PDA

View Full Version : Frozen ball rule question



Alex_Delodge
04-29-2004, 04:43 PM
We all know that when a ball that you're shooting at is frozen to a cushion (and the opponent calls that ball frozen), for a legal shot, either the cueball or another ball must contact a cushion, or that ball must contact a cushion other than the one it is frozen too. I interpret this as meaning that generally, when a ball is frozen to anything, force into the thing the ball is frozen to is not considered to be contact.

Here's my situation in nine ball:

START(
%AB7B5%BB5[8%C[6\1%Da4M3%EN8W3%FE8Q5%GJ5I0%HQ8I3%Ik3X2%J[6B3
%K[7A9%LZ8B3%M[5A8%N[3A9%O[0B4%Pb5M8%Uc7D5%Vb6L8%Wr7M1%Xd1C5
%Ym4Z6%Zs1M7%]_7L5%^`6L9
)END

opponent's cue ball is frozen to the object ball (lowest numerical ball). I call it frozen to the ball, which is the four ball. If he shoots away from it (moving it slightly) and then hits a rail, has he completed a legal shot?

Since when the ball is frozen to the cushion, force into that cushion is ignored, shouldn't the fact that his ball is frozen to the object ball mean that when he shoots away from it, even though he moves it, he hasn't yet "contacted" that object ball? Shouldn't he have to shoot into another rail and back into the ball AND THEN have something hit a rail in order for it to be a legal shot?


The world standardized rules say:

3.38 OBJECT BALL FROZEN TO CUSHION OR CUE BALL
This rule applies to any shot where the cue ballís first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or to the cue ball itself. After the cue ball makes contact with the frozen object ball, the shot must result in either...etc.

The rule above says AFTER THE CUE BALL MAKES CONTACT WITH THE FROZEN OBJECT BALL...

But is shooting away from a frozen ball "contact" for purposes of the rule?

Barbara
04-29-2004, 05:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alex_Delodge:</font><hr> Here's my situation in nine ball:

START(
%AB7B5%BB5[8%C[6\1%Da4M3%EN8W3%FE8Q5%GJ5I0%HQ8I3%Ik3X2%J[6B3
%K[7A9%LZ8B3%M[5A8%N[3A9%O[0B4%Pb5M8%Uc7D5%Vb6L8%Wr7M1%Xd1C5
%Ym4Z6%Zs1M7%]_7L5%^`6L9
)END

opponent's cue ball is frozen to the object ball (lowest numerical ball). I call it frozen to the ball, which is the four ball. If he shoots away from it (moving it slightly) and then hits a rail, has he completed a legal shot?

<font color="blue">If your opponent moved the OB, then he made contact with it. Then, in your diagram you show that the CB contacted 3 rails, so yes, your opponent made a good hit.</font color>

But is shooting away from a frozen ball "contact" for purposes of the rule? <hr /></blockquote>

Why do you keep asking the same question? If the CB was frozen to the OB and the OB moved when your opponent shot at the CB and then the CB hit a rail, it's a legal shot.

Barbara

Alex_Delodge
04-29-2004, 05:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep asking the same question? If the CB was frozen to the OB and the OB moved when your opponent shot at the CB and then the CB hit a rail, it's a legal shot.<hr /></blockquote>

You may be right that it is a legal shot, but you're ignoring the rule nuance that the whole post is about; that is, since the cue ball is already frozen to the object ball, even if you move it on the shot, is that contact for purposes of the rule, when (for analogy purposes) it is appears clear in the rules for when a ball is frozen to a rail that further shooting into that rail is not considered contact.

dewey52
04-29-2004, 06:01 PM
I'm confused. How can you shoot "away" from an object ball &amp; hit it? You must shoot towards the ball to hit it, not away.
Push shots are a gray area not easily dealt with. Geez, this brings up that old double hit arguement, doesn't it? Sorry!

Alex_Delodge
04-29-2004, 06:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. How can you shoot "away" from an object ball &amp; hit it? You must shoot towards the ball to hit it, not away. Push shots are a gray area not easily dealt with. Geez, this brings up that old double hit arguement, doesn't it? Sorry!<hr /></blockquote>

Shooting away from the object meaning not directly toward it's center. The shot would result in the object ball moving about an inch. I said shooting away to avoid any push or double hit discussion because that's not part of the question, and in any case, that's not what occurred.

Barbara
04-29-2004, 06:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alex_Delodge:</font><hr>
You may be right that it is a legal shot, but you're ignoring the rule nuance that the whole post is about; that is, since the cue ball is already frozen to the object ball, even if you move it on the shot, is that contact for purposes of the rule, when (for analogy purposes) it is appears clear in the rules for when a ball is frozen to a rail that further shooting into that rail is not considered contact. <hr /></blockquote>

As I interpret rule 3.38, the CB has "nudged"/"moved" the OB to which it was frozen and then contacted a rail - this satisfies sub-paragraph (b) which would make it a legal hit.

If you need further clarification, I would suggest in contacting poster RGLENN, who is now the head BCA Referee.

