PDA

View Full Version : rule



03-18-2002, 08:52 PM
The game is one pocket, although this can apply to others as well. The 6 ball has been called frozen - the player hits the eleven ball with the cue ball - The cue ball hits the six ball. Is this a foul? The eleven ball did not hit a rail. Personaly I would think this would be a legal hit since I've been taught the frozen ball is considered part of the rail.

Sid_Vicious
03-18-2002, 09:38 PM
Illogically, "No it isn't a hit on a rail." Logically(it made me scratch my head more than once) it makes sense the way you put the question. I'll enjoy hearing the "whys" from the experts here on this board as to what keeps the rail segregated in this situation...sid

cueball1950
03-18-2002, 09:47 PM
i play a little 1 hole.. not much but i had the same situation come up before and it was ruled a foul cuz the object ball i hit did not contact the railand only hit the frozen ball,, the gentleman i was playing has been playing 1 hole for years and is pretty honest and he told me it was a foul...i would also like to hear what Grady says since he is the 1 hole expert...................mike

Troy
03-18-2002, 10:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Dtom:</font><hr> The game is one pocket, although this can apply to others as well. The 6 ball has been called frozen - the player hits the eleven ball with the cue ball - The cue ball hits the six ball. Is this a foul? The eleven ball did not hit a rail. Personaly I would think this would be a legal hit since I've been taught the frozen ball is considered part of the rail.
<hr></blockquote>
If no ball hit any rail (other than the frozen 6-ball), yes, it's a foul.

03-18-2002, 10:50 PM
bca 3.38 "object ball frozen to cushion..." is really pretty clear in that it clearly says that you can't take credit for driving a ball to a cushion if it's already there. the 'odd' tipoff in your question was you're including that the six had "already" been declared frozen. had it not been declared then there would be no foul. why in the world would y'all have gone to the trouble of 'declaring" the six unless you expected the outcome and knew the rule???

dan

03-19-2002, 11:40 AM
It was the term "frozen and part of the rail" that tweaked my scrutiny. If it is literally "PART of the rail" then it IS THE RAIL ITSELF and serves as rail for the OB rolling into it(in my logical theory)....sid~~~never figured the non-foul to fly, but still the logic seemed screwy

03-19-2002, 11:58 AM
Its a foul . Never heard of any ruling stating that any ball frozen to a rail is part of that rail.

PoolFan
03-19-2002, 02:39 PM
I'm going to disagree with everyone that believes that this situation is a foul. This was a legal shot.

houstondan jones refers to the correct rule, but has not read the whole rule. The first sentence of BCA rule 3.38 - 'Object Ball Frozen to Cushion or Cue Ball' is the key for this situation.

"This rule applies to any shot where the cue ball's first cotact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or to the cue ball itself. ..."

In the example supplied, the cue ball contacted the 11 ball first, then the 11 ball contacted the 6 ball, which was declared the frozen ball.

Since the cue ball did not contact the 6 ball first, this rule will not apply and it was a legal shot, the 6 ball is consider to have hit a rail.

03-19-2002, 03:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr> I'm going to disagree with everyone that believes that this situation is a foul. This was a legal shot.
Since the cue ball did not contact the 6 ball first, this rule will not apply and it was a legal shot, the 6 ball is consider to have hit a rail. <hr></blockquote>

i figured someone would look at it that way. you've found a distinction without a difference.

i assumed everyone was familiar with the rule on a legal shot(3.19 legal shot ) which says you must, after contact between the cue ball and the object ball, drive a ball to a cushion (or sink one). the whole concept of "frozen ball" is that it cannot be driven to a rail since it is already there.

in the example, what ball was "driven to cushion"???

dan

PoolFan
03-19-2002, 04:09 PM
Let me know where in the BCA rules states that a ball frozen to a rail can not be driven to that rail? As far as I know, the closest that the BCA gets to distingishing this is in rule 3.38 which maintains the disclaimer in the first sentence.

If you can find something in the BCA rules that makes this distinction, then I will agree with you that rule 3.19 would be in affect and this shot would be a foul. But until then, I have to conclude that the BCA does not make that distinction hence the shot is legal.

I truly enjoy having a discussion on BCA rulings with someone who has a good understanding of the rules. Let me know if you find anything. I'm always open to new ideas.

