Talk:Nine-ball

message: There's no mention of having to hit the balls in order, ie. you must strike the lowest number ball on the table.  I thought that was one of the main rules.
--Prisonblues 10:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotation

message: I made some significant changes to the article. I hope these are satisfactory.
--GoHawks4 10:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant changes 

message: We now have: "Although the order of the rest of the balls is in fact irrelevant, they are ordinarily arranged in numerical order from left to right as shown." If the order is indeed irrelevant, we might want to include an explanation. Aliter 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: Perhaps someone should include a section on strategy? 9-ball requires positional play, as well as running out or playing safe. Since it seems the people who take care of this article are "pros", you guys can work out the rest. 71.250.9.119 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would have to be done carefully if at all, because of WP:NOT rules against giving advice or including guide/how-to style information.  Some discussion of the nature of nine-ball strategy and how it differs from, say, eight-ball strategy is probably warranted, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy 

message: Especially for nine-ball but also for eight-ball, one-pocket, and even snooker, etc., I firmly think we need to come to, and as editors enforce in article texts, a consensus on spelling conventions and implement it consistently throughout all of the cue sports Wikepedia articles.  I advocate (and herein attempt to justify) a system of standardized spellings, based on 1) general grammar rules; 2) basic logic; and 3) disambiguation.
This is a draft submission to the active editor community of billiards-related articles on Wikipedia.  It is intended to ultimately end up being something like "[[Wikipedia:[something:]Billiards/Spelling guidelines]]", or part of an official Wikipedia cue sports article-shepherding Project, likely it's first documentation output.
Anyway, please help me think this through.  The point is not for me to become world famous™ for having finally codified billiards terms and united the entire English-speaking world in using them (hurrah).  I simply want the articles here on pool and related games to be very consistent in application of some new consensus Wikipedia editing standards about spelling/phrasing of easily confusable billards terms that may be ambiguous to many readers in the absence of that standard.  
Compare:
# "While 9-ball is a 9-ball game, the 9-ball is the real target; pocket it in a 9-ball run if you have to, but earlier is better." (Huh?)
# "While nine-ball is a nine ball game, the 9 ball is the real target; pocket it in a nine ball run if you have to, but earlier is better." (Oh, right!)
That's the super-simple "use case" I make for this proposed nomenclature. If you think that the differentiation didn't cut it please TELL ME, and say how you would improve it.
So, here's the article draft so far (please do not edit it directly! Post on its Discussion page instead; thanks.):
User:SMcCandlish/Pool_terms
(PS: This intro text is repeated at the top of it.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marking this topic resolved, because the page is now "live", at WP:CUESPELL, and has its own talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review: Consensus and consistency needed on spelling to prevent ambiguity &amp; confusion 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Cue sports.  Any comments, or better yet interested editors to participate? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marking this topic "Resolved" since the project is live and has its own talk page now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Cue sports 

message: There's a passage that says that in non-tournament variants of the game, "the 5 ball may be considered of value".  What is that about?  And can it be sourced?  I've never heard of this that I can recall. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article needs better sourcing, but until such time as that is done, any statement that is questioned can be removed:-) For what it's worth, I have no idea about that either.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since encountered this several times, in more than one locale. It is a side bet (usu. 50% of main bet) placed on pocketing the 5 ball.  When this is done the 5 is almost always placed at the very back of the rack (the anti-apex ball).  E.g., we might say: "I'll play you a race to 3 for $20." "Okay, but I want $10 on the 5."  This can almost certainly be sourced from some hustler/road player bio book or another. I would not add it back in right now w/o a source, even though I know for a fact that it is real (I played it not more than a three weeks ago, at someone else's instigation!), just on general principle, but it should be put in there eventually, with reliable sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come across this variant too as participating in a local tournament recently. Don't now it's legal name but it was presented by the name nine-five. Possibly an abbreviation of nine-five pool or, less likely, nine-five billiards with nine-five as a possible legal name variation. 77.105.194.23 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Valuable 5 ball" variant? 

