A technical question

dabarbr

dabarbr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
An object ball is sitting on the rail but looking very closely at it you can see that it not pressed against the rail. However the cloth has fibers extending out and many are clearly touching the object ball.

Would you consider it frozen? Forcing the object ball to go to another rail to satisfy a legal hit.
 
Looks like a tough question but in real it is very simple. If you have a space between the rail and the ball it is not frozen, no mather how many fibers touch the ball.
 
dabarbr said:
An object ball is sitting on the rail but looking very closely at it you can see that it not pressed against the rail. However the cloth has fibers extending out and many are clearly touching the object ball.

Would you consider it frozen? Forcing the object ball to go to another rail to satisfy a legal hit.
Click to expand...
I would consider it not frozen, probably, depending on how much daylight I could see between the ball and rail. The current official rules/regulations don't directly address this point.
 
Bob is right

the rules don't address this, but, IMO, it is not frozen. I would think the ball must be touching the face of the rail. Any BCA referees on here?
 
Neither rules nor any existing guidance notes to referees that I've ever seen or heard of would address this specifically but there's little doubt that in practice no referee is ever going to call that a frozen ball.

Following the recent trend to compare pool with golf we could maybe draw a loose parallel with the situation where you are not allowed to ground your club in a hazard prior to making the stroke at the ball. In that situation in a grassy area you could legally hover your club, at address, in such a way that its touching the upper regions of the stalks of grass just as long as you do not touch the actual ground out of which the grass is growing:)
 
dabarbr said:
[...]
Would you consider it frozen? Forcing the object ball to go to another rail to satisfy a legal hit.
Click to expand...

You probably know this, but I've heard others confused on this point. So I'll mention it. It is a legal hit if the cueball grazes this frozen object ball and then touches the same cushion. In other words, it's not a requirement to involve another rail.
 
mikepage said:
You probably know this, but I've heard others confused on this point. So I'll mention it. It is a legal hit if the cueball grazes this frozen object ball and then touches the same cushion. In other words, it's not a requirement to involve another rail.
Click to expand...

But that's only if the cueball touch the same cushion after hitting the objectball. If not, it's still required the objectball be potted or hit another cushion. Ofcourse if another ball hit the cushion it will also be a legal shot.

3.38 OBJECT BALL FROZEN TO CUSHION OR CUE BALL
This rule applies to any shot where the cue ball's first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or to the cue ball itself. After the cue ball makes contact with the frozen object ball, the shot must result in either:
(a) A ball being pocketed, or;
(b) The cue ball contacting a cushion, or;
(c) The frozen ball being caused to contact a cushion attached to a
separate rail, or;
(d) Another object ball being caused to contact a cushion with which it was
not already in contact. Failure to satisfy one of those four requirements is a foul. (Note: 14.1 Continuous and other games specify additional requirements and applications of this rule; see specific game rules.) A ball which is touching a cushion at the start of a shot and then is forced into a cushion attached to the same rail is not considered to have been driven to that cushion unless it leaves the cushion, contacts another ball, and then contacts the cushion again. An object ball is not considered
frozen to a cushion unless it is examined and announced as such by either
the referee or one of the players prior to that object ball being involved
in a shot.
Click to expand...

And to the original question, I also don't think it's a frozen ball.
 
Another somewhat similar situation

I have another similar question. I don't know if this is possible, it would certainly be difficult and rare. What if the OB was frozen. You make a simultaneous contact of both OB and Rail. The OB moves off the rail, but somehow (some combination of spin, maybe a slight masse) the CB is frozen to the rail. What's the ruling then?

CueTable Help

 
arsenius said:
I have another similar question. I don't know if this is possible, it would certainly be difficult and rare. What if the OB was frozen. You make a simultaneous contact of both OB and Rail. The OB moves off the rail, but somehow (some combination of spin, maybe a slight masse) the CB is frozen to the rail. What's the ruling then?
Click to expand...

I would think in a case of simultaneous contact, the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter, just like in a split hit where it's impossible to judge which ball was contacted first. So in this the benefit of the doubt would make us assume that the CB hit the OB and then froze to the rail, making it a legal hit.

-Andrew
 
There is no such thing as a simultaneous hit. Perhaps not so much to the naked eye, but high speed photography proves that you either hit the ball first or the rail first. In your example, the CB would contact the OB and then the cushion, making a legal hit.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Scott Lee said:
There is no such thing as a simultaneous hit. Perhaps not so much to the naked eye, but high speed photography proves that you either hit the ball first or the rail first. In your example, the CB would contact the OB and then the cushion, making a legal hit.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...


Thank you for pointing that out. I am 100% certain that if there ever were an actual simultaneous hit, the universe would implode.
 
of course you can hit two objects at the same time but in pool it's rare(at the microscopic level).
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Thank you for pointing that out. I am 100% certain that if there ever were an actual simultaneous hit, the universe would implode.
Click to expand...

True, but practically speaking, there are frequently shots that are close enough to simultaneous that you can't make a definitive call with no slow-mo or instant replay. Those hits have to be considered simultaneous when it comes to the rules, because if they're not simultaneous, how do you decide which was first?

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top