Potential Rule Change

[Julian Dale]

As a result of the discussion on a thread about the effects that the 'Oxford shot' is having on the game (barbilliards.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2900), please give your vote to this poll so that we can have a better idea about how people feel about the subject.

A rule change suggestion that I think is the most viable option is to include an extra 'one-up' shot after the normal 'one-up' shot that follows three break shots. The reason I think that rule change would be a good one is because it is very simple to implement (no tables require modifications), it is easy for scorers to enforce, creates additional difficulty/risk/variation throughout a break and yet does not take away the opportunity for a player to run the bar out.

If you choose option 3 and have a different suggestion for a rule change, please describe it by leaving a comment and explain your reasons why you think that rule change would be effective.

I think the rules should remain, these rule changes would penalise the 10% not the majority.

Does anyone think Bar Billiards is too easy?

I don't!

I'm not averse to a bit of change to liven things up. ;)
I don't think the extra one-up is too momentous a change, and quite honestly don't think it would make an awful lot of difference - apart from if ever there were TV coverage: the game wouldn't come across then as too mechanical.

Oct 31, 2008 20:53:15 GMT tommo III said:

apart from if ever there were TV coverage: the game wouldn't come across then as too mechanical.

Their will never be Bar Billiards on sports channels. Only in Jersey for 5 minutes.

Since when has the game become too mechanical?
If your on about players rhythm then shame on you as that is a skill that takes YEARS to perfect.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to just stand there and take that one on the chin. >:( 40 years experience enough for you ?

I often wonder how you'd cope with having to play on some of the difficult SAMs tables we have down in the south. You are lucky, because they're mainly nice easy Jelkes tables in Cambs.

I happen to think that there's far more to the game than three-down, one up, split - although that's always my Plan A when approaching the table for the first time.

And if you want mechanical, I'm not averse to a bit of One Down, split, one-down, split - it's actually easier to play a table out that way. Though I shun away from it as I don't want to bore the opponent into submission. ::)

We'll get it on TV one day - you'll see.

Nov 1, 2008 20:53:24 GMT tommo III said:

I'm sorry but I'm not going to just stand there and take that one on the chin. >:( 40 years experience enough for you ?

I often wonder how you'd cope with having to play on some of the difficult SAMs tables we have down in the south. You are lucky, because they're mainly nice easy Jelkes tables in Cambs.

Tommo, I havent digged your experience or playing ability anywhere and never will do.

Secondly, lol lol lol!
Are you stating that Cambs tables are easy. Just to make that clear.
CAMBS Tables are EASY. ok.

Say that after playing on one week after week. Bet you'll change your tune quickly.

I'll see the day when people kill the game by passing stupid rules at least i'll see that!

Well, so far you're in the majority of 6:2 who want things to stay as they are. And nobody has come up with a different proposal (3rd voting option) other than the rather innocuous 'extra one-up'.

So you should be pleased with the way it's going. No need therefore for such a degree of overkill. Democracy reigns supreme !

[TIR]

Keep the rules as they are.

An extra one up would only mean playing the red into the 50 on shot five and 50/100 hole split on shot six, meaning virtually no change.

[bigtj]

No rule change as I think it is wrong to tinker with something that is not broken.

[Dave Anscombe]

I say keep the rules the same. Changing them would only confuse players and scorers.
Nothing major has changed in our game for many many years, even the 'split', oxford shot or whatever you want to call it was only an adaption on an original shot.
Leave things as they are. If you change them the better players will only work out a way to still score 10K+ every game, that is why the Kt's of our game are such good players.
Fiddling around with the rules all the time only helps those who can get the break and 'split' regularly and doesn't help the new players. Keep the game simple. :)

[Julian Dale]

Just thought I'd respond to a few points:

Nov 2, 2008 11:03:39 GMT TIR said:

An extra one up would only mean playing the red into the 50 on shot five and 50/100 hole split on shot six, meaning virtually no change.

If a small change has a positive effect, then think of more small changes. It's a principle of Japanese/Eastern manufacturing.

Nov 2, 2008 17:26:38 GMT Dave Anscombe said:

Nothing major has changed in our game for many many years.

