PDA

View Full Version : Whats the Ruling



littleCajun
04-20-2005, 02:07 PM
I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.

The cue ball is frozen to your object ball. you hit thrue the object ball the first ball the cue ball contacts after relesing off of your object ball is your opponents ball.

The ruling was foul , ball in hand. The reason frozen balls do not constitute contact. The first ball hit was your opponents.

Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think?

Rod
04-20-2005, 02:36 PM
Huh? That doesn't make any sense, sounds like a real bad call. However if it contacts another ball while the tip is in contact with the c/b then is is a double hit foul.

Rod

BigRigTom
04-20-2005, 03:18 PM
That makes sense is a stupid way /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I've never seen that particular event or at least I have never seen it ruled a fowl.

What would happen if the Object ball on which the cue ball was frozen was pocketed and the cue ball struck the oponent's ball before any other ball?
Would that be a foul also?

We probably have too much time on our hands to even be thinking about this kind of stuff...huh? /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Barbara
04-20-2005, 03:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.

The cue ball is frozen to your object ball. you hit thrue the object ball the first ball the cue ball contacts after relesing off of your object ball is your opponents ball.

The ruling was foul , ball in hand. The reason frozen balls do not constitute contact. The first ball hit was your opponents.

Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think? <hr /></blockquote>

Did any ball hit a rail after contact? That is, was it a legal hit with any ball contacting a rail?

Barbara

Bob_Jewett
04-20-2005, 03:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.
...Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think? <hr /></blockquote>
I think the ref needs more training.

Tom_In_Cincy
04-20-2005, 05:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.

The cue ball is frozen to your object ball. you hit thrue the object ball the first ball the cue ball contacts after relesing off of your object ball is your opponents ball.

The ruling was foul , ball in hand. The reason frozen balls do not constitute contact. The first ball hit was your opponents.

Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think? <hr /></blockquote>

If you mean your opponent shot away from the the ball it was frozen to, and then hit the other group, yes, it's a foul.

But, if the cue ball is hit and the ball it was frozen to, moves also, that is considered the first ball it moves. And is a good and legal shot if it is pocketed or hits a rail or causes another ball (event the cue ball) to hit a rail.

Troy
04-20-2005, 07:09 PM
Or glasses...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
I think the ref needs more training. <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
04-20-2005, 07:41 PM
Bob,
Why do you suppose that a cue ball frozen to an object ball can be determined to make contact, but that same cue ball frozen to a rail would have to find another rail in order to be a legal shot. Is a cue ball frozen to an object ball less or more frozen that when it's frozen to a rail?
Now THAT should stir up some debate! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

Troy
04-20-2005, 07:59 PM
IMO you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Bob,
Why do you suppose that a cue ball frozen to an object ball can be determined to make contact, but that same cue ball frozen to a rail would have to find another rail in order to be a legal shot. Is a cue ball frozen to an object ball less or more frozen that when it's frozen to a rail?
Now THAT should stir up some debate! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Rod
04-20-2005, 08:08 PM
In either case a ball must contact a rail. Just because the c/b is frozen to a rail does not mean it has to contact another rail. It can come back to that same rail and be legal. Frozen just means it has to leave and come back to make contact to be legal. I see what your saying but it's really two different issues. One rule deals with balls and the other, rails.

Rod

sack316
04-20-2005, 10:16 PM
sound way too funny to me. I mean, per that example and ruling, if I were on the 8 ball to win, but happened to be frozen to it, I would have to hit a timing shot on the 8 to be legal? No way.

pooltchr
04-21-2005, 04:52 AM
Rod, double checking the rules on that...but I believe in BCA rules a ball frozen to a rail can not make contact with that same rail to make for a legal shot....I'll try to find the rule and post it.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2005, 06:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BigRigTom:</font><hr>
...We probably have too much time on our hands to even be thinking about this kind of stuff...huh? /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, we should be thinking about which pros drop their elbow /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rod
04-21-2005, 07:27 AM
Steve,

Perhaps your thinking of an object ball frozen to a rail. But it or the c/b can still contact the same cushion. That is if it leaves that cushion and caroms off another ball and returns to that same cushion.

The tricky part is wording sometimes. For instance, a frozen object ball or cue ball has not made legal contact with another cushion just by rolling past the side pocket. That's because it's attached to the same rail.

I sould get the exact wording but i'm to lazy this morning. LOL

Rod

SpiderMan
04-21-2005, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.

The cue ball is frozen to your object ball. you hit thrue the object ball the first ball the cue ball contacts after relesing off of your object ball is your opponents ball.