Or RandyG could step in...

Barbara

Troy
04-29-2004, 06:46 PM
Please don't make this more complicated then necessary.
When the CB/OB are frozen together, shooting so as to move the OB is a legal hit.
Contact with another rail is a separate requirement since the OB is frozen to a rail.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alex_Delodge:</font><hr>You may be right that it is a legal shot, but you're ignoring the rule nuance that the whole post is about; that is, since the cue ball is already frozen to the object ball, even if you move it on the shot, is that contact for purposes of the rule, when (for analogy purposes) it is appears clear in the rules for when a ball is frozen to a rail that further shooting into that rail is not considered contact. <hr /></blockquote>

JDB
04-29-2004, 09:12 PM
Exactly... Perfect answer. Just one point of minor clarification, after contacting the frozen object ball, something must hit a rail.

dewey52
04-30-2004, 10:10 AM
I think that Troy answered the point of this post but I am still confused about shooting away from a ball. Why is not shooting at the center of the object ball considered away? Is there some hidden meaning I'm not grasping or could this be slang? I looked at the rules &amp; could not find a mention of shooting "away". The definition of the word away in the dictionary says "in another direction". How can one shoot both away &amp; toward a ball at the same time. I have heard this pool hall jargon occasionally &amp; been barked at when I asked for an explanation.
Could it be "away" from a full hit? How much of a cut does it take to be shooting away? Maybe 1/2 a ball or less? Does this rule apply?
3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is a foul. (See Rule 2.20 for judging this kind of shot.) If a third ball is close by, care should be taken not to foul that ball under the first part of this rule.

The word "toward" is mentioned, nothing about away.

SpiderMan
04-30-2004, 11:36 AM
From the direction of the shot, as shown in your diagram, I'd say this definitely should be called a "hit" on the 4-ball. BTW, in your diagram, you are shooting INTO the ball, not AWAY from it.

Think of it this way - if the same shot resulted in pocketing the 9-ball by carom, do you think it should be spotted because the 4 wasn't "hit"?

How about if the 4 contacted a rail? Was it still "not hit", just harder? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
04-30-2004, 11:41 AM
If the object ball is in the path of the cueball, you are shooting toward the object ball.

In the originally-posted diagram, the shooter is shooting toward the ball, not away from it. Away from it would have to be to the right of the tangent line between the two balls, and the shot is shown to be to the left of tangential.

SpiderMan

Troy
04-30-2004, 02:49 PM
Again, please don't make this complicated... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

IMO, the term "away" refers to the direction of "aim" rather than the strict dictionary definition of the word. Actually, if the CB is frozen to the OB, the shooter may shoot "through" the frozen ball provided there's not a double hit.

Rule 2.20 is specifically titled "JUDGING DOUBLE HITS" when the CB and OB are less than a chalk width apart but not frozen.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dewey52:</font><hr> I think that Troy answered the point of this post but I am still confused about shooting away from a ball. Why is not shooting at the center of the object ball considered away? Is there some hidden meaning I'm not grasping or could this be slang? I looked at the rules &amp; could not find a mention of shooting "away". The definition of the word away in the dictionary says "in another direction". How can one shoot both away &amp; toward a ball at the same time. I have heard this pool hall jargon occasionally &amp; been barked at when I asked for an explanation.
Could it be "away" from a full hit? How much of a cut does it take to be shooting away? Maybe 1/2 a ball or less? Does this rule apply?
3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is a foul. (See Rule 2.20 for judging this kind of shot.) If a third ball is close by, care should be taken not to foul that ball under the first part of this rule.

The word "toward" is mentioned, nothing about away. <hr /></blockquote>

RGlenn
05-03-2004, 11:39 PM
Hello All,

Well, I thought I had seen and heard almost everything, but I was obviously naive. In all the previous posts, I read information and questions concerning MUCH MORE than the true question at hand. I saw words regarding "toward", "away", "double hit", "push", "legal stroke", "frozen ball" (both to a cushion and to the Q ball), and nobody REALLY REALLY thought about what constitutes whether one is shooting toward or away from an object ball for purposes of REAKKLLY REALLY trying to understand the "SPIRIT" of the rule in question. SIMPLY, when we play pool, we all deal with spheres on a flat surface, using a long piece of wood to make them move. In physics (and I hope Mr. Jewett, the master of billiards physics, will agree), anytime one mass interferes with space ocupied by another mass (regardless of the degree of interference), a collision of sorts occurs. SOOOO, if the Q causes the Object ball to move in any fashion after a legal stroke, for all intent and purposes, such a collision has occurred because the mass of the Q ball has in effect "tried" to occupy the space of the stationary object ball (again regardless of of the degree of interference). Consequently, I hope you would all agree that anytiime two objects collide in any fashion, they would have to be in effect traveling through space "toward" each other albeit on a flat billiard table surface. Otherwise, they would essentially be traveling on diverging courses/paths and would not collide, which would physically constitute two objects traveling "away" from each other at some point. Again, if one shoots the Q ball (mass) in such a way that causes "NO MOVEMENT" of the object ball (mass) to which it was frozen, one has effectively moved one stationary mass in a direction "AWAY" from another stationary mass precluding any type of movement/collision of the two initially stationary masses. The simple point is that I think everyone out there knows the rule and the spirit of its intention. I think you know I will read this and all of you just want to give me a headache!!! SO I'm going "away" for now and hope to check back tomorrow. Have a great night everone!!!!!!