That doesn't necessarily mean everything is perfect, and it also suggests that it might be about time that things were looked at in a fresh light.

Nov 2, 2008 17:26:38 GMT Dave Anscombe said:

If you change them the better players will only work out a way to still score 10K+ every game, that is why the Kt's of our game are such good players.

What I would like a rule change to do is to make it harder for a top player to dominate a table with one visit. The fact you've suggested that the better players score 10K+ every game indicates to me that something should be changed to make it harder for them to do so.

Nov 2, 2008 17:26:38 GMT Dave Anscombe said:

Fiddling around with the rules all the time only helps those who can get the break and 'split' regularly and doesn't help the new players.

I disagree with that one. The extra one-up rule is aimed at making it harder to dominate a table with one big break, thus hopefully allowing the non-breaking player, whatever their standard, more opportunities to come to the table with a chance of winning. New players will always find it hard, but if players are given more opportunities to come to the table then surely that is a good thing?


The objective of any rule change in any game/sport should be to the benefit of that game/sport in general. Yes, an extra one-up shot may not make much difference, but if it makes it even a fraction harder to win a game with one visit (which I believe it would), then I would like to see that rule introduced.

What I would like to see from any change is more competitive games, more variety of shots played, more skills to be used in a break and hopefully therefore a more interesting game to watch. However that change manifests itself, I believe it is needed for the future of the game. Any sport thrives when it is more competitive, and this is a scenario we all want to see.

I would be interested to know what the views of the top echelon (ie England internationals) would be.

I rather think that some of them would take aboard the idea of the extra one-up, and see it as a challenge.

You could find it even leading to bigger scores: for instance, when a table pulls slightly to the middle, the extra 'placement' shot followed by the red in the 100 yields more than blasting it for a 50/20 split.

But you have to be careful, as the 50/20 is ultra safe and the 50/100 still holds the usual pitfalls of leaving it short or whipping onto a peg.

I think it comes down to this.

If you like trying to beat or don't trying to even compete with the likes of KT the answer is simple.
Don't play them. Play in a lower Division or league.

You cannot blame the rules for people being good at the game.

[BB Warrior]

Nov 3, 2008 14:33:10 GMT @regg3y said:

I think it comes down to this.

If you like trying to beat or don't trying to even compete with the likes of KT the answer is simple.
Don't play them. Play in a lower Division or league.

You cannot blame the rules for people being good at the game.

I agree with that comment entirely........ ;)

Surely, the object of any sport is to try to improve until you reach as high a standard as possible? ::)

There will always be somebody better than you (on the day) but even the best players in the world can be beaten...... it only takes 1 bad shot (or a bit of bad luck) to lose your entire score in this game which you cannot say about most sports.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody in darts has suggested that Phil Taylor should only use 2 darts in his matches in future and Formula 1 has not introduced a rule change (yet!) to make Lewis Hamilton drive on only 3 wheels next season to make it "fairer" for the other competitors...... :P

Possibly, changing the rules would make it harder for the top players to dominate certain games....... but they would also be the ones who would adapt quickest to any rule changes and would still be able to consistently hit the highest scores.

Leave things as they are.

I don't think the point of this thread is to handicap anyone in particular for the benefit of others.

If everyone who has voted so far has been under that misapprehension, then the vote is invalid !

(Trying to help Julian here.) ;D

Also, what about this proviso that he put in? :

Oct 31, 2008 14:37:49 GMT Julian Dale said:

If you choose option 3 and have a different suggestion for a rule change, please describe it by leaving a comment and explain your reasons why you think that rule change would be effective.

Someone has voted for option 3 without specifying what they want !

[JerseyLugs]

If the main point of this thread is that it's unfair that a player be allowed to dominate a game i.e. win at their first visit, then there is no point in even discussing changing shot rules.

How each individual plays the game and to what level of proficiency should not even be brought into it.

The ONLY solution imho would be to have split break games with an exact time limit per player. If the first player doesn't use their allotted time on the first visit then that's their fault and if you want it be fair then the balls should be returned for the next player to commence with the break .