03-19-2002, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr> Let me know where in the BCA rules states that a ball frozen to a rail can not be driven to that rail? I'm always open to new ideas. <hr></blockquote>

3.38 (c)

the term "first" has no relevance. what do you think 'c' is saying if not that a frozen ball must be driven to a cushion attached to another rail??

this is the original message before someone reworded it to make it their "slogan":

i can explain it to you but i cannot understand it for you.

please do not try your idea of 'driving a frozen ball into the same rail" in a money game unless you are really, really big.

dan...sigh

PoolFan
03-19-2002, 05:19 PM
I guess I have to hold your hand with this one.

Since the cue ball doesn't hit the frozen ball first, points A, B, C and D are moot. Also, to get to points A, B, C and D the rule states, "After the cue ball makes contact with the frozen object ball, the shot must result in either:". In this case, the cue ball never makes contact with the frozen object ball.

You don't have to understand it for me, you just have to prove your point based on the written rules. Just show me, where in the BCA rules does it state a frozen ball has not been driven to the rail if it is frozen to the rail? Until then the ruling stands.

I appreciate your advise on the "money game", but you don't have to worry about me. You don't have to get ugly about this, just show me how intelligent you are and prove your point.

03-19-2002, 05:24 PM
...It is a foul, it doesn't matter if it was the first , second or fourteenth ball contacted....at least one of the balls must hit a rail or be pocketed, and if it comes down to the frozen ball it must be driven to a different rail to not be a foul....given the cue ball doesn't hit a rail after contact.....

Rod
03-19-2002, 05:41 PM
"Quote"
Let me know where in the BCA rules states that a ball frozen to a rail can not be driven to that rail? As far as I know, the closest that the BCA gets to distingishing this is in rule 3.38 which maintains the disclaimer in the first sentence."

Rule 3.38
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.

This pretty well sums it up. Read section D.

A frozen ball can not make contact with the same rail, hence the word frozen or allready in contact with, unless it leaves that rail as stated above. Foul!!

03-19-2002, 06:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr> I guess I have to hold your hand with this one.
You don't have to get ugly about this, just show me how intelligent you are and prove your point. <hr></blockquote>

ok, i give up. have it your way. just tell me one thing...which one of my ex-wives are you.

dan

Tom_In_Cincy
03-19-2002, 07:10 PM
PoolFan...

Do you really think that this is a legal shot? Cue ball hits an object ball and the NEITHER balls hit a rail? Just because the 3rd ball (in the example it was the 6 ball) is frozen to the rail, does not mean the cue ball or the object ball have hit a rail. Thus the FOUL.

The only way this could not be a FOUL.. if the 6 ball was NOT declared to be FROZEN. Otherwise the cue ball or 11 ball would make contact with the 6 ball and the 6 ball with the rail.

This is not really a Frozen Ball Rule.. its a legal hit rule. Rule 3.19..

If you are saying that a frozen ball is a CUSHION or any part of the RAIL, THEN you just might be one of HDJ's Ex-wives..

03-19-2002, 07:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> PoolFan...

Do you really think that this is a legal shot? Cue ball hits an object ball and the NEITHER balls hit a rail? Just because the 3rd ball (in the example it was the 6 ball) is frozen to the rail, does not mean the cue ball or the object ball have hit a rail. Thus the FOUL.

The only way this could not be a FOUL.. if the 6 ball was NOT declared to be FROZEN. Otherwise the cue ball or 11 ball would make contact with the 6 ball and the 6 ball with the rail.

This is not really a Frozen Ball Rule.. its a legal hit rule. Rule 3.19..

If you are saying that a frozen ball is a CUSHION or any part of the RAIL, THEN you just might be one of HDJ's Ex-wives.. <hr></blockquote>


tom, i can see your blood pressure going where mine went. worst of all, i checked back on some of her previous posts and she says she runs a whole bunch of tourneys somewhere in the far northeast. can't you just see her, standing there with arms crossed...I it wasn't the first ball so it's legal. that's my ruling and i'm stickin to it!"

i guess i just have tht effect on women.

dan...where's barbara on this??

Barbara
03-19-2002, 07:53 PM
dan,

You and I both know, and feel free to bring Richard Rhodes in on this, that contacting a frozen ball to the rail with neither the frozen ball or any other ball (including the CB)contacting ANY rail constitutes a foul.

And Tom in Cincy is right. If your opponent doesn't inspect the frozen OB and doesn't declare it as such, no foul.

Barbara~~~taking a refresher course in Vegas this year..

