I like that.....but B-B is gonna call the fuzz on us.
:help:
If he doesn't bust a seam first.
I like that.....but B-B is gonna call the fuzz on us.
:help:
I would generally agree, and I suspect that many rule sets would as well. But, for CSI/BCA, I would have to disagree, but only because the rules define it as such. Quoted below.Fibers touching = frozen.
I would generally agree, and I suspect that many rule sets would as well. But, for CSI/
[edit: wasn't there an old Earl comment that the ball was touching, but not frozen?]
I would generally agree, and I suspect that many rule sets would as well. But, for CSI/BCA, I would have to disagree, but only because the rules define it as such. Quoted below.
"Frozen Ball A ball that is touching another ball or a cushion. If loose strands or fibers of cloth extend from a cushion and contact a ball, that does not constitute that ball being frozen to the cushion."
View attachment 534781
https://www.playcsipool.com/bcapl-rules.html page 15.
[edit: wasn't there an old Earl comment that the ball was touching, but not frozen?]
I think it's probably a total judgement call. For me when I make that call I look to see if I
can see light between the ball and the cushion Like I'm sure most people do.
Touching a fiber or two isn't always definitive because the fibers aren't uniform, but I believe
it's a judgement call. Sometimes you might meet with some disagreement
There was a post about this before, the general agreement was that it's not frozen if some fibers are touching the ball but there is still a gap between the edge and the actual rail. If a bullet hits your hair but does not actually hit the skin, you are not shot, you were "almost shot". The ball is "almost" frozen.
It's a trick question. We all know that physics tells us that no two objects ever actually touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s
Soooo......every time I thought I made a good hit...it was actually a foul....
Actually, physics and especially quantum mechanics tells us that objects extend into each other and have no precisely defined hard surface. Everything is fuzzy.It's a trick question. We all know that physics tells us that no two objects ever actually touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8rkG9Dw4s
Actually, physics and especially quantum mechanics tells us that objects extend into each other and have no precisely defined hard surface. Everything is fuzzy.
But why do we still have this horrible frozen/not frozen/maybe frozen ball rule? I think it's time to do away with it. What would be lost if contacting a frozen ball was considered a good rail contact? I see no value in the rule.
If you weren't fuzzy, you wouldn't be real. Or maybe nothing is real. Or maybe everything is real.Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on quantum mechanics. That's probably for the best.
But why do we still have this horrible frozen/not frozen/maybe frozen ball rule? I think it's time to do away with it. What would be lost if contacting a frozen ball was considered a good rail contact? I see no value in the rule.
To keep people from nudging the cue ball up on the object ball on the rail and then saying they "hit a rail", when the ONLY ball that touched a rail was the ball ALREADY on the rail.
The alternative is to say that the object ball AND the cue ball must touch a rail on every shot.
The stalemate rule, which every pool game now has, avoids this problem.To keep people from nudging the cue ball up on the object ball on the rail and then saying they "hit a rail", when the ONLY ball that touched a rail was the ball ALREADY on the rail. ...
The stalemate rule, which every pool game now has, avoids this problem.