message: Reverted addition of a new section, entirely unsourced, but it might have potential if sourceable. The very fact that they are alleged great feats demands that they be sourced, and reliably at that.  The section, entirely contributed here by  though some of these points have come up in some of the player bio articles (and flagged as needing sourcing there as well):
==Great Feats==
* At an exhibition, Earl Strickland, and American pool specialist, ran 11 racks and earned a great prize of $1,000,000.
* Filipino veteran Jose Parica won a race-to-eleven match without mistakes. 
* Rodolfo Luat and Alex Pagulayan, while competing in separate occasions, pocketed 6 balls in the break. Possibly, this is most balls ever pocketed when breaking in 9-ball.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't added that section. I just fix spelling errors whenever I peruse "Recent Changes" on Wikipedia. I don't even like playing pool. :-) Minh T. Nguyen 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad; it was 61.9.126.41 who provided the material.  He/she is now credited appropriately above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note to self or any other editor: At least one of the six-balls-pocketed breaks is sourced now.  If both are, this tidbit could be added back into the article.  The others sound interesting as well, but w/o sources they shouldn't go in the article, per WP:ATT.  I think the Strickland point may be as well.  If this remains unresolved for a few days ping me on my talk page and I'll look into it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pocketed six balls twice. Lots of people have. It's not a great feat at all. I don't remember the source, but I remember reading that "Hurricane" Tony Ellin pocketed eight balls on the break with witnesses present. Now that's a feat. As for Strickland, if I remember correctly, that incident was the lead story in both pool and billiard magazine and Billiards digest at the time. The text above is deceptive. The controversy surrounded the fact that the insurance company that was backing giving out the prize for running 11 racks or more refused to pay (and never did as far as I know) because a number of the racks were made by pocketing the 9 ball on the break and other were made by combinations during the game. It came down to whether those racks were considered part of the "run out" that counted toward 11 contiguous racks.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so.  This Strickland thing sounds like it just belongs in his article then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Great feats"

message: When a player calls a push-out, can the player touch any balls with the cue when he does so? What happens if he does?75.75.110.235 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cue ball can touch any balls or no balls, and can be used to pocket balls including the nine. Any balls pocketed other than the nine stay down with no penalty to the pusher. If the nine ball is made, is is spotted to the foot spot also without any penalty to the pusher.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case the anon meant the cue stick rather than the cue ball, that would depend on the agreed-upon rules (cue-ball-fouls-only or all-fouls). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Push-out clarification

message: Having read the rules section, and noted that "The object of the game is to pocket the 9 ball in a legal manner" I'm slightly baffled as to what the benefit is to the player of potting other balls. I'm familiar with the rules of snooker, where points are earned for every pot, but that seems not to be the case here. Is it just so that you "get another go", and can hopefully manoeuvre yourself into a better position for an attempt to pot the 9 ball (either directly or indirectly)? I feel the article would benefit from this being made clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.195.2 (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you figured it out correctly, but I'm surprised that it took any figuring. Where is the article not clear?  You must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first, so the only possible legal ways to pocket the 9 are to hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table and either drive it into the 9 (directly or via another ball between them) to pocket the 9, or carom off of that ball into the (directly or not) to pocket the 9; or the 9 is the only ball left on the table, so you, um, pocket it.  It's a self-answering question, isn't it?  Where can the text be improved in this regard?  Is there a sentence that is worded poorly? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable to me. Not sure when any of us will DO it, mind you. On the side, I have to say that nine-ball is not particularly American any longer (i.e. for the last 30+ years). The game did originate here in Yankeeland, but it is today the most consistently internationalized pool game in the world, and certainly the professional game, regardless of national origin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made some edits to the second paragraph of the "play" section that hopefully help make it completely clear the object of the game and the caveats of winning/losing. I described that the losing player could pocket object balls 1-8 during play and still lose. All though I must agree that it was pretty clear before that there are no points and that it clearly stated the object of the game is just to pocket the 9 ball. I also condensed and "unclunked" what a legal shot is. I condensed some of the info into more plain facts. for instance I got rid of  "because nine ball is a no call game the 9 ball can be pocketed for a win at any time of the game" (paraphrasing). It can be won just because those are the rules, not because it's no call. If it were a call game, one could still win at any shot, just not on accident. So instead I just stated that it's no call, and stated it can be won on any shot, and didn't try to connect the two. I also have another issue with the "no-rail foul" that I am bringing up in a new section, so please see below. Dancindazed (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request 