Sid_Vicious
03-19-2002, 09:04 PM
Then the frozen ball should NOT be termed "part of the rail" then. You missed my parlay of objective reasoning, all done with the intent of picking the brain over terminology. Jeeez, ain't you got no spunk for tradin' thoughts???sid~~~knows other people who act just like that too...all miss somethin' in life(imo)

03-20-2002, 12:45 AM
thankew, thankew.

dan

jjinfla
03-20-2002, 08:04 AM
The rule does not say that the cue ball or the object ball must contact a rail after cue ball contacts object ball but that ANY ball or cue ball must contact rail/cushion after CB contacts OB. So if the 6 ball is off the rail and a ball contacts it and the 6 ball hits the rail it is a legal shot. No problem there. Now, if the 6 ball is frozen to the rail, then it must legally be considered part of the rail/cushion so that if another ball or CB hits the 6 ball it must be considered as complying with the rule, and hence it would be a legal shot. The 6 ball, in this case, would be considered as part of the rail/cushion just like the back of a pocket is also considered part of the rail. Jake~~~just yanking your chain - this one is too deep for me. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

03-20-2002, 08:31 AM
SID: The BCA Rule Book does not state; "if a ball is froze, it becomes part of the rail." Someone's imagination...randyg

PoolFan
03-20-2002, 09:04 AM
I agree with you this rule sums it up very well. The problem is you jump right to (D) without reading the first sentence.

Re-read the rule:
Rule 3.38
3.38 OBJECT BALL FROZEN TO CUSHION OR CUE BALL
This rule applies to any shot where the cue ball&amp;#8217;s first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or to the cue ball itself.

In this example, the cue ball did not hit the frozen ball first, so the rule does not apply hence you don't pass GO and get to section A, B, C or D.

Barbara
03-20-2002, 09:15 AM
Rhorer, I meant RHORER. Not that statesman-type guy from Rhodesia.

Barbara~~~needs a couple more nights to catch up on the sleep thing

Rod
03-20-2002, 03:55 PM
Ok, I see you your view on this rule. The game is one pocket in the original example.
One pocket rules of play;

1.A legal shot requires that the cue ball contact an object ball and then (1) pocket a numbered ball, or (2) cause the cue ball or any numbered ball to contact a cushion. Failure to do so is a foul.

heater451
03-20-2002, 04:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>
PoolFan sez:

Just show me, where in the BCA rules does it state a frozen ball has not been driven to the rail if it is frozen to the rail? Until then the ruling stands.

Rod sez:

Ok, I see you your view on this rule. The game is one pocket in the original example.
One pocket rules of play;

1.A legal shot requires that the cue ball contact an object ball and then (1) pocket a numbered ball, or (2) cause the cue ball or any numbered ball to contact a cushion. Failure to do so is a foul.
<hr></blockquote>

Although the wording isn't the same, I interpret "cause to contact" as the same as "a frozen ball has not been driven to the rail if it is frozen to the rail". The overriding factor being that a ball cannot be caused to contact a rail, if it's already in contact. And although the rule doesn't explicitly state it, I think that the distinction between being on a rail, vs. being driven to a rail does not need to be printed, in order to be understood--unless one also requires a "common-sense-itivity training course".

I also don't think it's vague enough to allow an argument, and this is based upon the experience of playing role-playing/board games in which so many rulebook discussions broke down to, "Doesn't say you CAN'T/Doesn't say you CAN!"

It is an interesting situation though. . . .

PoolFan
03-20-2002, 05:05 PM
OK, so now you see my point about the first sentence of rule 3.38.

Now, the BCA rules does not state anywhere that a ball frozen to a rail can or can not be considered to have contacted the rail that it is frozen to after it has been hit by another ball. The only mention of a frozen ball issue in the BCA rules is in rule 3.38.

Since the BCA added that first sentence in rule 3.38, you can interpret that as meaning, if the frozen ball is contacted by another ball, the frozen ball has been considered to have contacted a rail.

PoolFan
03-20-2002, 05:31 PM
Here's a question, if you find that the rules are not vague enough to be an issue.

Explain the purpose of the first sentence in rule 3.38.

"This rule ONLY APPLIES to any shot where that cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or the cue ball itself."

Give me an instance where this sentence would be needed. I agree that common sense would dictate that a ball frozen to a rail can not be considered to have been driven to a rail that it is frozen to. But the BCA does not define this, and the first sentence of rule 3.38 allows the loop-hole that it did contact a rail.