Should both players play out their time (No Bar Allowed) then end of game. If the second player breaks down the game continues from where the balls are and the bar is then used.

I don't personally see any point in changing the rules and feel almost as if it is sour grapes on some peoples behalf, in that, because they aren't as good as some of the players they're coming up against they feel something should be done to give them not so much an advantage but more of a chance.

If you want an even playing field then my original suggestion seems the only option. Otherwise you're not creating an even playing field, you're just penalising someone for being good at the game.

[Colemanator]

:-/ This thread was created out of 'Ban The Oxford Shot?

The discussion was to see if the TV companies thought that some rule changes would be needed to make the game attractive to a Tv audience.
I Do believe that the threads have been OT from that original idea,
:-/

Nov 3, 2008 16:20:22 GMT JerseyLugs said:

If you want an even playing field then my original suggestion seems the only option. Otherwise you're not creating an even playing field, you're just penalising someone for being good at the game.

Interesting point, JerseyLugs, and I agree with you 100%. This voting thread came out of a discussion we were having on the "Ban The Oxford Shot ?" thread, and this was my idea also:

Oct 23, 2008 19:10:07 GMT tommo III said:

I have often thought that b/bs is one of few sports where you can be beaten before you even start.
And that the fairest way round the situation is :

If the player who broke off plays out more than half the time, and the opponent is still in play when the bar drops, he should be able to carry on by putting another coin in.

This has been in use locally for deciding games in cup matches. But there has always been the argument of whether the game finishes a) once he has had equal time or b) once he has overtaken at leisure.

The simple way round this is to say that the game enters "double frame mode" - ie allowing both players the chance to come back at each other.

Agreed that this could not really be adopted at top level tournaments - the standard of play meaning it would happen too often and become an organiser's nightmare. But no reason why local leagues couldn't embrace the concept. And taking advantage of the rule could be 'optional' for the second player.

Looking back on that interesting thread, I see that there was input from two England Internationals:
Nigel, who was against any change to as/is;
Milko, who wouldn't mind England adopting Jersey Rules, as he loves 'off-the-spot'. ;D ;D

[Julian Dale]

If the objective of any sport is "to try to improve until you reach as high a standard as possible", do you want the game to become a procession of the breaking player winning in one visit by playing the same shots over and over again? **YAWN** If you do, fair enough...

[Colemanator]

Nov 3, 2008 17:44:13 GMT Julian Dale said:

do you want the game to become a procession of the breaking player winning in one visit by playing the same shots over and over again? **YAWN** If you do, fair enough...

That's where the issue is, Drive to venue = no beer, drawn against the break :( have no chance of winning due to either, opening break by opponent, dodgy table where you can't get the balls back :( offer the winner a drink ::) and we call that 'sport' well the officially it's not a sport, and maybe that's why 8-)

I am a fan of even breaks, at least that's a level playing field for all, except where there isn't any time left.

[Herr von Puebik]

I don't think the Oxford shot should be banned and agree with the Colemanator and JerseyLugs that both players should have an even chance by virtue of a time limit / even breaks unless the game is over 2 or more legs. I personally prefer to play better players (at my standard that happens more often than not!!) as that is surely the best way to improve your own game. Banning the hardest shots is not really the way forward IMHO.

[barneybear]

I voted for option 3 and would have everything off-the-spot. I would also have the extra 1 up, which if we had to play it off-the-spot could lead to some very interesting positions on the table.

Anything to make the game less boring - 30 years of playing and if it wasn't for the good company of my team on a Thursday I would probably pack it in

[markb]

If there were to be any changes off the spot would be my choice :) ;) :D ;D

Barneybear - I have witnessed you being offered as the sacrificial lamb (away table, selected against break, opponent kicked off with 10k+) twice recently at Interleague - and it ain't no fun: >:( No opportunity at all to demonstrate your proven playing ability.
But you're right, the team spirit is all important, and others are there to be stand up and be counted so fair game to them.

Mark B - refreshing to see a proven (England) player with a non-blinkered approach. ;)

[barneybear]

Tommo - being a sacrificial lamb is not a problem - when I was a better player there were plenty of offerings given up to me and I greedily took them so 'what goes around eventually comes around' as they say.

