Even though it was frozen with cue ball?If object ball does not move its like it was not there so no contact….foul
Jmho
You hit AWAY from it you saidEven though it was frozen with cue ball?
Correct. It'd be no different than if the cue ball was frozen to a rail and you shot into a ball but didn't hit another rail or pocket a ball.Even though it was frozen with cue ball?
No, but few know that you can hit straight through the object ball and it's not a foul (unless you scratch).When cue ball and object ball are frozen , can you hit cue ball away from object ball , does not move then hit a rail and it will be a good hit?
Im not sure the ruling on this situation. I was told that (BCA/CSI rules) if the Q ball is frozen to one of your group that it counts as contacting one of your group but if that were true it should then count as a foul if the Q ball is frozen to your opponents group and you hit the Q ball. I suppose I just made the question more confusing now.When cue ball and object ball are frozen , can you hit cue ball away from object ball , does not move then hit a rail and it will be a good hit?
Shooting through a ball frozen ball is not considered a foul although shooting away from contact with no other ball and cushion contact, is. The general rule covering a frozen cue ball is you may shoot through as though the obstacle does not exist. However, this to me is a conflict. IOW since the obstacle doesn't exist, and this is just one interpretation, a second contact and cushion are required to complete a legal hit. If this is confusing, it is.When cue ball and object ball are frozen , can you hit cue ball away from object ball , does not move then hit a rail and it will be a good hit?
Well,they were already touching. To touch it again it would have to touch it(frozen), not touch it,then touch it again.You hit AWAY from it you said
The cue ball in its forward motion did not touch the object ball
When cue ball and object ball are frozen , can you hit cue ball away from object ball , does not move then hit a rail and it will be a good hit?
Or you can almost hit away from the OB, just grazing it enough to make it wobble in place a little - as long as the OB visibly moves at all it's a "hit".No, but few know that you can hit straight through the object ball and it's not a foul (unless you scratch).
"As though" it doesn't exist for one kind of shot isn't the same as "it doesn't exist" for all kinds of shots. Besides, its "existence" is only ever brought up by you, not by the rules.The general rule covering a frozen cue ball is you may shoot through as though the obstacle does not exist. However, this to me is a conflict. IOW since the obstacle doesn't exist, and this is just one interpretation, a second contact and cushion are required to complete a legal hit. If this is confusing, it is.
Getting credit for hitting a frozen ball that you shoot away from is a snooker rule, not a pool rule. So far as I know, it has never been a pool rule. Section 6 of the WPA rules covers this for pool: https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/When cue ball and object ball are frozen , can you hit cue ball away from object ball , does not move then hit a rail and it will be a good hit?
What Bob said. Shooting "away" is a snooker rule. You would be amazed what they call a push or double hit.Getting credit for hitting a frozen ball that you shoot away from is a snooker rule, not a pool rule. So far as I know, it has never been a pool rule. Section 6 of the WPA rules cover this for pool: https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/
If you want credit at pool for contacting an object ball, you have to make it move.
Yeah, this has been discussed quite a bit in a recent thread in a YouTube snooker video by Cesar Muroya. Many of the snooker fans have no idea what a double hit looks like. Unfortunately, that's also true for a lot of snooker referees.What Bob said. Shooting "away" is a snooker rule. You would be amazed what they call a push or double hit.
...
It's just one angle brought to my attention. To void the foul stigma on a frozen cue ball, the CB and OB must be considered a single entity. Therefore my previous post and the inconsistency in the rule."As though" it doesn't exist for one kind of shot isn't the same as "it doesn't exist" for all kinds of shots. Besides, its "existence" is only ever brought up by you, not by the rules.
pj
chgo
A small nit here PT.... It's a hit only if it is to the advantage of the player. Shooting away from black when on reds is not a foul.Some players get this rule confused with snooker…in snooker you MUST shoot away…it’s an automatic hit. ...