9ball- Is This a Foul?

[cuetechasaurus]

In a game of 9ball, lets say the cueball is frozen to both the 1-ball and the 2-ball. If you stroke thru in the direction of the arrow in the diagram, is that a foul? How about if you aim in the direction of "A"? Or how about "B"? Although in "B" it seems like you are aiming totally away from the 1-ball, a small portion of the 1-ball is eclipsing, so my guess is that you are still getting a simultaneous hit on both balls.

Am I wrong? I can't recall ever hearing a rule on this type of situation before.

CueTable Help

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

In a game of 9ball, lets say the cueball is frozen to both the 1-ball and the 2-ball. If you stroke thru in the direction of the arrow in the diagram, is that a foul? How about if you aim in the direction of "A"? Or how about "B"? Although in "B" it seems like you are aiming totally away from the 1-ball, a small portion of the 1-ball is eclipsing, so my guess is that you are still getting a simultaneous hit on both balls.

Am I wrong? I can't recall ever hearing a rule on this type of situation before.

CueTable Help

Because there is a double-carom effect happening here, I don't think you can avoid fouling when shooting in that direction. You're pretty much destined to hit the cueball twice.

 

[nichollss]

No Foul

If the balls are frozen this would not be a foul. However you have to move the one or it would be a foul. With what you have explained you would be alright with either one of those shots.

The balls will move away from the cueball when you stroke thru them and avoid any kind of double hit.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Because there is a double-carom effect happening here, I don't think you can avoid fouling when shooting in that direction. You're pretty much destined to hit the cueball twice.

That's what I figured at first, but then again if the 1-ball and 2-ball are both frozen to the cueball, I am guessing it would have to be an exact simultaneous hit. The instant the cueball starts moving, so would both of the balls if they are frozen to it.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

That's what I figured at first, but then again if the 1-ball and 2-ball are both frozen to the cueball, I am guessing it would have to be an exact simultaneous hit. The instant the cueball starts moving, so would both of the balls if they are frozen to it.

Well, as a referee, you can justify your position by saying you're allowed to push through both balls. As a player, I wouldn't take this chance. If I were refing such a scenario, I'd probably call it a foul. If I were shooting in this scenario, I'd DEFINITELY look for another option.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

Hmmm....this is like a trick question. basically if both OBs are frozen to the CB, it's a simultaneous hit. however, we all know that if the CB is frozen to the OB, there is no .01% guarantee that you won't double hit the CB or your cue doesn't continuously push the CB to the OB or simply your cue leaving the CB upon impact (which is a foul). no matter how you try to hit your cue in whichever direction in that scenario, it is more likely a foul for pushing your cue thru those balls. whether it's the 1 ball, 2 ball or both balls. If I were you, I would go for the rail bank on the opposite side of those balls. just hope that you do a Bustamante foul.

 

[Cuebacca]

I would have to guess that this is not going to be a foul. If I were going to take this shot, I'd want to talk it over with the ref first.

I think we need Bob J's input on this one though.

Hail Mary Shot, f it were just the 1-ball it would definitely NOT be a foul under the world rules if the cue ball is frozen to it. You're allowed to stroke right through it, even aiming the cue straight towards the object ball. Reading the rule, it is hard to tell, but it comes up on AZ every now and then. I believe the proposed new world rules, posted by Bob Jewett the other day, make it more clear that this is legal (the single object ball situation).

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I would have to guess that this is not going to be a foul. If I were going to take this shot, I'd want to talk it over with the ref first.

I think we need Bob J's input on this one though.

Hail Mary Shot, f it were just the 1-ball it would definitely NOT be a foul under the world rules if the cue ball is frozen to it. You're allowed to stroke right through it, even aiming the cue straight towards the object ball. Reading the rule, it is hard to tell, but it comes up on AZ every now and then. I believe the proposed new world rules, posted by Bob Jewett the other day, make it more clear that this is legal (the single object ball situation).

The fundamental problem is a lot of referees will not actually tell you the rule prior to shooting. You may ask for a clarification of a cueball being frozen to the objectball ruling but you're not going to be able to say, "Hey, if I shoot this way, you gonna call a foul on me?"

You're taking a chance and I can honestly see this being called a foul by the majority of refs.

 

[Cuebacca]

The fundamental problem is a lot of referees will not actually tell you the rule prior to shooting. You may ask for a clarification of a cueball being frozen to the objectball ruling but you're not going to be able to say, "Hey, if I shoot this way, you gonna call a foul on me?"

Well, yes and no. IMO, refs should be able to answer some questions, and this particular one may or may not be a fair question to answer.

Some examples of what I mean:

In 8-ball, after a scratch on the break, a ref could tell you if a ball is in or out of the kitchen, before you shot.

In the single frozen object ball case, you could ask a ref if you are allowed to stroke through the single object ball, and he should tell you.

In a case similar to the one pictured, if the cue ball isn't frozen, you could ask the ref how he would rule it if you made a simultaneous hit, and he should tell you.

Two examples of questions that I would agree that a ref should not answer:

"Can you watch this hit... I'm going to cut the 1 in the corner. Is it possible to do that without hitting the 6?"

"Is it POSSIBLE to make a simultaneous hit on this shot?"

In the case pictured, it is my opinion that it is a fair question to ask the ref. Whether the ref agrees that the question is fair is another story. I would like to hear some AZB refs opinion on this.