The ruling was foul , ball in hand. The reason frozen balls do not constitute contact. The first ball hit was your opponents.

Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think? <hr /></blockquote>

Wow, that's plain silly. Which ref was it? I suppose that if no other ball had been contacted, it would still be a foul because "nothing was hit".

SpiderMan

littleCajun
04-21-2005, 11:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.

The cue ball is frozen to your object ball. you hit thrue the object ball the first ball the cue ball contacts after relesing off of your object ball is your opponents ball.

The ruling was foul , ball in hand. The reason frozen balls do not constitute contact. The first ball hit was your opponents.

Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think? <hr /></blockquote>

Wow, that's plain silly. Which ref was it? I suppose that if no other ball had been contacted, it would still be a foul because "nothing was hit".

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

SpiderMan,
I guess I should give some more detail now, the ref is actually a pretty good ref and I dont want to point them out personaly. I think the ruling was the first thing that came into their head. Here is what happened.

One of our Local Swel A team was playing a team from Kilien,Tx and the cue ball came to rest in the middle of a group of 5-8 balls. The cue ball was frozen to one of the shooter object balls. The ref was called over to watch. the ref came to the table to call the balls frozen or not first. As the ref bent over to look at the balls the shooter thumped them. The ref really had no time at all to watch what had happened. Then the ref consulted with the head ref and the ruling came out. (silly ruling still I know).

I think it should have been a foul or even worse forfit of the game. Because the player did not give the ref time to get in position to make a proper call. Bad sportsmanship I would say

Nostalgia
04-21-2005, 06:42 PM
BCA rules state:
"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:

(a) A ball being pocketed, or;

(b) The cue ball contacting a cushion, or;

(c) The frozen ball being caused to contact a cushion attached to a separate rail, or;

(d) Another object ball being caused to contact a cushion with which it was not already in contact. Failure to satisfy one of those four requirements is a foul. (Note: 14.1 and other games specify additional requirements and applications of this rule; see specific game rules.) A ball which is touching a cushion at the start of a shot and then is forced into a cushion attached to the same rail is not considered to have been driven to that cushion unless it leaves the cushion, contacts another ball, and then contacts the cushion again. An object ball is not considered frozen to a cushion unless it is examined and announced as such by either the referee or one of the players prior to that object ball being involved in a shot. "

If something hit a cushion after the shooter moved the OB with the CB, the ref made a bad call. However your second post makes things a little muddier /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Joe

poolboy
05-02-2005, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote littleCajun:</font><hr> I saw this called in the Texas Bca State Championships.

The cue ball is frozen to your object ball. you hit thrue the object ball the first ball the cue ball contacts after relesing off of your object ball is your opponents ball.

The ruling was foul , ball in hand. The reason frozen balls do not constitute contact. The first ball hit was your opponents.

Oh yea, This was a calling by a ref.

What do yall think? <hr /></blockquote>

Wow, that's plain silly. Which ref was it? I suppose that if no other ball had been contacted, it would still be a foul because "nothing was hit".

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

SpiderMan,
I guess I should give some more detail now, the ref is actually a pretty good ref and I dont want to point them out personaly. I think the ruling was the first thing that came into their head. Here is what happened.

One of our Local Swel A team was playing a team from Kilien,Tx and the cue ball came to rest in the middle of a group of 5-8 balls. The cue ball was frozen to one of the shooter object balls. The ref was called over to watch. the ref came to the table to call the balls frozen or not first. As the ref bent over to look at the balls the shooter thumped them. The ref really had no time at all to watch what had happened. Then the ref consulted with the head ref and the ruling came out. (silly ruling still I know).<hr /></blockquote>

Actually it's not a silly ruling. When a ref has been called over to the table...the game is considered suspended until the referee says so. The player that shot before the ref was ready committed unsportsmanlike conduct and was penalized as such. It doesn't matter if the player made a legal hit or not.
Had it not been a player misconduct penalty, it sounds like it would have been a good hit. If the cueball and your object ball are froze...as long as you don't double hit it and a ball is pocketed or hits a rail...it's a good hit.
When a referee is called over to watch a shot...they will let you know when it's ok to shoot. Often times I have to see if balls are froze or look to see how the balls will react to a good hit or bad hit. I can't tell you how many times I tell the player to wait and they almost knock you out of the way to shoot the shot. Believe me...it's not a stalling tactic on the ref's part. After all, if you make a good hit...don't you want the ref to make the right call?