Object Ball Frozen to Rail Rule

[Jude Rosenstock]

Since it seems it seldom ever effects you , why are you asking everyone else to change?

I feel it is a logical rule.

Well, I never said "it doesn't affect me". At least, if I used those exact words, I didn't mean it. What I meant was, it never results in a foul. It "affects me" by unnecessary delays and arguments.

 

[BC21]

Is there a particular game where you see these fouls most often? I'm just trying to get a sense of the most common scenarios where this rule has an effect.

The situation comes up in all games. It seldom ever leads to a foul because the opposing player is required to determine and call whether or not the ob is frozen. If that doesn't happen, and the shooter simply taps the ob and leaves his opponent tough, there is no foul to call. In order for there to be a foul it must be announced that the ball is frozen prior to being shot, and it's not the shooters responsibility to call it.

I certainly don't want my opponent to be able to roll the cb up against an ob for a lock down safety if the ob is frozen to the cushion. So I always look at it to make sure that doesn't happen, and if it's frozen I will always announce it as such. If it's my shot, and my opponent calls a ball frozen, I always look at it myself to verify it, because sometimes it's only their wishful thinking that makes it frozen. It only takes a couple of seconds to look at the ball.

 

[Swighey]

I've never thought about it before but I agree with Bob. It simplifies things. It makes it easier for non professional refs who are doing people a favour. It makes it easier for area refs. It makes it easier for players to ref their own games. It gets rid of the "but you didn't call it frozen" disputes. It gets rid of refs (at every level of the game) having to make a judgement that is, ocasionally, subjective and unverifiable without sophisticated video recording equipment. It is within the spirit of the rule (a ball still hits a rail, even if it was hitting it already).

 

[BC21]

My proposal would be to still require rail contact but to consider driving a frozen ball into the cushion as rail contact.

And who determines what "driving" is? In other words, if I shoot the cb straight into an ob frozen to a cushion, what speed would be sufficient to be considered driving the ball into the cushion? And who would determine whether or not I met the conditions?

Seems pointless to delete a rule, yet still impose some sort of guidelines or requirements to cover the very shots that the rule once covered. Lol

 

[easy-e]

And who determines what "driving" is? In other words, if I shoot the cb straight into an ob frozen to a cushion, what speed would be sufficient to be considered driving the ball into the cushion? And who would determine whether or not I met the conditions?

Seems pointless to delete a rule, yet still impose some sort of guidelines or requirements to cover the very shots that the rule once covered. Lol

I'm pretty sure he means if you make contact with the frozen ball, you've satisfied the requirement.

 

[BC21]

I'm pretty sure he means if you make contact with the frozen ball, you've satisfied the requirement.

Oh.... so simply rolling the cb up against the ob would be an acceptable shot. It would definitely make for easier safety play on frozen balls, and make it easier to get a legal hit when kicking at a frozen ball. I just feel like it'll screw me more than it will help me. Lol

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

And who determines what "driving" is? In other words, if I shoot the cb straight into an ob frozen to a cushion, what speed would be sufficient to be considered driving the ball into the cushion? And who would determine whether or not I met the conditions?

Seems pointless to delete a rule, yet still impose some sort of guidelines or requirements to cover the very shots that the rule once covered. Lol

You could have a ball frozen to the rail and the cue ball in the jaws of the pocket (behind the rail) and be able to make contact without driving into the rail. I think that's what Bob is trying to prevent in his wording.

 

[The_JV]

You can also hit rail first and strike the OB off the rail without any rail contact afterward.

Such debate over such a simple rule. I've never seen a disagreement over the "frozen-ness" of an OB take more than a moment. Much ado about nothing....

 

[easy-e]

You can also hit rail first and strike the OB off the rail without any rail contact afterward.

Such debate over such a simple rule. I've never seen a disagreement over the "frozen-ness" of an OB take more than a moment. Much ado about nothing....

I've seen fights break out over it.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You can also hit rail first and strike the OB off the rail without any rail contact afterward.

Such debate over such a simple rule. I've never seen a disagreement over the "frozen-ness" of an OB take more than a moment. Much ado about nothing....

I'm a BCAPL league operator and have been running leagues (8ball, 9ball, and 14.1) for years, in addition to many tournaments of all calibers. I also actively compete in my locality and state. Perhaps that's why this is a bigger issue for me. I see the arguments a bit more often.

