PDA

View Full Version : Grady's 9 Ball Rules



Grady
01-30-2003, 09:17 AM
I have had seven tournaments using these rules. The games were not slowed down and more than 90% of the players loved the rules.
One year at the US Open 9-Ball a vote was taken among the 99 players in attendance. 98 of them voted for my rules and everything went very smoothly.
Mike Sigel, Wade Crane, Nick Varner, and I, at the behest of the then MPBA, were commissioned to come up with the best rules. We worked independently of each other, yet with only minor differences we came up with pretty much the same rules. They were never used.
I think it's disgraceful for a player to miss a ball badly and win a game or a match because of it. My rules will again be used at our Senior tournament in Naples, Florida in June.
If anybody wants to see how they work in real tournament play my back pocket 9 ball tournament and the senior event that I had in Portland, Maine featured these rules. Accu-Stats has tapes from these tournaments. Without further ado, here they are:

It's call shot but it is not necessary to call obvious shots.
Only one ball may be called on one shot.
If the called ball is pocketed legally, everything else that might go is good.
If a plyer misses a called shot, his opponent has the option of taking the shot or having his opponent shoot again.
Nothing spots up except the 9 ball.
If a player calls "safe" and inadvertently pockets a ball(s), his opponent has the option of taking the shot or having his opponent shoot again.
A player may not call safe and pocket a ball.
While this is not a foul, remember that the opponent will have "option".
Players rack their own balls.
They may also have a friend rack the balls for them.
An opponent may not rack the balls.
The nine ball must be pocketed last to win the game.
Where not mentioned herein the general rules of pocket billiards shall apply.

socrates
01-30-2003, 10:11 AM
Personnaly, I like these rules, however one must acknowledge that it does make it a different game.

I have seen the hill/hill match Varner/Rempe. Varner has a kick shot on the one and calls the one. Misses the one and the cue ball rolls into a dead nuts lock up behind the nine at the other end of the table. Since he called the one however Rempe has the option and Varner must shoot again. Rempe goes on to win the game.

For what its worth, I think it would be interesting to use a tennis set system along with Grady's rules. In my mind as follows:

I would prefer best of five sets but believe that would be to lengthy for double elimination format.

Best of 2 out of three sets.
Alternate the break.
Race to six games however you must win by two games. If set gets tied six/six there is a one game tie breaker for the set.

Similar to tennis holding serve on your break is huge.

For what its worth. Opinion of a pool enthusiast in Iowa.

Ken
01-30-2003, 10:50 AM
I must be missing something here. If Varner made a legal hit on the one ball and no ball fell in then that's a legal safe and Rempe must shoot. Did some other ball fall in? Did the one go in a pocket other than the called pocket?

If Varner "misses the one" entirely then it's ball in hand for Rempe, isn't it? Why does Rempe get the option.
KenCT

socrates
01-30-2003, 10:53 AM
My interpretation of Grady's rules that if you call a ball and do not pocket it then incoming player has the option. Under Grady's rules Varne either had to call the one ball OR call a safety. He elected to call the one ball. Had he called safety under Grady's rules then Rempe would not have had the option.

Ken
01-30-2003, 11:08 AM
I missed that sentence. You are correct and that really changes the game a lot. Not so much at the pro level where there are few misses but I think that might be impractical at lower skill levels. There would be a lot of standing around deciding whether or not to shoot after every miss.

I suppose you can get used to any rules and the game still might move along reasonably quickly. It is an interesting rule and would favor the better player. It would eliminate the lucky safes that sometimes result when a ball is missed.
KenCT

L.S. Dennis
01-30-2003, 11:10 AM
Thanks Grady for helping to clarify this call nineball rules question. Since I made the initial post a few days ago there's a tremendous response to it.

As I said before, I saw Scott Smith use these rules in San Francisco in which Kim Davenport eventually beat C.J. in the finals and everything went smoothly.

A little note unrelated, I think you a I both bought our first cues from the same place. Wasn't it Sequoia Billiards in Redwood City California sometime in the early sixties?

Fran Crimi
01-30-2003, 11:12 AM
"Players rack their own balls.
They may also have a friend rack the balls for them."

A few questions, Grady:

1. Can the opponent check the rack? If not, doesn't that encourage rack manipulation?

If the opponent can check the rack, do you think it's better that the opponent has to make the decision as to whether the shooter can go ahead and break? For example: Let's say I'm breaking. I rack, and my opponent now decides to check the rack. He has to approve the rack or I have to rerack. That means I have to have my opponent's permission to break. Also as the opponent, that means I have to get up out of my chair and check the rack to make sure the rack isn't being manipulated by the breaker. What I'm really doing, is getting up out of my chair and making a statement to the audience and my opponent that I'm checking to see that the breaker isn't trying to manipulate the rack. Why else would I be getting out of my chair to check the rack? I'm not breaking.

