[POOL] Fwd: Argonne Pool League PROPOSED CHANGES

[John Valdes]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:30:17PM -0500, Craig Stacey wrote:
> Send me your thoughts on the rule changes and proposals below. 

Thoughts below.

> >First, the following rule changes have been proposed:
> >
> >1) Call-shot vs. slop-shot.
> >2) Because of 1), there are called safeties.

I've vote for no on these, though I could live with called shots
(since I'm rarely lucky enough to benefit from slop ;) ).  The would
seem to favor better players, and would like lengthen duration of
games (esp games between less talented players).

> >3) The table is always open after the break.

Meh... Don't really care one way or the other.  Might make the game a
little easier for poorer players as they could play whichever ball
group is best arranged for a run rather than being "stuck" with the
group they sunk on the break.

> >4) 8-ball on the break is *not* a win.

Given how rare this is, and the potential for greatly speeding up a
match if pocketing the 8 is a win, I vote no for this.

> >5) Scratching on the 8-ball is *not* a loss if the 8-ball is not  
> >pocketed.

I vote no for this too; I've certainly lost way too many games by
scratching on the 8, but not scratching on the 8 is part of the
challenge.  This change would also make games last longer ('though
probably not by much).

> >These are the rules from the World Pool-Billiard Association.  The  
> >main difference between WPA and what we currently use are as  
> >above.

I guess that would really be the only advantage to adopting the
changes, ie, following the WPA standard rules.  If we only adopt
called shots and open table after break, then that would get us IPT
rules, I believe, FWTW, with the exception of the dress code ;)
(http://www.internationalpooltour.com/ipt_content/ipt_rules/default.asp)

> >Second, a change in the matchup charge has been proposed:
> >
> >Chart-4  up to 39   [same as before]
> >Chart-6  40-59
> >Chart-8  60-79
> >Chart-10 80-109
> >Chart-12 110-up
> >
> >This will have the effect of reducing the number of games played  
> >per match.  It is thought that if we reduce the number of games per  
> >match by approximately 2, this will save as much as 60 - 90 minutes  
> >in the evening.  This will mean that the matches will get over  
> >quicker and we will not have to reduce their number.

I don't recall the match-ups on the charts, but I'm all for reducing
the duration of matches.

> >Third, barring the idea previously proposed, it has been suggested  
> >that we reduce the number of matches played in an evening from 5 to  
> >4.  This will certainly cut short the evening, but it leaves a  
> >situation where there is no clear cut winner for the evening.

Hmm, I don't know if I'd like there being no clear winner at the
end. :)  I'd vote for just reducing the duration of matches by
changing the match-up charge.

Just my $0.02.

John