 

[The_JV]

I've seen fights break out over it.

Fights over the debate if it is... ...or fights over whether a player thought it was but didn't the opponent to agree...?

is .vs. was

Honestly, if there's a fight over 'is', then someone perfers to cheat and maybe the fight is the best outcome.

A OB being frozen is binary. It either is or it's not. There's no room for debate, and easily proven.

 

[The_JV]

I'm a BCAPL league operator and have been running leagues (8ball, 9ball, and 14.1) for years, in addition to many tournaments of all calibers. I also actively compete in my locality and state. Perhaps that's why this is a bigger issue for me. I see the arguments a bit more often.

Fair enough... I've been around a crap ton of pool / leagues / etc... That wouldn't equal being a LO though.

Regardless, proving a ball is frozen or not is rather simple task.

 

[justnum]

Fair enough... I've been around a crap ton of pool / leagues / etc... That wouldn't equal being a LO though.

Regardless, proving a ball is frozen or not is rather simple task.

I agree new billiard technology products are needed to solve this problem.
How do tournament refs officiate it currently?

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

The situation comes up in all games. It seldom ever leads to a foul because the opposing player is required to determine and call whether or not the ob is frozen. If that doesn't happen, and the shooter simply taps the ob and leaves his opponent tough, there is no foul to call. In order for there to be a foul it must be announced that the ball is frozen prior to being shot, and it's not the shooters responsibility to call it.

I certainly don't want my opponent to be able to roll the cb up against an ob for a lock down safety if the ob is frozen to the cushion. So I always look at it to make sure that doesn't happen, and if it's frozen I will always announce it as such. If it's my shot, and my opponent calls a ball frozen, I always look at it myself to verify it, because sometimes it's only their wishful thinking that makes it frozen. It only takes a couple of seconds to look at the ball.

The fact that it "seldom leads to a foul" is a good chunk of my argument. Regarding "only takes a couple of seconds", I beg to differ. As a league operator and referee, I can tell you about countless times I've been called to making a ruling on frozenness. In addition, many players are unaware about protocol, which is where most arguments occur. In games like 8ball, where shooting at several balls can be legal, a ball can be declared frozen without being disturbed in the same inning. At that point, the declaration has to be renewed or the ball is no longer considered frozen. If this doesn't happen and the frozen ball was moved without another rail, good chance they're getting a referee again.

Are these fouls we really want? Is it worth the added time?

With all due respect, the game has changed immensely over the years. Jump cues are now legal and they keep getting better. Safeties are becoming less and less valuable. I see nothing wrong with making a rule change that would favor safety play a little more.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Fair enough... I've been around a crap ton of pool / leagues / etc... That wouldn't equal being a LO though.

Regardless, proving a ball is frozen or not is rather simple task.

I mean, to an extent, nearly all rulings are simple tasks but the role of a referee doesn't end with just declaring it frozen. The rule also has protocol, which isn't always followed. A very common scenario is to declare a ball frozen. The ball ends up not moving. A few innings later, the same player expects that declaration to still be valid and it's not. Then an argument ensues.

 

[BRussell]

Quick story I just remembered in thinking about this thread: I was playing 9-ball in the end-of-season league tournament, and I had missed. The object ball landed frozen to a rail and before I sat down I said "it looks frozen." My opponent got up, looked, and quickly agreed.

But his teammate started complaining "why does it matter," "he's sharking you" and the like. I told the teammate that it's possible that a ball wouldn't go to a rail and it's good practice to clarify beforehand. He said he knew the rule, but he thought it was so unlikely to be an issue that it was unnecessary for me to say anything about it, and I had done it just to throw him off. It was true that he had an easy hit on the ball, and it was very unlikely to lead to a foul.

My opponent hadn't said anything more about it, he just got up and shot, and made an obviously legal shot. After the game I talked to him and said "I hope you don't think I was trying to shark you with that frozen call" and he said "oh no not at all, my teammate is just an asshole."

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Quick story I just remembered in thinking about this thread: I was playing 9-ball in the end-of-season league tournament, and I had missed. The object ball landed frozen to a rail and before I sat down I said "it looks frozen." My opponent got up, looked, and quickly agreed.

