yankee817299 said:

Bottom line is that at the BCA Nationals everyone had a good time playing pool. With the new format of a minimum of 5 matches and the tables being toned down a bit, all level's of players enjoiyed themselves. That has to be good for the pool world. The different divisions helps keep the player strength well grouped and everyone is playing on the same equipment.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the tables aren’t ideal. I prefer other tables and pocket size isn’t the main reason. That said, I like the event and had a good time. We have all played on worse. None of the matches I lost had anything to do with the table. I think sometimes people get too concerned about the conditions and shark themselves. You just have to compete on the tables at the given tournament.

Bob Jewett said:

It was a normal, although powerful stroke. You also don't understand what a push shot is within the rules.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it seems Karl Boyes is now quoting the push rule. My guess is that Marcel is as confused as some of our posters and is the one who fed him this.

hundreder said:

Wierd rule. Some things are bit off here.
How can you shoot towards or partialy into the ball and NOT to move the ball?

I think this rule is covering a different situation, because it defines what counts as a contact. If you shoot cueball towards the rail for example its legal only if ob moved, otherwise its a foul. Initial frozen contact does not counts as a contact if ob haven't moved.

Click to expand...

The wording is slightly awkward. You are required to contact an object ball on the shot. Normally, that is when the cue ball comes into contact with a ball. For a frozen ball, the cue ball starts in contact. Requiring movement just keeps that initial contact from counting.

garczar said:

not that i know of. might ask Koda they are the US dist.

Click to expand...

thanks. I just pinged Omega to see if they are getting more in. They have a good price.

maha said:

... and even though legal no reason it should be allowed in pool. ...

Click to expand...

If it is not allowed, then how do you handle the case in nine ball when you are frozen to the target ball? Get ball in hand? Shoot away like at snooker? Jack up and all is OK?

Actually, ball in hand would be pretty interesting. It would change 14.1 and one pocket a lot -- you frequently get frozen to a ball during safety battles.

Any idea if the Rhodium are going to be discontinued? I'd like a set but Omega shows out of stock?

skor said:

because it's very rare to shoot it like that and probably most ref's never had to rule on such shot so if it was me, before shooting, I would make sure that the ref knows the rule

Click to expand...

As far as I know, most refs are trained such that they can’t explain a rule or tell you what the outcome is before the shot. So you can’t ask “great, you’ve said it’s frozen. So that means I can shoot straight into them with a normal stoke?” Plus a properly trained ref would be insulted I think if you were making sure they knew the rule.

GideonF said:

I played one session of VNEA pool over 20 years ago and I got called on the “you have to jack up even if it’s frozen” rule. At that time I didn’t know enough to know that BCA/WPA rules didn’t apply everywhere. Lesson learned.

Click to expand...

Yes. There is also an advantage to having a clear rule that is easy to judge or ref. I don’t think it is the right rule, but… the clarity avoids some problems.

Like the tush push rule in the NFL. I like the old rule and interpretation, I don’t like the current rule. There is now opposition to the new rule, but maybe not enough to change it back. What might fix the problem is not substance or safety, but the fact false starts and such can’t be reffed well. Not the right approach to me, but being able to officiate a given rule accurately and consistently is a consideration.

GideonF said:

Why is the player an idiot?

Click to expand...

because it's very rare to shoot it like that and probably most ref's never had to rule on such shot so if it was me, before shooting, I would make sure that the ref knows the rule

Bob Jewett said:

However, if the cue-ball is touching an object-ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball (provided it is a legal target within the rules of the game) and if the object-ball is moved by such a shot, it is considered to have been contacted by the cue-ball. ​

Click to expand...

Wierd rule. Some things are bit off here.
How can you shoot towards or partialy into the ball and NOT to move the ball?

I think this rule is covering a different situation, because it defines what counts as a contact. If you shoot cueball towards the rail for example its legal only if ob moved, otherwise its a foul. Initial frozen contact does not counts as a contact if ob haven't moved.

skor said:

Not a foul!
Ref should study the rules
but the player is an idiot

Click to expand...

Why is the player an idiot?