In all sports, when a rule is vague enough and it has had an adverse affect on a game, the powers that be tend to make adjustments to the rules to avoid issues in the future. Take for instance the fumble or forward pass that Brady made in the playoff game against the Raiders. The issue with that call was, was Brady tucking the ball to his chest or in the process of a forward pass? The description of tucking the ball is vague enough that the officials went on to call the play as an incomplete pass. Then the Pats went on to win the Super Bowl. Do you think the NFL isn't going to revisit their rules, of course they are!

My point here is the BCA should revisit this issue. Take the first sentence of rule 3.38 out or define that a ball frozen to the rail can NOT be considered to have been driven to the rail it is contacting. Hold the BCA to a higher standard, don't just make assumptions as to what they meant by a rules. Rulebooks are a work in progress, as issues come up, make the adjustment.

TomBrooklyn
03-20-2002, 05:31 PM
Does anybody have both the current and an old version of the BCA rulebook that would be willing to part with the old version for a reasonable sum? Please advise via Private Message. Thank You.

03-20-2002, 06:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Does anybody have both the current and an old version of the BCA rulebook that would be willing to part with the old version for a reasonable sum? Please advise via Private Message. Thank You. <hr></blockquote>


how old? they make a new one every year and i've got a stack. lotsa others have even bigger stacks.

dan

Tom_In_Cincy
03-20-2002, 06:46 PM
http://www.poolndarts.com/product.cfm?sku=BC-147

Not the exact book(s) you were requesting..but a nice book to have around anyway

03-20-2002, 06:49 PM
displaying a total lack of good sense, i'll come back in.

thruout my professional life i was generally in charge of the rules for another interesting game. it's called 'government'. now, granted, we never got into anything a complicated as the bca rules but we did deal with state, local and federal law with my personal specialty being a cute little tome called "roberts rules of order (newly revised)". there are a couple of general principals the pertain thruout: reasonable interpretations will be entertained. silly ones will not. we frequently had to go back to the legislative record to determine 'legislative intent'. that was especially true with new law where there was no case law. there was always someone who interpreted a sentence to mean that the author intended to repeal gravity, permit murder or eliminate all taxes but they were generally patted on the head and advised to be quiet.

one cannot reasonably assume that the bca authors meant that a frozen ball is no longer frozen because two other balls collided. it is clear that it was the intent of the authors to prescribe the principal that a ball cannot be caused to strike a cushion to which it is already frozen. (someone else will have to explain why they won't allow a different cushion on the same rail )

although the crafters of these rules were less than perfect, there is no productive or constructive benefit to ascribing silly intent or interpreting to silly result.

i would further suggest to any referee or other who might be called upon to render rulings that the rules are there to ensure fair play in an orderly manner and not to create mayhem.

i will gurantee you that anyone knowledgable who happens into a tourney where he is advised that the t.d. or l.o. has interpreted "it ain't frozen, even if declared so, if the c.b. hit another ball first" will seriously question the fairness therein.

dan...i'm still wondering why they would have taken the trouble to declare the six frozen in the first place since it was not expected to be in play.

heater451
03-20-2002, 07:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr>
Explain the purpose of the first sentence in rule 3.38.

"This rule ONLY APPLIES to any shot where that cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or the cue ball itself."

Give me an instance where this sentence would be needed.<hr></blockquote>

#1-OFFENSIVE SHOT: Say you were to try a carom off of a ball frozen to a rail, in order to pull the cueball to the side, and pocket a ball inside the corner jaws (you can assume that there is no reason or option for another shot, without having to know where every other ball is on the table, in this example). To accomplish the shot, bottom-side english is used, which brings the cueball off of the frozen ball so that it doesn't strike the rail, as it moves toward the object ball. If you underhit this, power wise, the cue will not make the rail or object ball, nor will the frozen ball have enough power to cross the table to the another rail. No ball is pocketed. No ball touches a rail. Foul.

#2-OFFENSIVE SHOT: A long bank is attempted, on a ball frozen to the foot rail. The cueball is hit off-aim, and it stuns on contact. The object ball, now driven deeper into the rail, comes out and hits the cue ball, causing both to lose enough energy that contact with other balls on the table stop them from contacting any rails, and the interfering balls do not take on enough energy to make rails.

#3-DEFENSIVE SHOT: The only balls on the table are the cue, the eight, and your object ball. The eight ball is near the corner at the foot of the table, 3" or less from the rail, your object ball is frozen to the rail, on the same side of the table as the eight (exact location isn't necessary). The cueball is on the opposite side of the object ball from the eight, and the goal of the shot is to hit the object ball lightly enough to block the eight from the cueball, but make a legal shot by having the cueball touch the rail after contact. Since, this is a "touch" shot, the cueball is hit softly, and manages to contact the object ball enough so that the object ball moves away from the rail, but the cueball stops dead, and misses the rail. Again, no ball pocketed, and no rail is contacted after contact w/ the object ball.

