Bcapl rules question tourney drama
- Thread starter Luxury
- Start date
Most rules sets have the requirement that you have to hit a ball in your group first, and then either pocket one of your balls or have the cue ball or any ball driven to a rail. There are no specifications for which rail, and so all of them count including the one the object ball is on.
Many rule sets also have a rule that if an object ball is frozen to a rail, and the cue ball hits the frozen object ball first, unless the cue ball or another ball hit a rail, any rail (or a legal ball is pocketed), the object ball would have to be driven to a different rail for the shot to not be a foul. In other words if you only hit your object ball and no other balls go to a rail then that object ball would have to be driven to a different rail for the shot to be legal. I am pretty certain this is the rule your opponent was thinking about but they got it confused and incorrect.
You are correct.
randyg
randyg
I think a while ago, or maybe just in some specific games, there was a rule where a frozen ball made that rail dead for the cueball as well, the cueball had to be hit to another rail for a good hit (if the object ball does not do that that is). When I was learning to play in the late 80s I am pretty sure I remember reading that. I do not think that has been a rule anywhere lately, so hitting the same rail after contact is fine. What you can't do is hit the object ball then drive that ball back to the same rail without the cueball hitting something.
Here is a link to BCAPL rules.
http://www.playcsipool.com/bcapl-rules.html
Page 30 has a diagram of your situation.
PL
http://www.playcsipool.com/bcapl-rules.html
Page 30 has a diagram of your situation.
PL
Thank you, Greg.
The diagram at the bottom of this picture and the bottom sentence confirms everything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yet, another rule that folks interpret incorrectly. If the cb does not hit a rail, the ob would absolutely have to hit another rail beyond the one it was already touching. But, those little facts get lost in many players mind. They just hear "has to hit another rail" and assume that means cb as well as ob.
I agree and you are absolutely correct.
Try explaining to someone who drives the cue ball into another ball 1" away then both balls travel along same line and same speed that they just double hit the cue ball. They will argue until they are blue in the face that they did not double hit the cue ball even if you ask them to make the cue ball follow directly behind object at same speed when the balls are 6" apart.
Actually, re-read the rule. If the frozen OB contacts another OB it can re-hit original rail and count as good. I was not aware of this until I just read it.
I think there was a rule in some set that said if both the cue ball and the object ball were frozen to the same rail, the rail was dead to both balls. I think that rule is gone now. Among other shots, it meant that you couldn't play a masse shot off the object ball to come back to the same cushion.
A famous one-pocket shot of Efren's was with the cue ball and OB frozen to the foot cushion near each other and pointed at his opponent's pocket. Efren shot a soft masse shot, barely clipped the opponent's ball going out, then the cue ball reversed and curved back to freeze to the cushion with the balls pointed at Efren's pocket.
A famous one-pocket shot of Efren's was with the cue ball and OB frozen to the foot cushion near each other and pointed at his opponent's pocket. Efren shot a soft masse shot, barely clipped the opponent's ball going out, then the cue ball reversed and curved back to freeze to the cushion with the balls pointed at Efren's pocket.
But is the frozen ball rule really necessary? What's wrong with saying that any contact on a frozen ball counts as hitting a rail?
I can think of two things wrong with it:
1. If you change it, everyone who knows the current rule will have to re-learn it. Without a compelling reason to change it, I don't favour changing rules that are well-known among knowledgeable players.
2. I worry about certain situations - like say both players down to the 8b (in 8b) or down to the last ball in 9b or 10b. If that ball is near the rail, one common safety is to roll up against that ball. A common response is to nudge the ball back. This can go on for a number of innings until the 8b is frozen to the rail, which finally breaks the stalemate and the incoming player has to play a different shot. I worry that without the current rule the stalemate will go on excessively.
There is already a stalemate rule in most pool games in the WSR. Breaker rebreaks or you lag to see who breaks. I think that one of the players will usually find something else to shoot first anyway.
I don't think I like that because it's already touching the rail. If we do this, then shooting away from two balls frozen (already touching) would have to count as a good hit if we extend the same logic.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. The point of "frozen rail OK" is to get rid of the problems in that situation. "You didn't call it. Did too. You're a liar. Where's the TD."
While adopting a snooker-like rule for a cue ball frozen to an object ball might be a reasonable move, I think it's unconnected to the rail issue.
The reasoning for a good hit in either situation may be the same though, if the rules allow a ball frozen to the rail be contacted, and nothing else hits a rail, then you would say just the contact to the rail allowed a good hit. That is the same situation when the cueball is frozen to another ball. There is already contact to the balls, so hitting away from the ball instead of towards it would also be a good hit.
It is similar to the example I use when people ask if the base or edge of the ball should be used for determining it's location. If someone tells me the edge, I place a ball over a pocket hanging over the hole and ask them "is the ball in the pocket?" If you are using the edge as the ball location, then the edge is over the hole, which means the ball is in.