The difference in my evening out now is that I don't watch too much of the other games. I used to watch every second of every game because I wanted to know how to play balls that landed awkwardly and over the years have watched many different ways of playing the same shot in various parts of the table.

But I know the split and its variations - I know when a 50-20 or a 50-10 is about to be played - there is nothing to watch any more. I do watch my team mate Gary Ridley (who doesn't split) and he invariably comes up with something that I've never seen before.

It's the variation that matters to me - the split is grindingly boring - just 3 shots - as I said elsewhere I hate scoring games for split players and usually manage to avoid doing it - no wonder there is often a shortage of scorers - other people might feel the same as me!

There are, as you say, other high-scoring combinations other than in using the 'split' or 'Oxford'.
My teammate Mick Holmwood, for instance, likes to run his one up close to the 50 slightly to the right, and then cuts a shot for 50/100. I've seen him run many a 10k up that way.
Tony Franks used to favour the shot we called the 'double barrell', ie one ball following the other down the 50 hole.
And Ian Goulding used to get high scores at the Richmond Arms by following through 50/30 after his one-up. Phil Collins is a master of that too.
All these variations add to the rich pageant of the game, I agree.
But I have the utmost respect for those players who have mastered the split shot to such a degree (and not all so-called split players have !) that it has become second nature: a secondary factor then comes into the game - the speed at which they can play.
This is when it can become exciting - seeing two split players trying to outscore, outwit and outpace one another.

[barneybear]

Nov 3, 2008 21:19:14 GMT tommo III said:

Tony Franks used to favour the shot we called the 'double barrell', ie one ball following the other down the 50 hole.

Barry Squires is the best that I have seen at this shot (nice to see his son Adam improving at the game - wonder if he splits!).

Nov 3, 2008 21:19:14 GMT tommo III said:

But I have the utmost respect for those players who have mastered the split shot to such a degree (and not all so-called split players have !) that it has become second nature: a secondary factor then comes into the game - the speed at which they can play.
This is when it can become exciting - seeing two split players trying to outscore, outwit and outpace one another.

I have a huge respect for these players, but I just get bored watching it ;D

[Matt]

I voted to not change any rules as I personally dont think I have enough experience within this game to say what could help/hinder.

One thing I have noticed though is that a lot of people talk about even breaks which our league runs in cup matches.

I also understand certain leagues/cups will play even breaks with a max score of 2k before the opponent has a chance. If he or she hits 2k, play changes back. If the player strikes out, tough titties.

We have played these rules in friendlies and found it more enjoyable, but requiring a little more concentration from the ref as its not the norm.

Could I suggest that teams try different rules out in friendly matches.
Football is renowned for doing this in the lower leagues/friendly matches before introducing the rules at a higher level.

just my tuppence.

matt

[Julian Dale]

Nov 3, 2008 23:59:25 GMT Matt said:

a lot of people talk about even breaks which our league runs in cup matches.

Our league does too, which is the fairest way of playing the current rules, but why can't we have each single game being more competitive? That, to me, would make bar billiards massively more appealing.

Nov 3, 2008 23:59:25 GMT Matt said:

I also understand certain leagues/cups will play even breaks with a max score of 2k before the opponent has a chance. If he or she hits 2k, play changes back. If the player strikes out, tough titties.

We have played these rules in friendlies and found it more enjoyable, but requiring a little more concentration from the ref as its not the norm.

This sort of thing would be perfect to play in a Summer league for introducing new players to the game as it would guarantee them some table time with the carrot of seeing a winning line not too far beyond them, and would also be interesting for more experienced players playing cat and mouse.

To further encourage new or weaker players to get into the game, I've often thought you could make it so that after a player is over 2k ahead, they could only extend their lead by 1k per visit. Using a handicap system like in golf would not work as the objective with new and weaker players is to give them table time and a reachable target as an incentive to work towards. Bar billiards can be a very demoralising game for those who are still learning how to put together breaks, so a Summer league with some sort of break limiting system would be perfect for them.

[mossy]

i dont think the rules should be changed. but you could change the one up rule so a ball must pass the fifty pocket.