#4 DEFENSIVE SHOT: There is a large cluster to which the cueball is frozen. A soft shot is made, in order to take the cueball off the rack, and to the rail, or cause a ball from the pack to do so. A too soft hit, and neither goal is accomplished.

While I must admit that I am thinking more of an eight-ball game in these examples than one-pocket, I think the defensive type of shot, where you try to hide the cueball next to a frozen ball, similar to #3, is more likely to happen than the other examples.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>
In all sports, when a rule is vague enough and it has had an adverse affect on a game, the powers that be tend to make adjustments to the rules to avoid issues in the future. . . .My point here is the BCA should revisit this issue. Take the first sentence of rule 3.38 out or define that a ball frozen to the rail can NOT be considered to have been driven to the rail it is contacting. Hold the BCA to a higher standard, don't just make assumptions as to what they meant by a rules. Rulebooks are a work in progress, as issues come up, make the adjustment.<hr></blockquote>

I would agree, provided that you could prove this situation occurs enough to have an advers affect. I also don't know the exact BCA definition of "frozen", but there might be some information there, regarding whether a frozen ball can be driven to a rail.

I can also understand how rulebooks evolve, and I also understand that creating a rule often leads to more arguments, and more rules--It's the same thinking that gives us laws that may cause side-effects that are simply ridiculous, like coffee cups that say, "Caution: Contents are HOT", or matchbooks that require you to "Close cover before striking".

BTW, I feel that I may have offended you by throwing "common sense" into my previous post. This was not my intent--It was meant to be a humourous play on words, but I think that was certainly vague. I also usually roll my eyes, when it comes to how rules effect us, as I tend towards "loose interpretation" in questionable situations.

And, to make a long post even longer, I grew up playing "Gentlemen's Pool" where such questionable situations were often resolved in a polite and non-argumentative manner. Now, I play in league, tournaments, and the occasional money game, where rules play a more important role, but I still attempt to retain my honor and sincerity--oh yeah, and a healthy realization, that life isn't fair. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

(Now, I realize that I'm far beyond the rule question here, but I wanted to provide a little personality in the post.)

heater451
03-20-2002, 07:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: houstondan:</font><hr> displaying a total lack of good sense, i'll come back in.
<hr></blockquote>

Dan, you are my Hero of the Week, for the laughs that preamble is giving me.

Troy
03-20-2002, 09:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: houstondan:</font><hr> displaying a total lack of good sense, i'll come back in.

one cannot reasonably assume that the bca authors meant that a frozen ball is no longer frozen because two other balls collided. it is clear that it was the intent of the authors to prescribe the principal that a ball cannot be caused to strike a cushion to which it is already frozen. (someone else will have to explain why they won't allow a different cushion on the same rail )

although the crafters of these rules were less than perfect, there is no productive or constructive benefit to ascribing silly intent or interpreting to silly result.

i would further suggest to any referee or other who might be called upon to render rulings that the rules are there to ensure fair play in an orderly manner and not to create mayhem.

i will gurantee you that anyone knowledgable who happens into a tourney where he is advised that the t.d. or l.o. has interpreted "it ain't frozen, even if declared so, if the c.b. hit another ball first" will seriously question the fairness therein.

dan...i'm still wondering why they would have taken the trouble to declare the six frozen in the first place since it was not expected to be in play. <hr></blockquote>

I brought up this rule question last night prior to our weekly 9-Ball tournament. Everyone offering an opinion said the frozen ball was either "part of the rail" or "since the 6-ball got in the way of the OB striking a rail, it's OK".

Not one could refer me to a place(s) in the Rules supporting their opinion. All said "that's the way we've always played it if it ever comes up".

Go figure.

Since I'm the TD, I guess I'd better go with the flow.

Troy

03-20-2002, 11:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Troy:</font><hr>Not one could refer me to a place(s) in the Rules supporting their opinion. All said "that's the way we've always played it if it ever comes up".

Go figure.

Since I'm the TD, I guess I'd better go with the flow.

