question for one pocket players

question for one pocket players

Post by Ron Shepa » Thu, 10 Nov 1994 04:28:00



Quote:

>Last night I watched this guy teach a friend of mine how to play
>one pocket.  According to the "teacher," if you scratch while sinking
>your opponent's ball in his pocket, you spot that ball (as well as
>one of your own).  Now, I'm not a big fan of the game and haven't
>played it in many years, but I was taught by a serious player and
>my recollection was that the opponent's ball stays down.  A quick
>check of the BCA rulebook confirmed it.  After the game, I mentioned
>it to the teacher and was told (rather indignantly), that "all the
>big-money players play [my] way."  I found this pretty hard to believe,
>but since I don't follow the game, couldn't really dispute it.

Check the BCA rule book again.  The teacher was right.  In this case a
"scratch" is slightly different than a general foul.  An intentional
scratch is the only way to win if the last ball is too deep in your
opponents pocket to get out.  In this case, the ball you made and one of
your previous balls comes up.  You are penalized because you lose a ball.

Look on page 65 of the BCA '94 book.

    "4. Balls pocketed by shooter in his opponent's target pocket are
scored for the opponent, even if the stroke was a foul, but would not
count if the cue ball should scratch or jump the table."

It is that last part of the rule that is important in this case.  

However, many one-pocket players play that any foul causes the ball to
come up, not just a scratch.  There is a story in "Winning One-Pocket"
based on such a rule.  The opponents game ball was jawed in the pocket.
The shooter intentionally double-hit the cue ball when he knew his
opponent was watching. As soon as the foul occured, the other player
called it.  The shooter didn't want to scratch to give the opponent
ball-in-kitchen.  This way, by "tricking" him into calling the double-hit
foul, he didn't get the ball and he had to play the next shot from
position instead of from the kitchen.  With BCA rules, the opponent would
have gotten the ball whether he called the double-hit foul or not.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Bob Beauli » Thu, 10 Nov 1994 08:49:30

Quote:

>Last night I watched this guy teach a friend of mine how to play
>one pocket.  According to the "teacher," if you scratch while sinking
>your opponent's ball in his pocket, you spot that ball (as well as
>one of your own).  Now, I'm not a big fan of the game and haven't
>played it in many years, but I was taught by a serious player and
>my recollection was that the opponent's ball stays down.  A quick
>check of the BCA rulebook confirmed it.  After the game, I mentioned
>it to the teacher and was told (rather indignantly), that "all the
>big-money players play [my] way."  I found this pretty hard to believe,
>but since I don't follow the game, couldn't really dispute it.

>So the question is, true or not?  If the opponent's ball really is
>spotted, could someone explain the rationale of affording a huge
>advantage to a player for committing a foul?  What am I missing?

Because, if you left a ball in your opponents pocket, it most likely will
allow him/her an opportunity to gain an edge positionally for additional
balls.  On the other hand, by pocketing it and fouling, the ball and one
of yours gets spotted (btw - 2 balls on the spot are much harder to make
:-> ).

Of course, you can't do this if there's an easy shot from the head-string.
Sometimes, you can just pocket the ball and leave you're opponent with
the cue-ball in the jaws of their own pocket.  But, when they have 7 balls
down and only need one, you usually have NO other option but to sink and
follow the cue ball behind, just to stay in the game.

Bob B.

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Paul Hah » Thu, 10 Nov 1994 08:51:23


Quote:
> Last night I watched this guy teach a friend of mine how to play
> one pocket.  According to the "teacher," if you scratch while sinking
> your opponent's ball in his pocket, you spot that ball (as well as
> one of your own).  Now, I'm not a big fan of the game and haven't
> played it in many years, but I was taught by a serious player and
> my recollection was that the opponent's ball stays down.  A quick
> check of the BCA rulebook confirmed it.  After the game, I mentioned
> it to the teacher and was told (rather indignantly), that "all the
> big-money players play [my] way."  I found this pretty hard to believe,
> but since I don't follow the game, couldn't really dispute it.

> So the question is, true or not?  If the opponent's ball really is
> spotted, could someone explain the rationale of affording a huge
> advantage to a player for committing a foul?  What am I missing?

I think that quick check was a little _too_ quick.  1994 BCA rulebook,
p. 65:

| Balls pocketed by the shooter in his opponent's target pocket are
| scored for the opponent, even if the stroke was a foul, but would not
| count if the cue ball should scratch or jump the table.