But his teammate started complaining "why does it matter," "he's sharking you" and the like. I told the teammate that it's possible that a ball wouldn't go to a rail and it's good practice to clarify beforehand. He said he knew the rule, but he thought it was so unlikely to be an issue that it was unnecessary for me to say anything about it, and I had done it just to throw him off. It was true that he had an easy hit on the ball, and it was very unlikely to lead to a foul.

My opponent hadn't said anything more about it, he just got up and shot, and made an obviously legal shot. After the game I talked to him and said "I hope you don't think I was trying to shark you with that frozen call" and he said "oh no not at all, my teammate is just an asshole."

I have a similar story like yours. I was playing an APA match in a bar and had gotten near straight and a foot away on the match winning 8-ball. My opponent jumps out of his chair and proceeds to examine the 8-ball.

I asked, "What are you doing?"

He said, "I'm checking to see if it's frozen."

I replied, "Don't worry. I'm going to hit it hard enough to make it across the street."

In my instance, there was no doubt he was trying to shark me. Unfortunate for him, this shot was a little too easy to influence.

 

[The_JV]

"oh no not at all, my teammate is just an asshole."

...and there is this whole debate wrapped up with a ribbon on top.

There's a rule that's nothing new. It's not whether or not the OB is frozen. It's the requirement to either pot a ball or hit a rail for legal shot. Determining a frozen ball seems like an annoyance, but if it is, then the rules still apply and you must either directly pot the ball or hit a rail with a ball. A rail already being touched doesn't count. Everytime a shot that could potentially put the frozen ball in play is attempted, the declaration of the frozen ball needs to be clearly made.

The situation is played simply. It's up to the non-shooter to declare a ball frozen. Just like it's up to the non-shooter to ask for a third party to watch a potential foul. If the shooter is of character we all claim to be, then he will volunteer the "frozen" declaration. In either case, once the non-shooter has raised the flag, then either the two players have an agreement or get a third party to watch the shot.

Once you have a situation move beyond the above you then have an "asshole". The frozen ball situation isn't the problem. It's the player. This same player will take advantage of any rule/situation.

Don't hate the game, hate the players

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

...and there is this whole debate wrapped up with a ribbon on top.

There's a rule that's nothing new. It's not whether or not the OB is frozen. It's the requirement to either pot a ball or hit a rail for legal shot. Determining a frozen ball seems like an annoyance, but if it is, then the rules still apply and you must either directly pot the ball or hit a rail with a ball. A rail already being touched doesn't count. Everytime a shot that could potentially put the frozen ball in play is attempted, the declaration of the frozen ball needs to be clearly made.

The situation is played simply. It's up to the non-shooter to declare a ball frozen. Just like it's up to the non-shooter to ask for a third party to watch a potential foul. If the shooter is of character we all claim to be, then he will volunteer the "frozen" declaration. In either case, once the non-shooter has raised the flag, then either the two players have an agreement or get a third party to watch the shot.

Once you have a situation move beyond the above you then have an "asshole". The frozen ball situation isn't the problem. It's the player. This same player will take advantage of any rule/situation.

Don't hate the game, hate the players

QQ - if a ball is declared frozen and then the shooter decides to shoot something else AND THEN shoot at the frozen ball, doesn't another hit rail, and then says his opponent didn't declare it, who is the asshole?

 

[book collector]

I was recently involved in a discussion about the Object Ball Frozen to a Rail rule and it got me thinking. Perhaps it's because I mostly play 9ball and 8ball but even when I play other games like 14.1, when an object ball is declared frozen, I never feel like my choices are suddenly limited and I never ever foul, nor do I see others foul. Honestly, I've been playing the game a long time and I can count on one hand how many times declaring a ball frozen to the rail changed anything.

To me, this results in a big waste of time. The opponent says it's frozen. The shooter disagrees. They get a ref. The ref says it's frozen and then the shooter does nearly the exact same thing they were going to do before, except they make a minor adjustment to ensure it's legal.

In fact, I would venture to say, the rule is far more applicable on the novice/intermediate level. I rarely see pros or high level amateurs jumping out of their chairs to say balls are frozen. It's nearly always done on the novice/intermediate level and most of the times it results in a foul, it's because a novice either didn't understand the rule or didn't know enough to avoid it.

If you think this rule has real value, please explain. I'm happy to be wrong here but I just think it's a silly "gotcha" moment.

It can be huge in one pocket! imo