 

[9ballprodigy]

The fundamental problem is a lot of referees will not actually tell you the rule prior to shooting. You may ask for a clarification of a cueball being frozen to the objectball ruling but you're not going to be able to say, "Hey, if I shoot this way, you gonna call a foul on me?"

You're taking a chance and I can honestly see this being called a foul by the majority of refs.

yeah... i'd take this situation the same way as if i was corner hooked. only one way out. shoot AWAY from the 2, jack up, and focus on moving the 1-ball ONLY while trying to get a ball to a rail.

 

[Bob Jewett]

In a game of 9ball, lets say the cueball is frozen to both the 1-ball and the 2-ball. If you stroke thru in the direction of the arrow in the diagram, is that a foul? How about if you aim in the direction of "A"? Or how about "B"? ...

Nice corner case. I'd give you reps, but I don't know which color you're collecting.

The rules (at least the new, proposed World Standardized Rules and Regulations) are fairly clear on this. If you shoot towards or partly into a ball the cue ball is frozen to, you are considered to have hit/contacted that ball. If you hit two balls simultaneously, or it cannot be determined which was struck first, the call goes to the shooter. So, the referee should check to make sure the cue stick is pointed in the 180-degree sector that is towards the one ball. It is possible to shoot away from the one ball towards the two and still make the one ball move. I'd call that a foul.

People who refer to this or think of this as a "push" shot are not using that word in the same way it is used in the rules. They may want read the rules. The new ones are on-line at

http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Rules_07Nov2007.pdf
and
http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Regulations_07Nov2007.pdf

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

I would have to guess that this is not going to be a foul. If I were going to take this shot, I'd want to talk it over with the ref first.

I think we need Bob J's input on this one though.

Hail Mary Shot, f it were just the 1-ball it would definitely NOT be a foul under the world rules if the cue ball is frozen to it. You're allowed to stroke right through it, even aiming the cue straight towards the object ball. Reading the rule, it is hard to tell, but it comes up on AZ every now and then. I believe the proposed new world rules, posted by Bob Jewett the other day, make it more clear that this is legal (the single object ball situation).

If only everybody apply this rule, then it would just be fine. but from my experience, I get called for stroking the CB directly to the OB.

in anycase, if everybody applies the world rules, then stroking the CB in those 3 scenarios is a legal hit since both OBs are frozen or in contact with the CB. thereby a simultaneous hit is surely to occur. but if the 1 ball didn't move, then it's a foul !

 

[Bob Jewett]

Well, yes and no. IMO, refs should be able to answer some questions, and this particular one may or may not be a fair question to answer....

The Regulations state that the referee will explain the rules to the best of his ability. My own feeling is that he should only make statements of fact about the situation on the table, such as whether a ball is over the line or is touching something. The players should know the rules. At snooker, they are expected to. The Regulations also state that if the referee makes a mistake while explaining the rules, the player is not protected from the actual rule.

I hope that pool will eventually drop referee explanations. Maybe that could be done when the players have all read the rules. I think we are about 2% of the way there.

 

[Cuebacca]

My own feeling is that he should only make statements of fact about the situation on the table, such as whether a ball is over the line or is touching something. The players should know the rules.

Thanks for your reply. I think it's good that we can ask, at least at the small local tournaments. If I were going to shoot through a frozen ball, for example, at Joe's Bar, where they claim to be using BCA rules, I'd want to make sure I don't have a tournament director who feels that you're not allowed to do that, rather than having to bite my tongue after it gets called a bad hit.

On the other hand, if I can be sure that the ref knows all the rules that apply to the situation, and if the rulebook covers all of these with no room for interpretation, then in those cases, I agree it should be up to us, as the players, to read and understand those rules before starting the match.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... On the other hand, if I can be sure that the ref knows all the rules that apply to the situation, and if the rulebook covers all of these with no room for interpretation, then in those cases, I agree it should be up to us, as the players, to read and understand those rules before starting the match.

When Tanya Harding is ice skating in the hereafter.

But it does help to have the rules fairly stable. For a long time, whoever had the typewriter at the BCA did whatever they pleased. About 1980, the BCA rules passed through a very bad patch. Later, the "referee will explain the rules to the best of his ability" was added because the rules kept changing significantly every year. I think for one year in the 1970s, the rules on rack interference at 14.1 changed for no apparent reason and then changed back the next year.

The WPA -- which is now the world governing body for pool and sets the rules -- has established a 5-year period for rules changes. The rules to be adopted in 2008 turn out to have very few changes from the current rules, but they were completely rewritten and I hope they are clearer. Anyone interested should see the threads that discuss the new Rules and Regulations.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I get called for stroking the CB directly to the OB.
...

Such shots are fouls at snooker and carom. Perhaps that's why your opponent or the TD is confused. You should buy them a rule book for Christmas. If you have never read the rules, you might want to look the book over before gift wrapping it. I think you will find some surprises in it.

 

[Hail Mary Shot]

Such shots are fouls at snooker and carom. Perhaps that's why your opponent or the TD is confused. You should buy them a rule book for Christmas. If you have never read the rules, you might want to look the book over before gift wrapping it. I think you will find some surprises in it.

actually he is a snooker player playing some pool !
don't worry, I'll follow your advise on that Xmas present.