You're right. I didn't notice that he said if it hits another ball. I thought he only said cue ball and object only. My mistake.
APA rule question?
- Thread starter I'mdoingit
- Start date
You're right. I didn't notice that he said if it hits another ball. I thought he only said cue ball and object only. My mistake.
The rule is very simple. After making a legal hit on an object ball the object ball must either be legally pocketed, or make contact with any rail, or the cue ball must make contact with a rail, in any of the above instances. Being that the object ball was already frozen then it must come away from the rail that it was resting on and then re strike it or any other rail to be legal, or the cue ball must hit a rail. Not that difficult to understand.
Black Cat
P.S. The rules also state that the game must be halted and the rule in question be looked up to satisfy any disputes. Otherwise if the other team refuses then the match in question can be claimed as a forfeit due to un-sportsman like conduct.
Black Cat
P.S. The rules also state that the game must be halted and the rule in question be looked up to satisfy any disputes. Otherwise if the other team refuses then the match in question can be claimed as a forfeit due to un-sportsman like conduct.
The rule is very simple. After making a legal hit on an object ball the object ball must either be legally pocketed, or make contact with any rail, or the cue ball must make contact with a rail, in any of the above instances. Being that the object ball was already frozen then it must come away from the rail that it was resting on and then re strike it or any other rail to be legal, or the cue ball must hit a rail. Not that difficult to understand.
Black Cat
It's made more difficult to understand when the rule is explained incorrectly, as you have done. Restriking the same rail to which an object ball was frozen does not constitute a legal hit. In some league rules, restriking the original rail after contacting an intervening rule will do, but not in the rules of other leagues.
Really? Where does it say that?
Here is the explanation from the official APA bylaws:
5. Frozen Ball Foul - If an object ball is frozen to the rail, and the shooter is contemplating playing a safety, the opponent must stop the shooter and declare the ball frozen to the rail. The shooter is to verify that it is indeed frozen (prior to the shot being executed). A frozen ball foul can not be called after a shot is executed unless the non-shooting team verified with their opponents (or a neutral party or referee) that the ball was indeed frozen
to a rail “prior” to the shot being executed. Once verified, the shooter must either drive the initial object ball to a different rail (of course, it could hit another object ball, which in turn hits a rail) or drive the cue ball to any
rail after contact with the object ball. If the shooter choose the latter method of playing a safety, they should exercise caution to assure that the object ball is quite obviously struck first, prior to the cue ball hitting the rail.
If the cue ball hits the rail first or appears to have struck both the rail and the object ball simultaneously, the shooter has just committed a foul, unless the cue ball or an object ball contacts a different rail.
Joe
Does that really say to you that the rule must be looked up?
Ron Bama actually pulled up the official reading word for word. I looked it up after reading his post. I was actually corrected on the point of having to go to another rail entirely.
My other point was only to point out something that should be obvious if it's not in print it's not a rule. The best way to settle disputes is to verify the rules by using the National Team Manual or the Local Bylaws, the Local Bylaws overide the National Team Manual. Any Teams that won't allow a rule to be verified is in violation of league sportsmanship rules and is subject to having all points taken away for the nights play.
Not knowing the rules is not a excuse, the purpose of league play is to have a good time and enjoy the game.
Good Post everybody. Black Cat
Last edited:
A very interesting question Mr. Manning. I have never even considered that concept. I would think that the table would have to be considered as having six rails, four of them separated by the side pockets, but I really don't know. Maybe someone will research this and let us know.
Again, a different rule set than the subject of this thread, but under BCA rules, a table has 6 cushions. Each long rail has two. This applies to the frozen ball question when you have an object ball frozen to the corner of the side pocket. You cannot drive the cueball into the object ball and, with no other balls touching a rail after contact, send the frozen object ball to the other corner of the same side pocket and have a legal hit. The two cushions are on the same rail and don't satisfy the need to hit a different rail.
APA rules do not cover this at all.
Before the shot , was it acknowledged that the object ball is in a frozen state to the rail?
This is important, if the ball is not announced to be frozen,then no foul.
BCAPL players be aware.... I just was advised that while this is still true in the World Standardized Rules, as of June 1st, 2009 the BCAPL has broken away from WPA and now the ball across the mouth of the side pocket to the other corner situation does constitute a legal shot. Don't know if other leagues who use the WSR set will follow or not.
I take it that you're talking about the point at the side pocket to the other point of the same side pocket. So now the BCAPL considers the long rail between the side pockets as one rail. Is this correct?
Just want to make sure we have our terminology right. From the way I read the WPA rule, there is a difference between rail and cushion. The long rail is one rail that runs the entire length, from corner to corner. There are two separate cushions on the long rail. Each of those cushions therefore, are not connected to different rails, they are both connected to the same rail.
It sounds like what ronhudson is saying is that the BCAPL will now consider a shot legal if it hits a different cushion regardless of whether or not that second cushion is attached to a separate rail.
That is correct. Under WSR (and WPA, which you mention), the shot is still illegal. It makes sense for the shot to be legal if you consider that it's the same situation as with a corner pocket, which has always been legal. Why should a shot be different just because it's on a side pocket?