Respectfully,

Roger D. Glenn, BCA Director of Referees

SpiderMan
05-04-2004, 07:41 AM
Good Morning Roger,

I THINK you were repeating what I said, but I'm not sure! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

Frank_Glenn
05-04-2004, 08:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Good Morning Roger,

I THINK you were repeating what I said, but I'm not sure! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

<hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sure what Roger was getting at. In snooker you can shoot away from a frozen ball and it is not a foul. In pool, you must "move" the ball and something (usually the cueball) must get to a rail to prevent a foul, except for 9 ball. In 9 ball, if the frozen ball is not the lowest numbered ball and you do move it, it's a foul. I am not a referee or an instructor, but I understand the BCA rules, at least I think I do.

Bob_Jewett
05-04-2004, 11:29 AM
&gt;&gt;&gt; when we play pool, we all deal with spheres on a flat surface

Maybe where you play, Roger, but where I play it's ovals on undulations. But the rules deal with the ideal situation.

In carom billiards, there is an interesting addition to the "cue ball frozen to the object ball" rule. You are never permitted to shoot into a frozen ball at carom billiards, and so the frozen object ball should never move, but the rules state explicitly something like:

If the object ball moves because it no longer has the support of the cue ball on that side, it is not considered to have been struck.

dewey52
05-05-2004, 09:54 AM
The point of my inquiry was the proper use the terms "away &amp; toward". That being cleared up I hope the main crux of this post was not sidetracked. But, the rule problems with "frozen balls" have not been properly addressed imo. Many posts in the past have addressed this subject &amp; what has been solved? This brings up that whole discussion of push shots, double hits etc. Vague rules equate to misunderstandings &amp; arguments. Eventually, a rules governing body must address this problem with a viable solution. Why leave us players in Limbo on this subject?
I ask: can I shoot a object ball that is frozen to the cue ball? The answer I get is: IT ALL DEPENDS! Depends on what? The game being played? The local refs take on some vague rule? What would be wrong with a 9 ball rule requiring one to shoot "away" from that ball to a cushion &amp; back for a good hit? Too many conflicting messages floating about the pool world concerning this problem. Every tourney seems to have a different take on this rule also.

pooltchr
05-05-2004, 10:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>where I play it's ovals on undulations. <hr /></blockquote>

Spheres on a flat surface just not challenging enough any more? I have played on those tables too....Drives me absoultely nuts!!!!! My favorite is the little ridge that shows up as a straight white line at 1/3 and 2/3 from the ends where the slate seam starts to separate! Talk about "Throw"!!!!!!!

daviddjmp
05-05-2004, 02:55 PM
I have seen Bob Jewett demonstrate this. I think the problem is although many legal hits can be made when the CB and OB are frozen regardless of the direction of the hit, it is nearly impossible to judge with the naked eye or ear whether or not an actual double hit has taken place. Hence the existence of the ancillary rule, " Judging Double Hits". This rule gives guidelines to referees to make a call, even though in many cases it will be incorrect-

Troy
05-05-2004, 07:52 PM
I think the published BCA Rules are fairly clear --

3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is a foul. (See Rule 2.20 for judging this kind of shot.) If a third ball is close by, care should be taken not to foul that ball under the first part of this rule.
And --
2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, (See Diagram 18) special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote daviddjmp:</font><hr> I have seen Bob Jewett demonstrate this. I think the problem is although many legal hits can be made when the CB and OB are frozen regardless of the direction of the hit, it is nearly impossible to judge with the naked eye or ear whether or not an actual double hit has taken place. Hence the existence of the ancillary rule, " Judging Double Hits". This rule gives guidelines to referees to make a call, even though in many cases it will be incorrect- <hr /></blockquote>

dewey52
05-05-2004, 10:34 PM
I'm sorry but these rules are not very clear to me. This rule: 3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is a foul.
This rule says you may shoot toward it &amp; in the same rule it states it is a foul to be in contact with it. When they say "an object ball" do they mean a different object ball than the one frozen ? The cue stick must be in contact with the cue ball &amp; then the cue ball in contact with the object ball at the same time, hence a foul. Seriously, what am I missing here?
Also, rule 2.20 states: If the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul. I'm guessing this means one must cut an object ball at least 1/2 to be legal. Could this be better explained by the cue ball following through the object balls position? I fail to see anything clear in these rules. What does the word "through" mean to you in this context?

Chris Cass
05-05-2004, 11:54 PM
Thanks Troy,

I've been looking for this information for awhile. I thought the experts were someone else and all along I just should have asked you.

Thanks again,

C.C.~~I probably asked it wrong.