Another “Was this a foul” question

[Clusterbuster]

So SeniorTom posted a question the other day about what constituted a foul. I was recently in a similar situation: An object ball was frozen to a rail. I lightly hit the object ball with the cue ball causing the object ball to roll a few inches out onto the table without contacting another rail. The cue ball, after contacting the frozen object ball, contacted the rail that the now dislodged object ball had been frozen to without going to any other rail. I claimed this was a legal shot but the other guy claimed it was a foul. He said that either the object ball or cue ball must contact a rail other than the one the object ball was frozen to. I relented but now kind of regret it. After Bob was kind enough to post a link to the WPA Rules in the other thread, I read the ones that seem to apply (6.3 and 8.4). Under 6.3, the cue ball contacted the object ball (albeit frozen to the rail, but the rule doesn’t say it can’t be). After that contact, the cue ball was driven to a rail, which 6.3 explicitly allows for. Rule 8.4 says ”A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail.” It doesn’t say that the ball driven to the rail must be an object ball and not the cue ball. The cue ball under 8.4, was not touching that rail, and then touched it. Am I missing something or is there another Rule that touches on the issue? The Rules follow just for convenience.

Rule 6.3: If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)

Rule 8.4: A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching a rail at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 29, Calling Frozen Balls.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Your shot was legal. There is a lot of confusion about the rail requirement when one or both balls are frozen. There is even more confusion when the cue ball is close to or frozen to an object ball. It's too bad players are not required to learn the rules.

 

[FranCrimi]

Your shot was legal. There is a lot of confusion about the rail requirement when one or both balls are frozen. There is even more confusion when the cue ball is close to or frozen to an object ball. It's too bad players are not required to learn the rules.

Why would someone think that's a foul? What might they be confusing it with?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Why would someone think that's a foul? What might they be confusing it with?

Some rule sets say the rail the object ball is frozen to is dead to both balls and a ball must be driven to a different rail. The BCA rules used to say something almost like that. And there are the rules Uncle Zeke passed down forty years ago on the table in his basement. Since very, very few players have ever read the rules, there are lots of these discussions.

In a pool group I follow on Facebook, when someone posts a foul question half the responses will say foul and half will say fair. Of those who give reasons for the correct answer, most of them are wrong about why. And since there are hundreds of responses, few will actually see the correct answers. It's quite discouraging.

 

[Clusterbuster]

Why would someone think that's a foul? What might they be confusing it with?

It was kind of like Bob said. He just thought that the rail the ball was frozen to was dead. Not sure that he was confusing it with anything else so much as he was just wrong. I shouldn’t have deferred to him and just trusted my own judgment. Wasn’t worth a hassle.

 

[FranCrimi]

Some rule sets say the rail the object ball is frozen to is dead to both balls and a ball must be driven to a different rail. The BCA rules used to say something almost like that. And there are the rules Uncle Zeke passed down forty years ago on the table in his basement. Since very, very few players have ever read the rules, there are lots of these discussions.

In a pool group I follow on Facebook, when someone posts a foul question half the responses will say foul and half will say fair. Of those who give reasons for the correct answer, most of them are wrong about why. And since there are hundreds of responses, few will actually see the correct answers. It's quite discouraging.

Thanks.

Here's something I just thought of and I don't think I'm certain of the answer. What if the cb is frozen to an ob that's frozen to a cushion? What would constitute a legal hit? Can you still send the cb to the same cushion?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Thanks.

Here's something I just thought of and I don't think I'm certain of the answer. What if the cb is frozen to an ob that's frozen to a cushion? What would constitute a legal hit? Can you still send the cb to the same cushion?

The contact of the cue ball to cushion happens after the cue ball "contacts" the object ball, so that would be fair.

If both balls are frozen to the same cushion, the contact -- if you shoot towards the cushion -- would not count since the cue ball has to not be touching the cushion before it touches the cushion to be driven to that cushion.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thanks.

Here's something I just thought of and I don't think I'm certain of the answer. What if the cb is frozen to an ob that's frozen to a cushion? What would constitute a legal hit? Can you still send the cb to the same cushion?

The contact of the cue ball to cushion happens after the cue ball "contacts" the object ball, so that would be fair.

