PDA

View Full Version : Another rule question



ChrisW
02-26-2003, 08:05 AM
I was told about this rule and I am wondering what other people think of it.
Here goes:
Playing eight ball (modified BCA rules)
You have two balls left plus the eight.
Your opponent calls one of your balls frozen.
You shoot the other ball (not called frozen) it hits the frozen object ball and nothing else hits the rail.
I am told this is a foul since nothing went to a rail.

When a ball is called frozen isnít it basically considered part of the rail?

Chris

Troy
02-26-2003, 09:06 AM
Yes, by your description, it's a foul. See BCA General Rules 3.38. Make a ball, or, if either the cue ball or the non-frozen object ball do NOT hit a rail, the frozen object ball must hit a different rail.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ChrisW:</font><hr> I was told about this rule and I am wondering what other people think of it.
Here goes:
Playing eight ball (modified BCA rules)
You have two balls left plus the eight.
Your opponent calls one of your balls frozen.
You shoot the other ball (not called frozen) it hits the frozen object ball and nothing else hits the rail.
I am told this is a foul since nothing went to a rail.

When a ball is called frozen isn?t it basically considered part of the rail?

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

02-26-2003, 09:19 AM
Yep, that sounds like a foul to me, at least under most official rules, unless the CB struck the rail at the same time or after it struck the frozen object ball.

The frozen rail doesn't count as a rail hit, so the CB or another OB must strike any rail after the hit, or the frozen OB must strike another rail.

David

Wally_in_Cincy
02-28-2003, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ChrisW:</font><hr> I was told about this rule and I am wondering what other people think of it.
Here goes:
Playing eight ball (modified BCA rules)
You have two balls left plus the eight.
Your opponent calls one of your balls frozen.
You shoot the other ball (not called frozen) it hits the frozen object ball and nothing else hits the rail.
I am told this is a foul since nothing went to a rail.

When a ball is called frozen isn&amp;#8217;t it basically considered part of the rail?

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

This was discussed here extensively several months ago. Opinions were heated on both sides. I think the final conclusion was this: It probably is a foul but if a player actually called it on his opponent a donnybrook would probably ensue.

I want to know this, has this ever actually happened to anyone here and what was the eventual outcome?

Wally~~wouldn't call this a foul, nope, no way, too much arguin' involved.

PoolFan
02-28-2003, 03:03 PM
I remember that thread very well. But I'm like you Wally, I'm not going to get into that trap.

02-28-2003, 03:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> Yes, by your description, it's a foul. See BCA General Rules 3.38. Make a ball, or, if either the cue ball or the non-frozen object ball do NOT hit a rail, the frozen object ball must hit a different rail.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ChrisW:</font><hr> I was told about this rule and I am wondering what other people think of it.
Here goes:
Playing eight ball (modified BCA rules)
You have two balls left plus the eight.
Your opponent calls one of your balls frozen.
You shoot the other ball (not called frozen) it hits the frozen object ball and nothing else hits the rail.
I am told this is a foul since nothing went to a rail.

When a ball is called frozen isn?t it basically considered part of the rail?

Chris <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

obvious foul and, if you let it, it'll come up in one pocket every day. everybody i know would call it in a heatbeat.

dan

ChrisW
02-28-2003, 03:28 PM
I have seen it called.
It was about a year and a half ago and the foul was called against my team mate. He agreed with the call and gave up BIH. So I asked the rest of my team and they all agreed that it was a foul, I couldn't believe it. (Later)I did not find any good anwsers in any rule books so I let it go.

Maybe I am missing some point here but I thought the frozen ball rule was put in place to limit the "easy" safe shot by softly touching a frozen ball. If that were true then hitting a ball well of the rail which in turn hits a frozen ball should not be a foul.

Don't get me wrong, I will play by this rule. It is just that I can not understand why it is there.

Still Confused,
Chris

heater451
02-28-2003, 03:51 PM
I would think that it's due to not leaving doubt as to whether the cushion would have been 'really' touched.

If you consider a cushion-frozen ball to be 2-1/4" from the cushion (at it's farthest point--but that's to the side. . . .), then you could hit another ball with enough speed to touch the frozen ball, but not truly make the cushion.

That is, we would all agree that a ball stopping 2-1/8" from the cushion is a foul, so why would a ball that was hit with the same amount of force be legal, just because the frozen ball keeps it from travelling the extra 1/8"?

Is this making sense?---I have the concept clear in my head, but I don't feel that I'm writing it out to make sense. . . .


================