[FranCrimi]

Do we really need perfect racks in 9 Ball?

Why do the racks have to be perfect? Reading imperfect racks is a skill that's very much a part of the game.

Yes, I know how it started --- back when players started taking 15 minutes to rack the balls. But years before players started getting nit-picky, they would quickly read the rack, analyze it and then break accordingly. And guess what? The best players still won.

So where are they now with these perfect racks? They now rack with the 9 ball on the spot instead of the 1 ball, otherwise a wing ball would fly into the pocket every time. This changes the game completely.

That's like playing 14.1 and racking the balls with the center ball on the spot instead of the head ball. It's not the same game.

I'd like to see a 9-Ball tournament played the way the game was meant to be played --- with imperfect racks where the breaker actually has to do some work in analyzing the rack and the one ball is racked on the spot. I bet the best players will still win just like before.

Let the opponent rack. Just put a time limit on racking. The breaker can ask for reracks within the time limit. If the breaker is still unsatisfied by the end of the racking time limit, then the breaker can have the ref rack the balls. But he has to accept the ref's rack. All this can be done within 2 minutes or less.

[8cree]

No. There is no such thing anyway.

Not in love with the rest of your idea, but I don't hate it either.

[haystj]

No.

Watching someone obsess over the rack is as painful as watching a pro golfer take forever to hit a putt.

I can't bear to watch it and it is extremely off putting.

[TATE]

I would ask should we always have slug racks in 9 ball? That's what I almost always seem to get when my opponent racks them. I greatly prefer templates or rack your own.

[FranCrimi]

Originally Posted by TATE

I would ask should we always have slug racks in 9 ball? That's what I almost always seem to get when my opponent racks them. I greatly prefer templates or rack your own.

A slug rack always has tells. All the player has to do is keep rejecting the racks until the time limit is up. Then the ref will rack.

[FranCrimi]

Originally Posted by haystj

No.

Watching someone obsess over the rack is as painful as watching a pro golfer take forever to hit a putt.

I can't bear to watch it and it is extremely off putting.

Exactly, which is why a racking time limit is so important.

[TATE]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

A slug rack always has tells. All the player has to do is keep rejecting the racks until the time limit is up. Then the ref will rack.

That's what we're trying to avoid...

[The_JV]

So what's acceptable..? That's the problem. Every rack is subject to review, so if the players were being quick about it, you may see 4 attempts before it's kicked to the ref. Then what...?..., players can't review the ref's rack to look for the subtle gaps that you want to see them do in the first place...?

I've seen in the last few Billiard Network Euro Tour vids that the players (or ref depending on shot clock it seems) are free balling racks without any template or triangle for their opponent. I like that, but maybe they are editing out the complaints and re-racks.

The reality is that templates provide a fast, accurate, repeatable rack. That's what players want, and they make the tournaments run smoother. Otherwise you get sharking, and/or rack manipulation for either side's benefit.

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

Let the opponent rack. Just put a time limit on racking. The breaker can ask for reracks within the time limit. If the breaker is still unsatisfied by the end of the racking time limit, then the breaker can have the ref rack the balls. But he has to accept the ref's rack. All this can be done within 2 minutes or less.

No shot you're getting this within 2mins without a template. Maybe if you only let the opponent try twice and then have a ref already at the table to do the final one.

I'd go another route. How about the opponent has two attempts to provide a good rack. First can be declined by the breaker. The second can be declined but then subject to ref review. The ref can decide on the quality of the rack. Based on his "negative" decision, the breaker can choose a free ball in hand after the break shot or let his opponent break. lol...

That's ridiculous to be honest, but man that would make for some good streaming drama

[FranCrimi]

Originally Posted by TATE

That's what we're trying to avoid...

Perfect racks don't help the game of 9 ball. Racking the 9 on the spot changes the dynamic of the break and makes it a different game. And now I hear they're placing some of the same balls in the same spots. That makes it totally predictable. Is that what you really want 9 ball to be? If you don't like your opponent racking then play rack your own and have the opponent check the rack during the time limit. But don't change the rules.

[The_JV]

Oh and if the decision goes in favour of the racker... Opponent has only 1 "free challenge" that he loses after a decision against him. He can challenge again but another decision against him is a loss of break shot.

[sjm]

I feel that in any match having a referee, the referee should rack the balls. In bowling, each player is permitted to request a rerack of the pins once per match, and I'd allow the same in permitting one rerack in pool.

In an unrefereed match, I agree with almost everything you wrote, but don't have any problem with nine on the spot, which in American pro pool is the exception, not the rule. Your are dead on with your assessment that there's no reason a player should expect to get the exact same rack every time, and as you note, rack reading is a skill that has its place in our sport.

I have never and probably will never see the need for a template, but that said, in tournaments that permit rack your own, I think they have become a necessary evil. As you suggest, opponent racking the balls is far better in an unrefereed match.

Excellent post, Fran. Well judged and well presented.

[TATE]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

Perfect racks don't help the game of 9 ball. Racking the 9 on the spot changes the dynamic of the break and makes it a different game. And now I hear they're placing some of the same balls in the same spots. That makes it totally predictable. Is that what you really want 9 ball to be? If you don't like your opponent racking then play rack your own and have the opponent check the rack during the time limit. But don't change the rules.

Why anybody would want inconsistent racks is beyond me. The Shane/Orcullo match we just saw would have added an extra day. All the frustration and delay - far better with a template. The break is not perfect no matter what rack is used.

[justnum]

Originally Posted by TATE

Why anybody would want inconsistent racks is beyond me.

I think seeing the same wing ball or side pocket shot is illegal in gambling.

If a casino caught someone putting a specific sequence into a slot machine to get a consistent outcome.

That machine will get pulled and the person investigated.

[Paul Schofield]

Originally Posted by FranCrimi

I'd like to see a 9-Ball tournament played the way the game was meant to be played

The game was never purposely designed as you describe. Nine-ball rules and strategies evolved. I don't think we will ever go back. We can't.

[DrCue'sProtege]

Our very own Jay Helfert has said on Accu-Stats DVDs that its almost impossible to get a perfect rack where all the balls are frozen.

And Johnny Archer was quoted by Bill Incardona once by saying...."The balls are touching but they arent frozen..."

r/DCP