What's needed to count the shot as "contacting" the OB? Just that the OB must move (i.e., you can't shoot "away from" it)?

pj
chgo

 

[FranCrimi]

What's needed to count the shot as "contacting" the OB? Just that the OB must move (i.e., you can't shoot "away from" it)?

pj
chgo

Yes, that's the part I was wondering about as well. Since they're already in contact, should the cb have to hit a different ball first? But then I'm reminded of a legal push shot where the cb and ob are frozen. You are allowed to push through in a continuous stroke motion, but there's no mention about what has to happen after that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, that's the part I was wondering about as well. Since they're already in contact, should the cb have to hit a different ball first? But then I'm reminded of a legal push shot where the cb and ob are frozen. You are allowed to push through in a continuous stroke motion, but there's no mention about what has to happen after that.

I've always assumed that making the OB move (even just "rocking" in place a little) is good enough to be counted as "contact" - but I'm not entirely confident of that.

pj
chgo

 

[boogieman]

I've always assumed that making the OB move (even just "rocking" in place a little) is good enough to be counted as "contact" - but I'm not entirely confident of that.

pj
chgo

If it rocks from the CB there's contact and it fulfills the legality of it. Watch some 1P match or straight pool if you can find it, often they just feather a ball to not disturb it, and the CB catches a rail.

 

[FranCrimi]

I've always assumed that making the OB move (even just "rocking" in place a little) is good enough to be counted as "contact" - but I'm not entirely confident of that.

pj
chgo

Yes, definitely that's true when they're close but not frozen. As long as it rocks in place, it's considered a hit. But when they're frozen, my memory is that it's a different story. As I recall, for there to be an actual hit, the cb must move towards the ob, going from no contact to contact. That's not possible when they're frozen, since they're obviously already in contact. But rules can change over the years, so who knows?

That's how we treat a ball frozen to the cushion, right? We can't push it into the cushion and call it a legal hit if it's already touching it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

As I recall, for there to be an actual hit, the cb must move towards the ob, going from no contact to contact.

Does your "legal push shot" example contradict that? Maybe it's just an exception. Either way's fine with me... I just wonder if there's any "authority" saying which way is correct.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Sometimes the frozen object ball will settle when the cue ball is shot away from it. That does not count as having hit it. You have to shoot (at least a little) into the ball.

There was a recent hit question (with video) of a shot in which a ball that was almost in the path of the cue ball settled as the cue all passed it. It settled towards where the cue ball started. The referee called a foul. That was a mistake, I think. (This shot is not directly related to the subject of this thread, but illustrates a settling issue.) There was another video posted recently of a nine ball shot in which the ball settled while the cue ball was on its way resulting in a miss. Bad luck.

 

[Clusterbuster]

Thanks to all of you for your input. Much appreciated.

 

[FranCrimi]

Does your "legal push shot" example contradict that? Maybe it's just an exception. Either way's fine with me... I just wonder if there's any "authority" saying which way is correct.

pj
chgo

Yes the legal push shot is a contradiction to what I wrote. It's also a contradiction to the rule of a ball frozen to the cushion. The push shot became legal in the late 70s or early 80s if I can recall, and became an exception to the logic of balls frozen to each other and the cushion. I'm also curious if there's an official way to call those types of shots. Doesn't CSI now own the referee association? Those guys might have made a decision on that, at least for this country.

 

[Bob Jewett]

.... Doesn't CSI now own the referee association? ...

So far as I know, there is no US referee association separate from the major amateur leagues, which train and certify their own referees. I think the BCA leagues -- back when they were part of the BCA -- were the major training organization, and they were using the WPA rules. I believe the ACS still trains refs and uses the WPA rules.

 

[3kushn]

Some rule sets say the rail the object ball is frozen to is dead to both balls and a ball must be driven to a different rail.

That's called "The Electricity Rule"

 

[Tennesseejoe]

So by rule 8.4, the cue ball and object ball are frozen to the same rail and the shooter shoots the cue ball into the object ball. The object ball leaves the rail and (due to a common rail groove) the object ball returns to the same rail...is this considered a good hit? I think so.

 

[bbb]

So by rule 8.4, the cue ball and object ball are frozen to the same rail and the shooter shoots the cue ball into the object ball. The object ball leaves the rail and (due to a common rail groove) the object ball returns to the same rail...is this considered a good hit? I think so.

....................​

8. Frozen balls​

A ball is not considered “frozen” unless it is inspected and designated as frozen prior to a player’s shot. To obtain a legal safety to the same rail on a ball declared frozen to a rail then the cue ball must contact the ball and then the rail, or the ball must leave the rail and contact another ball before returning to that rail, or another ball must be driven to a rail. If the cue ball becomes wedged between an object ball and the cushion and frozen to both, then legal shot requirements must be met by pocketing the frozen ball, or by contacting either another ball or another cushion enroute to a legal shot.
...........................................
above is from the onepocket.org rules
bolded part is from me for emphasis