Troy <hr></blockquote>


troy, i suspect, and i don't know since i wasn't there, that they were right depending on how the question was set up. remember, it ain't froze unless the opponent inspects and verbally declares "dat sukka is frizzed" (or words to that effect). i don't see the chance of this exact question coming up much but once a player understands/buys-in to the concept of "frozen ball" it's all pretty straightforward. (for most people). noone would go to the trouble of inspecting and calling the frozen ball who didn't already understand the rule. if you have a list of 'house rules' that you keep for the tourns you might think about adding that one in case someone walks in who knows.

just a thought

dan

dan

Chris Cass
03-21-2002, 08:41 AM
Hi Everyone,
Just to add my thoughts in this matter. If a ball was declared frozen, and if the 11 ball or whatever was to hit it head on. I would think the frozen ball would rebound into the 11 and back to the rail it was frozen to. Like a double kiss.

Now, then it would only make sence that it came off the rail and got back to the original rail. I would think, if you looked at it, it wouldn't be frozen again. The only question I would ask is, wouldn't it have to contact another rail other than the original rail?
I too would think it was a foul, but just a thought.
Regards,
C.C.~~thinking of a snooker safety.

Fred Agnir
03-21-2002, 09:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr> Here's a question, if you find that the rules are not vague enough to be an issue.

Explain the purpose of the first sentence in rule 3.38.

"This rule ONLY APPLIES to any shot where that cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or the cue ball itself."<hr></blockquote>

Since it doesn't say this, then there should be no reason to further debate it (unless the BCA website is out of date on its own rules). There is no word "ONLY" on that sentence in their website. The real sentence says:

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.

Aside from that, I do think that there should be an explicit rule for a ball already frozen to the cushion. Nowhere does it even imply that it is somehow "part of the cushion." However, 3.38d certainly *implies* (if not out-and-out explicitly states) that for every other shot, a ball already frozen to the cushion is *not* considered as "part of the cushion." Again, an additional explicit statement is overdue.

Fred

Fred Agnir
03-21-2002, 09:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Does anybody have both the current and an old version of the BCA rulebook that would be willing to part with the old version for a reasonable sum? Please advise via Private Message. Thank You. <hr></blockquote>

The BCA has old versions. I have a BCA rulebook from the 70's and 80's that I bought from them. They don't want to sell all of their stock, however.

Fred

PoolFan
03-21-2002, 01:30 PM
No offense taken on your post.

I will point out that in all your examples the cue ball is contacting either a ball frozen to the rail or the ball frozen to the cue ball first. My question was give me examples of why the BCA would put the first sentence in rule 3.38.

"This rule APPLIES to any shot where that cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or the cue ball itself."

Rod
03-21-2002, 01:36 PM
Chris the double kiss rule is covered, it's a foul.
After all these years of playing 1 hole and every other game this is the first time I even questioned this rule broken apart the way it was. I have watched and played some of the best 1-P players, and I have never seen this shot or a similar shot called legal. Can you imagine how cheap the game would look or be if you could hit a ball and roll up and touch a frozen ball and call it legal? It wouldn't be any more of a game than the under average challenge game at Bill's bar or friday night, whooping it up. No offense to any Bill's. Whether or not it's 1-P doesn't change anything either.
I did contact BCA, sending the exact question. Their reply, in brief,"it's a foul plain and simple. That one player does not understand the rule and states emphatically that the shot is legal does not diminish the rule. The BCA and every certified BCA referee in the country recognizes the shot you described as a foul. END"

I agree as others have written, it needs to be more explicit, but that has to wait untill the next rules committee meeting. That looks to be in 2005 by their web site. So on with the game!

cheesemouse
03-21-2002, 02:16 PM
To all,
Every time I start reading the new posts in this thread I start to see stars and then I get confused but not being a quiter I re-read and re-read till I forget what the hell the original question was in the first place. Have any of you noticed that this thread began with some guys very first post on this board and he hasn't posted again. He obviously is a trouble maker and should be arrested and shot on sight. If this situation presents itself in any game of pool I play I will forteit by sweeping the balls and starting a new game. The thought being that I will beable to play the rest of my life and not see the situation again. I will apoligize to the purists right now for not taking everything with genital seriousness. http://www.animation-station.com/anigifs/anim1292.gif

Rod
03-21-2002, 02:46 PM
Say Cheese, I wonder that same thing myself. Where did that guy go? I"m sure it's a law that you "have to" reply back to your post. It's in the rules somewhere, let me see, hum, well if I was a lawer or politician it could be done.

03-21-2002, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr> No offense taken on your post.

