In a time where watching or playing in a tournament has become
unbearable due to multiple arguments about the rack, how to rack, who's
racking, which balls are frozen or not frozen, pattern racking, checking the rack,
and reracking over and over again… racking the balls becomes the single
point of contention for entire tournaments. While this problem manifests itself in Eight-Ball,
Nine-Ball, and Ten-Ball tournaments, Paul Schofield, 32-year owner of Gold
Crown Billiards of Erie, PA, says he has the answer…
…Eliminate the requirement to make a ball on the break.
The shocking answer to all of these problems might have you doing a
double-take, but with a quarter-of-a-million social games and two tournaments
played using this method, the proof is in the results. During both 40+ player Nine-Ball
tournaments, there wasn't a single argument or delay of game due to the rack or
racking procedures. Just ask the
winners of the February 28th, 2010 Winter Tri-State Open, Brian
Alfredo of Austintown, OH, and the April 10th Spring Tri-State Open,
David Grau of Rochester, NY.
Along with some other small modifications discussed momentarily, this
single ground-breaking rule eliminates conflicts regarding the rack and racking
procedures. If all arguments stem
from whether or not the rack has been racked correctly or “fairly”, this rule
eliminates the cause of the contention, whether
or not the rack allowed you to make a ball on the break.
The simple explanation is that making a ball on the break is
“rack-dependent”, not “break-dependent”.
As much as players feel that their good break guarantees that they will
make a ball, it simply depends on the rack and a good bit of luck. A well-controlled hard break does not
guarantee a ball will find a pocket.
If you remove the luck of making a ball on the break, then the focus
becomes more on the skill of controlling the cue ball (and the 1-ball in
rotation games), which is more inline with the intent of pool, a game of finesse and skill, not slamming
balls and hoping to slop them in.
The root of the problem… all arguments stem from one simple motive; the players just want the rack to be fair. They don't want their opponent giving a
“slug rack”, and they don't want to be pattern racked, giving the breaker the
hardest possible run out scenarios every time. They just want a fair chance to break the balls, make a
ball, and keep shooting. If every ball
isn't completely frozen to each other, the breaker feels as though he or she
has been cheated, thus establishing a very painful approval processes.
As the racker, you don't want to have to spend more time at the foot of
the table than you have to. Depending on the condition of the cloth, the spot,
the balls, and the rack, it can be near impossible to get a completely frozen
rack. And if it is possible, it can
be extremely tedious, it may require a special gadget, and can take a very long
time. Even if you rack your own
balls, arguments still arise if the player knows how to rack to promote the
9-ball toward a pocket.
To be viable in a tournament format, some other more well-known changes
fell comfortably into place.
First, they random racked their own balls (a procedure that took about 3
seconds). Second, they alternated breaks. And third, a 9-ball pocketed on the break was spotted. These rules, together with removing the
ball-on-the-break requirement, completely eliminated the need for a painstaking
approval process because there wasn't anything to approve. Each player got an equal chance at
playing, and they never argued about the rack. It was a very fair and fun approach to the game of pool.