2. You can actually call a friend out of the audience to rack for you? Does that mean it could be a friend who is an "expert" racker with advanced skills in the art of racking? Doesn't that bring someone else's skill into the game?


Fran

Steve Lipsky
01-30-2003, 01:08 PM
Fran, I agree. This business of a friend racking for you is fairly silly.

Grady, I think you need to realize that you may be fixing one part of the game, but hurting another. In the following diagram:

Wei Table (http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html)

START(
%Hf5J7%Ic0K0%P_6K4%Qb7B0%Rr3B3%Sr5Z1

)END

A good player from here can kick this 8 and have a good chance at pocketing it either straight in "C" or banking it into "B". He's not going to do it a majority of the time, but it's definitely there.

With your rules, what does he play here? He certainly can't call one of the pockets (suicide), so he has to call safe. But now if he makes the 8, he probably loses. And if he doesn't leave safe, he probably loses.

I'm not a big fan of 9-ball, but I think that you must take the game for what it is. Making these drastic changes can actually hurt it.

- Steve

Grady
01-30-2003, 02:45 PM
I've lamented for years about the top 9 Ball players cheating on the rack!!! It hasn't taken them long to learn how to cheat with the Sardo rack either.Referees, you'd think, if promoters had bigger budgets, would be the answer, except that many of the guys are all over the refs.
I have conducted informal polls among good players and more than 85% of them would like to see alternate the break.With this in effect and racking the 9 Ball on the spot and the players racking their own balls,the cheating would have to stop, wouldn't it? I further query this respected group-should players win major tournaments because they give "slug racks"?

sliprock
01-30-2003, 03:48 PM
Grady,I wish you all the luck with these new rules. Personally, I love them...

Alfie
01-30-2003, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Grady:</font><hr> It's call shot but it is not necessary to call obvious shots.
Only one ball may be called on one shot.
If the called ball is pocketed legally, everything else that might go is good.
If a plyer misses a called shot, his opponent has the option of taking the shot or having his opponent shoot again.
Nothing spots up except the 9 ball.
If a player calls "safe" and inadvertently pockets a ball(s), his opponent has the option of taking the shot or having his opponent shoot again.
A player may not call safe and pocket a ball.
While this is not a foul, remember that the opponent will have "option".
Players rack their own balls.
They may also have a friend rack the balls for them.
An opponent may not rack the balls.
The nine ball must be pocketed last to win the game.
Where not mentioned herein the general rules of pocket billiards shall apply. <hr /></blockquote>Do you still use the push out rule?

Leviathan
01-30-2003, 05:15 PM
Alternate break would be great; 9-ball last would be good; I could live with giving the incoming player the option on a miss (but I think this rule would discourage good two-way play about as often as it would discourage wild play). Racking is a real problem, isn't it? Maybe rack-your-own would be an improvement, but I gotta say I think a "major" tournament can supply people to rack balls. You don't need a racker for every table, do you? Can't a few floaters do the job? As for the players being all over the rackers, doesn't the unsportsmanlike conduct rule apply? Interesting thread--good luck with your tournaments.--D.M.

Popcorn
01-30-2003, 06:22 PM
What do you think of a win by two rule? I played I a tournament put on by Bill Stegall some years back and it worked out great. The final was Hall and Segal and it may have been one of the most exciting finals I have ever seen. I think there was a cap on the how long the set could go. I liked it a lot, I hate the double hill game. It is not fair to lose a hard played match on the hill. What do you think? I would not even mind playing a shorter set if is win by two.

L.S. Dennis
01-30-2003, 07:14 PM
I agree that "rack your own" is definetly better in 9 ball.
To quote Nick Varner "everyone deserves a decent rack" and what better way to acheive that end than to rack your own.

In the bi-annual Reno tournament they swithced over to rack your own for about the last 4 years now, mainly because of a certain top nineball player contantly complaining about the racks he was getting. Since the change over things have run smoothly without all the problems and excusese of bad racks being givien. Best of luck!

Tom_In_Cincy
01-30-2003, 08:58 PM
Grady,

And everything changes on the TV table. Someone else racks and the breaker doesn't even attempt to inspect the rack.

At the Derby City Classic, Ralf Souquet broke a rack that had the 9 ball incorrectly placed in the wing position. Of course it went in on the break. But Ralf just said re-rack.. it wasn't a good rack.. the one and 9 have to be in the correct place for the game to begin.. Scott Smith agreed and they played the game over. Ralf's opponent was ready to give up the game for being an idiot and NOT checking for the ball placement.

L.S. Dennis
01-31-2003, 09:36 AM
Grady,
I've heard you and Billy many times on accustat tapes talk about how the top nineball players "adjust" the rack when racking but in your post you alluded to them being able to adjust the Sardo rack as well. Is there anyway you can expand on this?