I will point out that in all your examples the cue ball is contacting either a ball frozen to the rail or the ball frozen to the cue ball first. My question was give me examples of why the BCA would put the first sentence in rule 3.38.

"This rule APPLIES to any shot where that cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or the cue ball itself."
<hr></blockquote>

ok, maybe it'll make sense to you if we agree that 3.38 is written as an adjunct to or extention of 3.19 which explains/defines a legal shot. it is not intended as the stand-alone definition, that's 3.19. 3.19 sets the basic idea that you've got to cause something to go in a hole or hit a cushion and then 3.38 expands on that, including within that expansion the principal that you can't cause a ball to contact a cushion to which it is already frizzed.

does that help at all??

dan

Chris Cass
03-21-2002, 04:17 PM
Hi Rod,
I can't agree with you more. If the ball has been declared frozen than it's plain and simple. If not declared than it's plain and simple also. Think the guy was being cheated.
Just being a pain,
C.C.

PoolFan
03-21-2002, 05:51 PM
I'm going to have to appologize to everyone on this forum especially houstondan and others who I've swapped posts with. And most of all, I would like to appologize to all those innocent bystanders who happen to cross the path of any of these posts.

I don't normally go to the nth degree about any issue, especially when I don't really care that much. I guess that I will have to chalk this one up to, forum inexperience and just getting to involved and not letting go.

In the future, I will try to avoid being a devil's advocate. No thread should go on for this long and may this same exact game situation never happen to any of us. For, it would just bring back memories of the "rule" aka "This is a Legal Shot" posts.

I hope you can all accept my sincerest appologizes, but please do not accept it through a post, this one should just die.

Sid_Vicious
03-21-2002, 08:24 PM
Chris...I'm not trying to beat a dead horse with this but I KNOW that if you put a slo-mo camera on the contact with the frozen ball to the rail, that there would indeed be a double kiss after the hit. So in pure physics we've just created an OB to leave the rail and then contact a rail again. The BCA has to produce something without "arguement aspect" so I understand the rule as it is. Still there IS action intertwined in that junction of the frozen ball. Simply a fact if hit head on...sid~~~concedes it is a foul though, by BCA decree

Sid_Vicious
03-21-2002, 08:38 PM
What's to apologize for? This is a discussion board, and you certainly made a discussion out of this. I had fun with it as it played itself out and I didn't find any friction, just some healthy sparring over understanding...sid

Rod
03-21-2002, 08:59 PM
Sid, it has to leave that rail and go to another rail, or leave the rail, kiss off a ball and return to that rail.
Thats what takes the guess work out of making a call.
I agree though it will leave that rail and go back due to a double kiss, but it ain't allowed!! So don't try it buddy or you'll get the FOUL!! Unless you double kiss it and send the c/b to another rail, which can be a good safety sometimes, but a bit testy! lol

heater451
03-21-2002, 10:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: PoolFan:</font><hr> No offense taken on your post.

I will point out that in all your examples the cue ball is contacting either a ball frozen to the rail or the ball frozen to the cue ball first. My question was give me examples of why the BCA would put the first sentence in rule 3.38.
"This rule APPLIES to any shot where that cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or the cue ball itself."
<hr></blockquote>
I was giving examples, to which the rule would apply.

The rule may have been created, in order to keep anyone from attempting to state that a ball frozen on the rail is legal to hit, in order to fulfill the "contacting a rail" part of the Legal Foul definition (if that makes sense).
I would think that there would be a statement defining a frozen ball as not legal to play "to" the rail that it's already sitting against.

They also probably never thought that they would need a ruling that applied to "any shot where the cueball contacts a secondary (or tertiary) ball that is frozen to a cushion, after first contacting another ball, which is not frozen to the cueball or a cushion". Maybe it was too ridiculous a thought. . . .

Now, if you are asking about whether the specific part of "ONLY APPLIES" is necessary, I think I start to see where you are coming from. However, as Fred Agnir mentioned (as Rod had posted) the rule doesn't state "ONLY", in which case your question would be moot, as the rule relates to ANY shot where contact is made with a frozen ball first.

Are you quoting a rulebook you own, or rules from the web? And, what year vintage of rules?

Chris Cass
03-21-2002, 11:42 PM
There is nothing wrong with dicussing the rules or even get technical about the balls movement. It's healthy for the mind and the pool game to just simply talk about pool.