message: In the article it says "In nine-ball, on all shots, a player must cause the cue ball to contact the lowest numerical ball on the table first before the cue ball strikes any other ball and subsequently contact a rail with either the cue ball, the object ball, or any balls contacted by the two (except when a push-out has been invoked; see "The push-out", below); otherwise a foul has been committed. " 
The way they write it sounds like it is a foul if you hit the lowest ball straight into a pocket(or combo lowest into another, straight in, etc.) without hitting any rails with the object ball, a numbered ball it hits, or the cue ball. I thought the no rail foul was only when you didn't get the object ball in?
on the BCA world standardized rules
http://www.bca-pool.com/play/tournaments/rules/rls_9bl.shtml
it says 
5.9     NO RAIL
If no object ball is pocketed, failure to drive the cue ball or any numbered ball to a rail after the cue ball contacts the object ball on is a foul.
seems to say the same thing in many other articles:
if you don't pocket a ball, then no rail is foul. if you do pocket ball(legal) then you don't need to hit rail
Dan39 (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the rule and I have clarified the section in various ways including making this clear.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No rail foul when ball pocketed? 

message: Who? Never heard. Exactly what has he won to earn the title "current world champion"? I thougt the previous WPA world nine-ball champ was Daryl Peach ('07). Google doesn't seem to recognise Tate either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.147.201 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noel Tate 

