket.  The cue
ball hits the ball, and it bounces back and forth between the jaws of the
side pocket a few times, but doesn't drop.  The cue ball does not hit a
cushion, and the object ball contacts only the insides of the pocket to
which it was originally frozen.  Is this shot a foul?

If it occurs in a corner pocket, then I think that it is unambiguous that
it is a legal shot, because the two sides of a corner pocket are clearly
two separate cushions.  But it is not clear that the two sides of a
corner pocket are two cushions or one cushion, and if it is the latter,
if such a shot constitutes anything other than "merely rebounding from
the cushion" which is a foul with the current wording of the rule.

Oh yeah, and there is the funny wording of the 3-foul rule in one-pocket.
It appears to say that if you foul on three consecutive turns at the
table, it is a loss of game, regardless of whether you made any
intervening legal shots.  To be consistent with the 3-foul rules in
9-ball and 14.1, the rule should say specifically that the three fouls
must occur on three consecutive shots.

Anyone have any other rules issues before the '95 revisions?

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by JEFF HUS » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 12:17:42

Quote:

says:

>>          1
>>        2   3
>>      4   9   5
>>        6   7
>>          8

>Not necessarily.  Only the 1-ball and 9-ball have to be where shown,
the
>rest being immaterial.

>--
>Grog<aw675>.

  I was under the same impression.  At least concerning the placement of
the 9.  The 1 was never really a factor, either unless you will be
following the rule of hitting the balls in numerical order starting with
the break.  Granted I only play it in the bar scene, but that was the
impression I was under.

Quote:
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Jeff Huss

Freedom, WI
 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Mark Stieffenhof » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 15:05:33

: Mark Stieffenhofer:
: >Well.... we did have a discussion in a.s.p a while ago when we talked
: >about what balls go where on the break. Thus you could rack the balls a
: >certain way that would be more likely a harder run-out than a random
: >racking. (1 ball up table, 2 ball down table, 3 -up...)

: Do you remember whether we came to a conclusion on if it is
: legal to position the other balls or not? ("...other balls at
: random...").

I think we (at least most of us) agreed that they should be random.
If thats the case, then Jeremy (the original poster) would be right about
1 out of every 7! times... ;')

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Greg Remi » Fri, 02 Dec 1994 22:40:07


Quote:

>says:
>>>          1
>>>        2   3
>>>      4   9   5
>>>        6   7
>>>          8

>>Not necessarily.  Only the 1-ball and 9-ball have to be where shown,
>the
>>rest being immaterial.
>>--
>>Grog<aw675>.

>  I was under the same impression.  At least concerning the placement of
>the 9.  The 1 was never really a factor, either unless you will be
>following the rule of hitting the balls in numerical order starting with
>the break.  Granted I only play it in the bar scene, but that was the
>impression I was under.

The main thing about 9-ball is following the numerical order of the balls!
Just like in 8-ball you have to sink all of your balls before going for
the 8.

That's why the bars suck as far as pool is concerned.  Almost everyone
that I know and play with at Carleton University (Ottawa) plays by those
stupid Bar-Rules.  The only reasonable explanation and reasoning for that
is that we all play on coin-op tables, so you can't re-spot the 8-ball if
you sink it in off the break (in 8-ball), or other stuff like that.

Either way, the 1-ball has to be at the apex of the rack, since it must be
hit first.  But then a question arises:  Can you ask the racker to place
the 1-ball at one side for the break because that's where you want to aim?
Or anywhere else, like at the back end of the rack?  As long as the 1-ball
is the first ball you hit, it should be fine.........

Later.

--
Grog<aw675>.      The man with the Red Shoes.  Gotta problem?

                     TheMysticalPotatoHeadGrooveThing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Jamie Bu » Sat, 03 Dec 1994 02:04:35

Quote:

>Mark Stieffenhofer:
>>Well.... we did have a discussion in a.s.p a while ago when we talked
>>about what balls go where on the break. Thus you could rack the balls a
>>certain way that would be more likely a harder run-out than a random
>>racking. (1 ball up table, 2 ball down table, 3 -up...)

>Do you remember whether we came to a conclusion on if it is
>legal to position the other balls or not? ("...other balls at
>random...").

>Jari

I believe the BCA rules state that the "remaining balls are arranged
randomly within the rack". But what's stopping you from saying that
the balls were racked in random order? (Assuming your opponent even
notices your racking arrangement). I suppose a referee could notice,
after which time would he take over the racking? What is the rule on
who racks?

JCB

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Ron Shepa » Sat, 03 Dec 1994 09:07:49



[...]

Quote:
>I believe the BCA rules state that the "remaining balls are arranged
>randomly within the rack". But what's stopping you from saying that
>the balls were racked in random order? (Assuming your opponent even
>notices your racking arrangement). I suppose a referee could notice,
>after which time would he take over the racking?

What if you are the referee, and you want to rack the balls as fairly and
legally as possible.  Racking them exactly the same way every time for
both players seems "fair", but is it legal?

Can one of the players request that you rerack the balls in some specific
order for his breaks?  Can he request that you rack the balls in some
order for his opponent?

Quote:
>What is the rule on
>who racks?

If there is a referee, then the referee racks.  I don't remember seeing a
rule for unrefereed matches.  If there are constant delays regarding
racking balls, and there often are (for sharking if for nothing else),
then here is a suggestion.  Let the breaker rack his own balls with
approval of the opponent.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

9ball raking pattern

Post by Bob Jewe » Sat, 03 Dec 1994 05:04:44

Quote:
> Yeah, was that "MUST BE IN RANDOM ORDER" or "MAY BE IN ANY ARBITRARY
> ORDER"?  I think we were waiting for Bob Jewett to report on this after
> the next BCA rules meeting.  Bob, is this going to be clarified in the
> '95 rulebook?

I don't think any change to this has been discussed.

Quote:
> And there is also the ambiguity of the ball-frozen-to-the-cushion rule.

Another problem not yet under consideration for change, so far as I know.

Quote:
> Anyone have any other rules issues before the '95 revisions?

Yes, it is high time to complete a list.

Bob Jewett