It's set forth by BCA rules and other rules it being a foul no matter what. The thing is the rules change but I don't think this rule will change as rapidly as the hit on an ob frozen to the cb or push rules. LOL

Nevertheless, it's good clean fun and fuels the mind. I dream about pool frequently however it's not about the shots as much as the racking. LOL

Regards,
C.C.

cheesemouse
03-21-2002, 11:55 PM
I could be out of line here but doesn't the term fresh rail cover the delima of the frozen ball? Waiting for the 'no you dumb ass'.

jjinfla
03-22-2002, 01:02 AM
In light of day this is a very simple, straightforward problem that can be resolved with the use of an AND gate and an OR gate. The AND gate has two inputs, both of which must be high in order for this to be a legal shot. Input one: did the CB strike the OB first? This of course is true. The other input to the AND gate is fed by an OR gate. Any one of which is true then the output would be true making this a legal shot. Input one: after being hit by the CB did the OB hit a rail. This is not true. Input two: after being hit by the CB did the OB then strike another ball which in turn hit the rail. This too is not true. Input three: After striking the OB did the CB hit a rail. This too is not true. The CB did strike the 6 ball but in no way can a six ball be confused with a rail. Input four: After striking the OB did the CB strike another ball that in turn hit a rail. The CB did in fact strike another ball (the 6 ball) and this is where the definition of frozen ball comes in. In order for a frozen ball to contact a rail after being hit it must contact a different rail from the one it is frozen to. And of course the 6 ball did not contact another rail. So we have all four inputs to the OR gate false giving us a FALSE to the input of the AND gate therefore giving us a FALSE output from the AND gate which results this shot being a FOUL. The lesson to be learned in this little problem is not to read something into a problem (like is the 6 ball a rail) and sometimes it pays to identify frozen balls. But if you are playing with guys/gals who think you are nuts to be talking about AND and OR gates then perhaps it is just best to ignore frozen balls. Jake /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Sid_Vicious
03-22-2002, 08:00 AM
I certainly understand all ther is about this foul now, and I mean that sincerely. There was enlightenment concerning "another" rail and the fact that "part of the rail" is a colorful, not legal term. So in my closing, "Thanks to all for the patience in following whatever I inserted into this conversation which suggested Sid was off the wall(watch out BTFTK, don't go there) ;-)

I had fun,,,,hope y'all did too...sid

cheesemouse
03-22-2002, 08:15 AM
jj,
sounds like baloney alebra to me /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif
The scarey part is your's is most understandable to me having been explain in this straight forward search engine logic /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Chris Cass
03-22-2002, 09:20 AM
Someones has an electronics math backround. How's your Boolean Algebra?
C.C.~~Xor gates, Not gates, And gates merly touch the subject. Pool is much more complex....

Troy
03-22-2002, 11:30 AM
Having retired after 30 years in the industry I have tried to forget this tech-talk and now you remind me. The worst part is that I understood everything you wrote. /ccboard/images/icons/frown.gif

Troy

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> In light of day this is a very simple, straightforward problem that can be resolved with the use of an AND gate and an OR gate. The AND gate has two inputs, both of which must be high in order for this to be a legal shot. Input one: did the CB strike the OB first? This of course is true. The other input to the AND gate is fed by an OR gate. Any one of which is true then the output would be true making this a legal shot. Input one: after being hit by the CB did the OB hit a rail. This is not true. Input two: after being hit by the CB did the OB then strike another ball which in turn hit the rail. This too is not true. Input three: After striking the OB did the CB hit a rail. This too is not true. The CB did strike the 6 ball but in no way can a six ball be confused with a rail. Input four: After striking the OB did the CB strike another ball that in turn hit a rail. The CB did in fact strike another ball (the 6 ball) and this is where the definition of frozen ball comes in. In order for a frozen ball to contact a rail after being hit it must contact a different rail from the one it is frozen to. And of course the 6 ball did not contact another rail. So we have all four inputs to the OR gate false giving us a FALSE to the input of the AND gate therefore giving us a FALSE output from the AND gate which results this shot being a FOUL. The lesson to be learned in this little problem is not to read something into a problem (like is the 6 ball a rail) and sometimes it pays to identify frozen balls. But if you are playing with guys/gals who think you are nuts to be talking about AND and OR gates then perhaps it is just best to ignore frozen balls. Jake /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif <hr></blockquote>

Tom_In_Cincy
03-22-2002, 06:31 PM
It has been a rule in the bulliten board circles that when the word HITLER comes into a very long and drawn out thread of posts.. it is NOW considered DEAD.. Please NO MORE posts... Please START a new Thread.. Thanks..