In other words, scratches or jumped balls are not considered fouls per
se, just unfortunate incidents that end your inning.  The kind of fouls
on which the opponent's ball stays down are things like touching a ball.

Following a ball into the opponent's pocket and leaving him with a
two-ball spot shot is a standard one-pocket maneuver; a rule getting
rid of this would significantly change the game.


       O
      /\             "Do you like to gamble, Eddie?
     -\-\-- o         Gamble money on pool games?"

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Michael Rop » Wed, 09 Nov 1994 23:49:46

Last night I watched this guy teach a friend of mine how to play
one pocket.  According to the "teacher," if you scratch while sinking
your opponent's ball in his pocket, you spot that ball (as well as
one of your own).  Now, I'm not a big fan of the game and haven't
played it in many years, but I was taught by a serious player and
my recollection was that the opponent's ball stays down.  A quick
check of the BCA rulebook confirmed it.  After the game, I mentioned
it to the teacher and was told (rather indignantly), that "all the
big-money players play [my] way."  I found this pretty hard to believe,
but since I don't follow the game, couldn't really dispute it.

So the question is, true or not?  If the opponent's ball really is
spotted, could someone explain the rationale of affording a huge
advantage to a player for committing a foul?  What am I missing?

Michael Roper

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Ralph Leslie Dav » Thu, 10 Nov 1994 08:19:41


Quote:

>Last night I watched this guy teach a friend of mine how to play
>one pocket.  According to the "teacher," if you scratch while sinking
>your opponent's ball in his pocket, you spot that ball (as well as
>one of your own).  Now, I'm not a big fan of the game and haven't
>played it in many years, but I was taught by a serious player and
>my recollection was that the opponent's ball stays down.  A quick
>check of the BCA rulebook confirmed it.  After the game, I mentioned
>it to the teacher and was told (rather indignantly), that "all the
>big-money players play [my] way."  I found this pretty hard to believe,
>but since I don't follow the game, couldn't really dispute it.

>So the question is, true or not?  If the opponent's ball really is
>spotted, could someone explain the rationale of affording a huge
>advantage to a player for committing a foul?  What am I missing?

>Michael Roper

Yes, I am afraid that the "teacher" is right.  If you make a ball in
your opponent's pocket and the cue scratches or goes off the table,
the pocketed ball comes out and so does one of yours.  This rule really
only comes into play when your opponent has his eigth ball in the jaws
of his pocket--in a last ditch effort to stay alive you should try to
put his in and scratch.  Frankly, I don't know what I'd do without that
rule!


PS  Is it me or has anyone else noticed a certain "testiness" in Bob
Jewett's latest posts?  What's the deal Bob?  :)  

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Michael Rop » Thu, 10 Nov 1994 08:21:22

Quote:
Ron Shepard writes:
>     "4. Balls pocketed by shooter in his opponent's target pocket are
> scored for the opponent, even if the stroke was a foul, but would not
> count if the cue ball should scratch or jump the table."

Oops, you're right.  I read just enough to confirm my position!  Still,
I think this rule is strange.  I always thought one of the premium skills
of a one pocket player was the ability to knock a ball out of an opponent's
pocket.  With this rule you're allowing a player to dramatically improve
his position in the game by intentionally committing a foul.  Why should
the player who has skillfully worked the ball to his pocket be screwed by
an opponent taking a shot that is not only a foul, but also requires no
talent?  It just seems antithetical to the spirit of the game.  Can you
put this into perspective for me?

Michael Roper

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Mark Stieffenhof » Thu, 10 Nov 1994 15:00:02

: Oops, you're right.  I read just enough to confirm my position!  Still,
: I think this rule is strange.  I always thought one of the premium skills
: of a one pocket player was the ability to knock a ball out of an opponent's
: pocket.  With this rule you're allowing a player to dramatically improve

When a ball is _almost_ ducked up in a pocket, it's easy enough; but when
a ball is IN a pocket, it's nearly impossible to do as well as control
the cue ball.

: his position in the game by intentionally committing a foul.  Why should
: the player who has skillfully worked the ball to his pocket be screwed by
: an opponent taking a shot that is not only a foul, but also requires no
: talent?  It just seems antithetical to the spirit of the game.  Can you
: put this into perspective for me?

Give your average player the situation of a ball sitting in or very close
to a pocket and the cue ball in hand. See how many of them can
intentionally scratch and do it consistantly... then you'll understand
talent. Then think about trying different shots with the cue ball in
certain positions. Makes it even more difficult...

