This is a standard safety play for straight pool because it gives excellent results, meaning when played correctly, this safety puts your opponent on the defensive. The situation often occurs when you are straight on the break ball, or otherwise can't make a good break shot. Instead, shoot a stop shot and then you will have this safety. I've ordered the balls from 1 to 4 so you can see the "3rd ball" safety.
Hit the 3 ball with follow and try to stick the cue ball against the 3 while sending several balls, or what Stu calls "threats" to the rail. A threat is a ball that is "threatening" to the incoming shooter because they challenge his ability to play a good return safety. A good safety is not necessarily one that simply hides the cue ball. A better safety is one that both hides the cue ball AND creates threats. If you can continue to create new threats during the back and forth of safety play (and you opponent isn't doing the same) it is usually a matter of time before you win the safety battle.
In this example, I didn't freeze the cue ball to the 3.
Had I frozen the cue ball to the 3, that would have given my opponent only two directions in which to send the cue ball (I think Arnaldo's eloquent use of language is rubbing off on me just a little ). In this situation, he needs to see if either of those directions is desirable. If not, often his best option is to take an intentional foul by shoving the cue ball farther into the cluster with a legal stroke that is not a double hit. If he manages to move the cue ball even an inch, he has achieved his goal. The goal, in this case, is to rearrange the furniture (without leaving a shot) so that he might have better prospects for a good safety exit from the stack. His opponent also might not recognize this strategy and do something stupid. Otherwise, the reply to this safety is to tap the cue ball into a new and preferably frozen position, or otherwise attempt to make life difficult for the other guy.
It gets confusing as to who we are referring to after two or three exchanges, so let me say this: Player A executed a 3rd ball safety. Player B responded by shoving the cue ball into the pack. "A" replied by doing the same, keeping life difficult for "B." "B" can now reevaluate if he can make a legal safety without selling out, or alternatively must rearrange the cue ball in the stack with another tap. "A," of course, will do the same thing again if he is smart.
So now "B" has improved his situation a little bit. Originally, he came into a frozen ball situation (theoretically, not in my photo) and had no good shot without selling out. Now he is up to shoot and both he and "A" have 2 fouls. It is better to get your opponent on 2 fouls before you hit a potentially bad safety. At least it gives him something to think about, and he has two chances to make a mistake and give you a good safety option.
I think that covers a typical exchange with the 3rd ball safety. To conclude my situation where the cue ball is NOT frozen to the 3 (see photo above):
If I graze the 3 my only option is to hide behind the 4. This requires english and probably jacking up a little, and even if done successfully, might still leave a makeable 4/10 combination, so I'd rather take a foul than shoot this. The other option is to graze the 2 and go to the head rail. By walking around to the head rail, it was clear that the 13 did not pass the 1 to the corner, and I could not get around the 15 for a clear shot on the 6. So a good safety could be made IF I could get the cue ball to the side rail.
I'll give my opponent the 15/6 combo like this every time. What allowed me to execute this shot successfully was the gap between the cue ball and the 2. I was able to get the angle and english I needed for a pretty forgiving shot. Is it considered an error to execute the 3rd ball safety and NOT freeze the cue ball? I don't know. In this case not freezing the cue ball lost the safety battle for player A. Someone with more knowledge hopefully will chime in.
Please feel free to add to or take issue with anything I've written. I've taken safety lessons but that doesn't make me an expert.
Hit the 3 ball with follow and try to stick the cue ball against the 3 while sending several balls, or what Stu calls "threats" to the rail. A threat is a ball that is "threatening" to the incoming shooter because they challenge his ability to play a good return safety. A good safety is not necessarily one that simply hides the cue ball. A better safety is one that both hides the cue ball AND creates threats. If you can continue to create new threats during the back and forth of safety play (and you opponent isn't doing the same) it is usually a matter of time before you win the safety battle.
In this example, I didn't freeze the cue ball to the 3.
Had I frozen the cue ball to the 3, that would have given my opponent only two directions in which to send the cue ball (I think Arnaldo's eloquent use of language is rubbing off on me just a little ). In this situation, he needs to see if either of those directions is desirable. If not, often his best option is to take an intentional foul by shoving the cue ball farther into the cluster with a legal stroke that is not a double hit. If he manages to move the cue ball even an inch, he has achieved his goal. The goal, in this case, is to rearrange the furniture (without leaving a shot) so that he might have better prospects for a good safety exit from the stack. His opponent also might not recognize this strategy and do something stupid. Otherwise, the reply to this safety is to tap the cue ball into a new and preferably frozen position, or otherwise attempt to make life difficult for the other guy.
It gets confusing as to who we are referring to after two or three exchanges, so let me say this: Player A executed a 3rd ball safety. Player B responded by shoving the cue ball into the pack. "A" replied by doing the same, keeping life difficult for "B." "B" can now reevaluate if he can make a legal safety without selling out, or alternatively must rearrange the cue ball in the stack with another tap. "A," of course, will do the same thing again if he is smart.
So now "B" has improved his situation a little bit. Originally, he came into a frozen ball situation (theoretically, not in my photo) and had no good shot without selling out. Now he is up to shoot and both he and "A" have 2 fouls. It is better to get your opponent on 2 fouls before you hit a potentially bad safety. At least it gives him something to think about, and he has two chances to make a mistake and give you a good safety option.
I think that covers a typical exchange with the 3rd ball safety. To conclude my situation where the cue ball is NOT frozen to the 3 (see photo above):
If I graze the 3 my only option is to hide behind the 4. This requires english and probably jacking up a little, and even if done successfully, might still leave a makeable 4/10 combination, so I'd rather take a foul than shoot this. The other option is to graze the 2 and go to the head rail. By walking around to the head rail, it was clear that the 13 did not pass the 1 to the corner, and I could not get around the 15 for a clear shot on the 6. So a good safety could be made IF I could get the cue ball to the side rail.
I'll give my opponent the 15/6 combo like this every time. What allowed me to execute this shot successfully was the gap between the cue ball and the 2. I was able to get the angle and english I needed for a pretty forgiving shot. Is it considered an error to execute the 3rd ball safety and NOT freeze the cue ball? I don't know. In this case not freezing the cue ball lost the safety battle for player A. Someone with more knowledge hopefully will chime in.
Please feel free to add to or take issue with anything I've written. I've taken safety lessons but that doesn't make me an expert.