message: the no rail rule is unclear when it comes to an object ball is frozen to a rail. I've played in tournaments, for 9-ball, one pocket, etc where if the non-shooting player points out or declares that the object ball is frozen to the rail, that the shooting player must either contact the object ball to one of the other three rails, or contact the cue ball to a rail. in other words just softly banking an object ball off the rail, is not considered to be an object balll "contacting a rail after the cue ball contacts". I find it odd that the official rules I read don't cover this specifically, but you can often see it described in individual tournaments' rule descriptions. if you consider that the frozen object ball is leaving the rail at the same time as the cue ball contacting the object ball and not "after" then it's vaguely described in the rules.. but then it becomes a scientific debate. So should we ignore this intricacy or should I try to add it in somewhere?  Dancindazed (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. If an object ball is frozen and called frozen, then it's rebound from that rail (and failure to return) does not satisfy the ball and rail rule. The cue ball must thereafter contact a rail, or the ball (or another ball of course) must be driven to a different rail or be pocketed. It sounds like you have come across players saying that the cue ball striking the same rail as the ball after the contact does not meet the rule. If that is what you meant, that is incorrect.This issue mainly comes up when you strike a ball too full with the cue ball while it's frozen, and the cue ball bounces off, never contacting the rail. The only other place I know where this happens is when you try to send a frozen ball down the rail using inside english on an extreme cut shot by striking the rail first (about a credit card's width before the ball)—you strike the rail first with the cue ball; the cue sinks into the rail, then on the rebound it spins into the ball sending it down the rail. An extremely useful shot, but if you hit it too softly you may not get a rail afterwards, and since you struck the rail first with the cue ball, you still need a rail afterwards. The World Rules do provide detail on this. See rule 8.4 Driven to a Rail: "A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns." As always, the  (the best rule set by far) state with more clarity. See page 26.As for adding it in, I'm not sure that it belongs. We don't even attempt to list numerous rules that cover the game. We don't list all fouls for example (though we do in WP:CUEGLOSS). We can't cover all the rules here, but we do hit the highlights. This is actually a general rule of pocket billiards and not specific to nine-ball (the same rule applies in eight-ball, one-pocket, straight pool, etc.) so it's not a "nine ball rule" per se.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I agree with you then, given your points. The Nine-ball page does not need to list every foul or every rule of the game, especially considering the rules that are not specific to the game. I guess the idea came from the fact that before I made some edits yesterday, the no rail rule was attempted to be explained, and I tried to clean it up a bit so I was wondering if we should make that exact but I see your point. Regarding the same rail thing, It wasn't the cue ball, but the object that I'd thought was supposed to contact a separate rail than the one it was frozen to. In other words, taking your rail first shot situation, let's say the three-ball is struck and slowly rides the rail toward the pocket but never goes in, and the cueball never hits any other rail, then it's a foul. That way you don't have two guys arguing over whether or not the three-ball actually ever came off the rail and back to it, as often it's not easy to tell, especially if the table being played on is not perfect. But given your pasting above, it seems like that argument is encouraged because it states that the object ball can come back to the same rail it was frozen to and that would avoid the foul. I find this new information and interesting. Dancindazed (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to reply to my own post, but after reading the rulebook pdf that you linked to above, it states "if the ball used to meet the cushion contact requirement in rule 1.19.1(b) (the no rail rule) is declared frozen to a cushion at the beginning of the shot, then that ball must leave the cushion it is frozen to and then: a. contact a cushion other than the one to which it was frozen, or; b. contact another ball before it contacts the cushion to which it is frozen. Note that it says other than the one to which it was frozen. So it appears my experience is the correct interpretation of the rule. Only if it touches a ball and comes back can that rail be used to satisfy a legal shot. coming back from spin or "rail lean" wouldn't count.  Where did you get that pasting that it says "unless it leaves the rail and returns"? Dancindazed (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Rule sets don't always agree. You're right that the World Rules (which are here) and the BCAPL have some variations. The World Rules though are the most "official" rules there are. With rules and pool, it's a twilight zone; there are no official rules really, there only authoritative rules. If I wrote them they would not be so ambiguous. Many tables have a groove underneath the rail where the cloth has worn down slightly. Often when you send a ball down the rail the ball is falling toward the rail slightly and touches it and comes away about 50 times before it reaches the pocket. That's why the BCAPL are just better. They don't just say more, but they try to address ambiguity. I think they're better here by requiring a different rail entirely, but for better or worse, the World Rules are the most "official" we have and they unfrotunately say returning to the rail meets the rule. We agree: it's a recipe for arguments!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No rail foul rule problem 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on Touhou's resident ⑨?
108.193.230.201 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cirno 

message: Hi, I think we need a section for the "Equipment" used for nine-ball, such as the pool table size, pool ball diameter, pocket style, etc.  Any comments? Aquataste (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine-ball doesn't use any distinct and specific equipment separate from other pool games, outside of a diamond-shaped rack (and even then the standard triangle can be used usually). So instead of a specific equipment section this article only needs a link to the general pool (cue sports) article and any equipment-specific articles like billiard balls, which we already do. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Equipment