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Bob Jewe » Fri, 11 Nov 1994 11:58:57

Quote:
> Why should the player who has skillfully worked the ball to his pocket
> be screwed by an opponent taking a shot that is not only a foul, but
> also requires no talent?

There are several positions in which it requires considerable talent to
scratch (or get the cue ball off the table) while pocketing the hung
ball.  And anyway, the ball is not removed without penalty.  If pocketing
the hung ball would have put the score at "needing one each", pocketing
while scratching by the opponent puts the score at "needing two each",
so the scratcher gets no benefit except denying his opponent the chance
to play position off the hung ball (and extending the game).

Quote:
> It just seems antithetical to the spirit of the game.  Can you put this
> into perspective for me?

It's the way the game has been played for at least 30 years.

Bob Jewett

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Bob Jewe » Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:05:33

Quote:
> PS  Is it me or has anyone else noticed a certain "testiness" in Bob
> Jewett's latest posts?  What's the deal Bob?  :)  

Me, testy?  Oh, you mean "testing".  Yes, there is no activity that
destroys armchair theories and theoreticians quite as well as actually
doing experiments.  When are you going to turn your last lab assignment
in, Ralph?  So far you have only a partial result.

Bob Jewett

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Ralph Leslie Dav » Fri, 11 Nov 1994 15:27:55


Quote:


>: Oops, you're right.  I read just enough to confirm my position!  Still,
>: I think this rule is strange.  I always thought one of the premium skills
>: of a one pocket player was the ability to knock a ball out of an opponent's
>: pocket.  With this rule you're allowing a player to dramatically improve

>When a ball is _almost_ ducked up in a pocket, it's easy enough; but when
>a ball is IN a pocket, it's nearly impossible to do as well as control
>the cue ball.

Yes, this is true.  The only time that it is "easy" to scratch and pocket
a ball is on a relatively straight-on shot.  

Quote:
>: his position in the game by intentionally committing a foul.  Why should
>: the player who has skillfully worked the ball to his pocket be screwed by
>: an opponent taking a shot that is not only a foul, but also requires no
>: talent?  It just seems antithetical to the spirit of the game.  Can you
>: put this into perspective for me?

That's just the nature of the game.  I used to hate it when I made a decent
shot (and left my ball close to my pocket) only to have my opponent come
along and slam it out.  But now I enjoy the challenge of getting a ball
close to my pocket AND not leaving my opponent an easy slam-out shot (i. e.,
put the cue ball behind some interfering balls).  

And also don't forget that not every game of one-pocket goes down to the wire.
If you were beating me 7-5 and you had a ball in the jaws, and I sink it and
scratch, one of mine gets pulled, the one I sunk gets pulled, and you
get ball in hand.  Now other than the two that were spotted, there are
TWO OTHER balls on the table that you can shoot at (unless they are behind
the headstring).  The "Sink/Scratch" shot is never really a great advantage to
the guy who shoots it even if he sucks.

--Ralph

      O
      /\             "Oooh, the impossible dream."
     -\-\-- o        

PS Hey, manynote, is it OK if I borrow this for a while?

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Paul Hah » Sun, 13 Nov 1994 23:05:52


Quote:
>       O
>       /\             "Oooh, the impossible dream."
>      -\-\-- o        

> PS Hey, manynote, is it OK if I borrow this for a while?

Well, okay, but if there's a single scratch in the paint when you're
done . . .

BTW, we don't need to be so formal.  Call me pH.

Also BTW, why is the guy not looking where he's shooting?  Is this one
of those just-showing-off things?

Feeling silly today,

       O
      /\             "'Jever take'n try to give an ironclad leave to
     -\-\-- o        yourself from a three-rail billiard shot?"

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Ralph Leslie Dav » Mon, 14 Nov 1994 05:31:09



Quote:

>>       O
>>       /\             "Oooh, the impossible dream."
>>      -\-\-- o        

>> PS Hey, manynote, is it OK if I borrow this for a while?

>Well, okay, but if there's a single scratch in the paint when you're
>done . . .

>BTW, we don't need to be so formal.  Call me pH.

>Also BTW, why is the guy not looking where he's shooting?  Is this one
>of those just-showing-off things?

I didn't think anyone would notice that.

Quote:

>Feeling silly today,

>       O
>      /\             "'Jever take'n try to give an ironclad leave to
>     -\-\-- o        yourself from a three-rail billiard shot?"

Where is the above quote from?

--Ralph

      O
      /\             "Hey Gramps, put your teeth back in, get your
     -\-\-- o        hands off your daughter and you just might learn
                     somethin'!"