I think your rules for nineball are great, good luck
Dennis

Drake
01-31-2003, 10:15 AM
I'm not Grady. But, I did witness two great players gambling and using the Sardo rack. One of the players was adjusting the rack where his opponent wouldn't make a ball by not putting the rack in the right spot...he would put the whole rack a little high. His opponent eventually noticed this and corrected him. Then, he started manipulating the back three balls with his fingers when he was racking to make the back three stay loose...he would fake pushing down on the Sardo. The Sardo would quickly make them tight if he truly pushed down on it...but he didn't....he just faked pushing down on the rack.

Ralph S.
02-01-2003, 02:12 AM
I agree Tomm,as I was there with you when that particular incident arose. I still get a laugh a little when I think about that.
Ralph S.

TomBrooklyn
02-01-2003, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Grady:</font><hr> If a player calls "safe" and inadvertently pockets a ball(s), his opponent has the option of taking the shot or having his opponent shoot again.<hr /></blockquote>Professor,
Isn't the traditional purpose of calling a "safe" to be able to make a ball but not have to shoot again? Not allowing it can have the effect under certain circumstances of the shooter getting into a bad position after making a ball, in effect penalizing him for making a good shot. Why do you want to eliminate this option?

L.S. Dennis
02-01-2003, 11:40 AM
Tom, I'm not the professor but I would say that his rule regarding this is perfecttly reasonable. If a shooter makes a called ball and then get himself safe as a result of it that's his problem for not getting position after the shot!
That shooter under those circumstances deserves what he/she is left with.

Regarding calling safe then intentionally pocketing a ball I think Grady is right on that one as well. That would prolong the game and fall into the catagory of unethical trickery to a large extent in my opinion.
Just my thoughts

L.S. Dennis
02-01-2003, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Grady:</font><hr> If a player calls "safe" and inadvertently pockets a ball(s), his opponent has the option of taking the shot or having his opponent shoot again.<hr /></blockquote>Professor,
Isn't the traditional purpose of calling a "safe" to be able to make a ball but not have to shoot again? Not allowing it can have the effect under certain circumstances of the shooter getting into a bad position after making a ball, in effect penalizing him for making a good shot. Why do you want to eliminate this option? <hr /></blockquote>

L.S. Dennis
02-01-2003, 12:20 PM
Just one more note on this about a person coming up with a nice shot and then leaving him/herself with nothing as being unfair. Buddy Hall once said that one of things you must ask yourself before shooting is "is there a reward for me if I make this shot?". If the answer is no then you should have considered playing safe in the first place and not gone for the shot!

L.S. Dennis
02-01-2003, 02:21 PM
Grady,
The only thing I'm not clear on in your set of rules is the second to the last line where it says "The nine ball must be pockedted last to win the game" Does this mean that the nine can't be pocketed for a win during the rack if it's called as a result of legally performed combination or billiard shot?

Dennis

TomBrooklyn
02-01-2003, 04:48 PM
I'm sure that's what it means, Dennis. This rule takes away early combos. I don't like that. Looking for combos adds another factor to the game. I feel the game is simple enough as it is, I don't think simplifying it more makes it better. Makeing, or defensively being careful to avoid setting up easy nine combos adds a factor of complexity that makes the game more interesting. =Tom

L.S. Dennis
02-01-2003, 05:45 PM
Tom, I don't necessarily think Grady's rules would be simplying the game, just cleaning it from some of it's impurities. By and large I like what Grady is proposing. However I think you're probably correct your interpretation of the nine ball combo and billiard situtation and I tend to come down on your side on that one.

fast_eddie_B
02-03-2003, 01:04 PM
I've heard talks of these very same rules for nine ball many of times back home by some of the elder folk. I believe the game was once played with these rules a long time ago. I don't know specifics, but the rules Grady is demonstrating are very similar to the old pushout nine ball rules, where you could play a push at any time and your opponent had the choice of playing or giving back to you to shoot.
I also agree with Grady with the rack your own thing. It just makes sense. I've played so many ppl who would not give me great racks, or tried to let a loose rack slide here and there when I was not looking. As a result, I constantly stand on the side of the table and personally watch my opponent rack my rack. Some ppl this offends, but all well, I'm entitled to a tight and straight rack, cause the rack is so extremely important to the game of 9 ball.
fast_eddie_B

02-03-2003, 02:10 PM
Hey there you young whippersnapper!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Two shot push out is not that close to anscient history. I played it in the 60's, the 70's and the 80's upon occasion. The last set I played that way was against David Matlock, I got the 8 and the break but it wasn't enough!! LOL If we had only had a Sardo rack for that match I would have taken it off.

Jimbo

L.S. Dennis
02-03-2003, 02:30 PM
I think if you examine Grady's rules carefully, you see that they are not at all like the old push rules they used to play with. I think Grady's rules put the game of nineball in it's "purist" form. That being said however, I'm not sure the pool world at large will ever accept these rules in the current form. Refer to Fran Crimi's post earlier.