message: Maybe this all makes sense to a person who already knows how to play nine-ball pool, but the intended audience should be people who know nothing about the subject at all. As a person who has never even heard of nine ball, I still have no clue how this game works after reading the rules three times. So nine balls numbered 1 to 9 are put on the table. Two players are in attendance...one of them breaks. The obect of the game is to hit the lowest numbered ball. And some other more technical details. Okay, now how about explaining how two players play on the SAME set of nine balls. When does one person's turn end and the other players turn begin? These are pretty basic questions that are not answered in the text. If they are both shooting for the same set of 1 to 9, and presumably there is some mechanism that gives each player a chance to make shots, how does it work shooting the same set of balls? First player takes 8 shots and sinks all of them, sinking balls 1-8, but misses the ninth shot. Leaving player B with a single ball to hit, the ninth, lowest on the table. So he makes his shot, sinks it, and wins, because it was the last ball? That makes no sense, but from the information provided I have to assume that's how it's played. Either that or it's taken strictly in turn, shot for shot, and player who sinks 5 or more of the 9 is the winner, regardless of the person who sinks the 9? Or points are awarded for each ball sunk? It's a mystery to me, and this page does not make it at all clearer, unless I am just missing something very important. In which case it seems a if it could be made more obvious, since I cannot spot it.
Idumea47b (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Idumea47b, After reading your post, I took a look at the rules section and (approaching it doing my best to see it from the vantage point of someone entirely unfamiliar with the game), have attempted to clarify the section with this edit and its edit summary. Please note that the link I just provided to the diff, which shows the raw changes I made, may be less helpful than viewing the section as clarified directly in the article, because those codes I used, e.g., "", format in the rendered text as links to definitions in our glossary article for the sport, for further information on their meanings. Please advise whether this edit shed any sunlight, and if it's still unclear to you, it would be helpful to advise the specifics. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

text: As to answer the question, yes, players shoot at the same set of balls, always aiming at the lowest ball on the table, and whichever one happens to sink the 9 ball wins, regardless if the other player sank all of the other 8. Or if the one layer runs the entire rack and the opponents doesn't even get a shot. It's the luck and skill aspects of the game. It's also one of the common criticisms of the game. The subsection on the break describes it more fully. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to rewrite the rules section if there are things missing (realistically it's pretty simple, you play from 1-9 unless you miss or foul, or if you pot the nine.) I'm on wikibreak due to a move, but I'm happy to rectify any issues if there is specific faults. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuhghettaboutit and I have both made some tweaks, but I do think a reworking could be in order. The breaking out of the rules for breaks makes some sense because otherwise they'd overwhelm the rest of the rules section, but at the same time it also has the effect of causing the section as a whole to poorly describe the flow of the game. I think they need to be better integrated, with less over-focus on the break. Yes it's important to the game, especially at the pro level. But it's literally one shot per game, and there are usually many more. oknazevad (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I can take a look when I'm back. You are right, it is a little convoluted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not at all helpful 

message: The intro says:
"players must strike the white cue ball to pocket nine colored billiard balls in ascending numerical order."
But this is not true: balls can be pocketed in any order. Except for a push out(?), the lowest numbered ball remaining on the table must be struck by the cue ball first.
I am not confident in my knowledge of the rules nor in the best way to phrase them. But I'm certain "pocketed ... in ... order" is false.
--24.212.191.236 (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded to clarify. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to pocket in order 

message: I don't know if the term 9 ball was ever spoken in the movie or the book, but there were certainly no one playing 9 ball in either.
WikiAlto (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you need to rewatch the film. The game Eddie is playing in the pool hall where he gets his thumbs broken is unambiguously nine-ball. oknazevad (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. I just found a clip of that scene. My apologies (if a bit late) and thanks. WikiAlto (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

text: It's not about it being a significant part of the film, it's about the film's usage being a significant thing mentioned in sources, which is it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

text: It's in the film. Period. It's also the sole discipline player in the sequel, so removing that was completely useless. I reverted you. oknazevad (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

text: As long as it remains in the article (for reasons given by both the previous two commenters), I'm not sure I care if it's in the lead section. If we're going to mention fictional media at all, it would be The Color of Money that is a must-keep in the lead. That said, I'm not advocating directly for removing The Hustler from the lead; just kind of neutral on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  9-ball in ''The Hustler''? 

message: The description of the pushout is incorrect. It is legal for the breaker to play a pushout on his second shot, presuming that a ball was potted legally on the break. The article implies that only the non-breaker can play a pushout.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnfnt (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. It was clearly an incorrect reading of the official rules, which were used as the source. oknazevad (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushout rule