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Ralph Leslie Dav » Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:58:02


Quote:

>> PS  Is it me or has anyone else noticed a certain "testiness" in Bob
>> Jewett's latest posts?  What's the deal Bob?  :)  

>Me, testy?  Oh, you mean "testing".  Yes, there is no activity that
>destroys armchair theories and theoreticians quite as well as actually
>doing experiments.  When are you going to turn your last lab assignment
>in, Ralph?  So far you have only a partial result.

>Bob Jewett

Sorry, Teach, but my dog ate my homework.  If I remember correctly,
I said that one way to test if a ball is lop-sides is to set up a
Galilean-like ramp (with two sticks) and roll the ball down it
time after time.  If it goes straight some times, to the right some
times, and to the left some times, then you might be able to conclude
that the ball is lop-sided.  I don't know what other test there is
(except for Ron's(?) idea of spinning it in place and seeing if it
wobbles).  

Speaking of round balls, Stanford University scientists are conducting
gravity wave experiments for which they have created the most spherical
objects ever.  They've constructed quartz balls that are soooooo round
(How round are they?) that if you enlarged them to the size of the earth,
the highest "mountain" would be 8ft. high.  I also heard from a material
scientist prof. that if you shrunk the earth down to the size of a
billiard ball, it would be SMOOTHER than said billiard ball.  

--Ralph

PS

"This means that if you are shooting the eight into the pocket in the
jaws of which it is***, only a pea-brained poor sport would ask
you to call it."

                                                 --Bob Jewett

"pea-brained poor sport"--Hey, I think I know this guy(s).

 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Paul Hah » Thu, 17 Nov 1994 02:58:38


Quote:
> Where is the [below] quote from?

Meredith Willson's _The Music Man_, "Ya Got Trouble (Right Here In River
City)".

       O
      /\             "'Jever take'n try to give an ironclad leave to
     -\-\-- o        yourself from a three-rail billiard shot?"
 
 
 

question for one pocket players

Post by Bob Jewe » Thu, 17 Nov 1994 07:15:04

[Ralph said:]

Quote:
> I said that one way to test if a ball is lop-sides is to set up a
> Galilean-like ramp (with two sticks) and roll the ball down it
> time after time.  If it goes straight some times, to the right some
> times, and to the left some times, then you might be able to conclude
> that the ball is lop-sided.  I don't know what other test there is
> (except for Ron's(?) idea of spinning it in place and seeing if it
> wobbles).  

While a ramp is helpful for those who can't hit the ball without spin,
it is not necessary.  You can also set the ball up as the last ball in a
straight combination to keep the spin off.

Like I said, partial credit.  The idea that makes the test you describe
work is to know which side of the ball is on which side.  Mark a small
arrow on the ball and then send the ball up and down the table with the
arrow starting in each of six positions:

    arrow on top, pointing forward
    arrow on top, pointing backward

    arrow on top, pointing left
    arrow on top, pointing right

    arrow on left side, pointing in any direction
    arrow on right side, pointing in any direction

On each test, the ball should travel about the same distance as a lag
shot, preferably stopping just before the second rail.  If you get side
spin on the ball, you will see the arrow move away from its correct
position.

If the table and ball are true, the ball will return to the same position
(or along the same line) regardless of the position of the arrow.  If the
table is tilted, the ball will consistently roll to one side, but if you take
the difference of each pair of tests above, you will get the bias due to the
ball.

Suppose the ball has a heavy side.  Suppose the arrow has luckily been
placed exactly on the heavy side.  In the first four tests above, the
ball will not roll funny, because the heavy part is rolling head over
heels and there is no reason for the ball to go to one side or the
other.

In the last two tests, the ball will roll off.  When the mark and the
heavy side are to the left, the ball will roll to the left.  When the
mark and the heavy side are to the right, the ball will roll to the
right.  Usually in this test, the mark will stay on the axis of rotation
if the ball is struck without side spin.

The amount of roll off I've observed with a cue ball has been as large
as a diamond at lag speed.  That much variation due just to which way
the cue ball is turned when it starts its final long roll to an end rail
makes position play challenging.

Physicists among you will recognise that the test above is along three
independent axes and that if there is some roll off for each one, it
is possible to find the "worst" axis by some kind of vector addition.
This assumes a fairly simple model of the lop-sided ball.

Quote:
> Speaking of round balls, Stanford University scientists are conducting

So, Ralph, when will you measure the spheres at Tressider?  Consider it
a make-up assignment.

Bob Jewett