BCA Rule Question? Re: OB frozen to rail

[Jeff G. Martin]

I have a question regarding a specific called foul during Jasmin Ouschan and Karen Corr's finals match at the Soaring Eagle WBPA event..

The foul happens after one of Ouschan's breaks where the two ball is declared frozen. She clearly hits the cushion with the cue ball after contacting the two ball, but was still called a foul. The hit aligned Corr for an easy 2-9 combo to take a 4-3 lead, though Ouschan did go on to win the match.

Earlier in the match, Mitch and Eva clearly state the rule of which the cue ball or any object ball must hit a rail. If an OB is frozen, the rule is still the same, right? Of course varying slightly so that the OB has to contact a different cushion, or the OB contact another ball, then the same cushion. But the cue ball can hit that same cushion that the OB is frozen to to make a legal hit, correct?

Here is a video. The first portion of the clip is during their explanation of the rule, the second is the foul in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7w-ZnYGa7g

 

[thefonz]

good question

i had the same question during a BCA league match. i thought the cueball or OB had to hit a different rail other than the one that the OB was frozen to. I was told no, if the cueball contacts the same rail that the OB was frozen to, it is a legal shot.

 

[RDaniel13]

i had the same question during a BCA league match. i thought the cueball or OB had to hit a different rail other than the one that the OB was frozen to. I was told no, if the cueball contacts the same rail that the OB was frozen to, it is a legal shot.

This is a correct ruling for Valley. Not BCA.

If the ball is declared frozen, it must hit another rail, or the ball must contact another ball, then be driven to the same rail.

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx

Go to page 33 out of 120.

Look under 1.19 Legal Shot.

Read rule #2 a and b. :thumbup:

 

[Jeff G. Martin]

This is a correct ruling for Valley. Not BCA.

If the ball is declared frozen, it must hit another rail, or the ball must contact another ball, then be driven to the same rail.

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx

Go to page 33 out of 120.

Look under 1.19 Legal Shot.

Read rule #2 a and b. :thumbup:

I've read it many times just to be sure... If you read it closely, 1.19.2 only comes into play if the OB in 1.19.1 is frozen. If the OB is frozen, the cue ball contacting the cushion in 1.19.1 still makes a legal hit. 1.19.2 is only saying what the frozen OB has to do, while 1.19.1 states what the CB has to do in either instance.

1.19 Legal Shot (AR p. 75)

1. For a shot to be legal, the first ball contacted by the cue ball must be a legal object ball. After that contact:
a. any object ball must be pocketed, or;
b. any object ball or the cue ball must contact a cushion.

2. If the ball used to meet the cushion contact requirement of Rule 1.19.1(b) is declared frozen to a cushion at the beginning of the shot, then that ball must leave the cushion it is frozen to and then:
a. contact a cushion other than the one to which it was frozen, or;
b. contact another ball before it contacts the cushion to which it was frozen.

 

[tatcat2000]

Everyone please slow down a little...

...and pay attention to the rule sets you are quoting. The WPBA does not use BCAPL rules, so please ignore the specific rules quoted in posts #3 and #4. They are not relevant.

This is not an official response - only the WPBA can give you that. However...

Assuming the WPBA uses World Standardized Rules, albeit slightly modified, the shot was legal. This would not be the first time that specific incorrect ruling has been handed down - I have heard anectdotal hearsay evidence that this exact incorrect call has been made several times...

The only way it could be illegal is if the WPBA modifies WSR 6.3 and 8.4, or is playing by their own set of rules and it is illegal under those rules. I cannot determine either, as I have no personal knowledge of the situation and the WPBA web site offers no info or guidance.

Again, assuming the use of WSR, the shot was legal per WSR 6.3, "No Rail after Contact":

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

and 8.4, "Driven to a Rail":

"A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail."

All of the requirements of 3.6/8.4 were met. The cue ball contacted the 2-ball and then, after contact, was driven to a rail, meaning it was not touching a rail when it contacted the 2-ball and then touched a rail.

The fact that the 2-ball was frozen to the rail that the cue ball contacted is irrelevant, since it was not the ball used to satisfy the "driven to a rail" requirement of 3.6.

Again, for the earlier posters, thanks for promoting the BCAPL rules - it's just that they are not relevant here...although as you noted the result would be the same if they did apply - legal shot


Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net

Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

* The contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Neither I nor any BCAPL referee make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" apply.
* No reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post unless specifically stated.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: there is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules" for those games. The BCA has no rules committee. The BCA does not edit, nor is responsible for the content of, the World Standardized Rules. The Official Rules of the BCAPL is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials. The BCAPL maintains what we consider to be the most structured, complete and intensive referee training program available.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.
* All BCAPL members are, as always, encouraged to e-mail Bill Stock at the BCAPL National Office, bill@playcsi.com, with any comments, concerns or suggestions about the BCAPL rules.

 

[CarlB]

...and pay attention to the rule sets you are quoting. The WPBA does not use BCAPL rules, so please ignore the specific rules quoted in posts #3 and #4. They are not relevant.

This is not an official response - only the WPBA can give you that. However...

Assuming the WPBA uses World Standardized Rules, albeit slightly modified, the shot was legal. This would not be the first time that specific incorrect ruling has been handed down - I have heard anectdotal hearsay eveidence that this exact incorrect call has been made several times...

The only way it could be illegal is if the WPBA modifies WSR 6.3 and 8.4, or is playing by their own set of rules and it is illegal under those rules. I cannot determine either, as I have no personal knowledge of the situation and the WPBA web site offers no info or guidance.

Again, assuming the use of WSR, the shot was legal per WSR 6.3, "No Rail after Contact":

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

and 8.4, "Driven to a Rail":

"A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail."

All of the requirements of 3.6/8.4 were met. The cue ball contacted the 2-ball and then, after contact, was driven to a rail, meaning it was not touching a rail when it contacted the 2-ball and then touched a rail.

The fact that the 2-ball was frozen to the rail that the cue ball contacted is irrelevant, since it was not the ball used to satisfy the "driven to a rail" requirement of 3.6.

Again, for the earlier posters, thanks for promoting the BCAPL rules - it's just that they are not relevant here...although as you noted the result would be the same if they did apply - legal shot

[/SIZE]

:thumbup: I wonder if it was such an obvious legal shot, why wasn't the ruling contested. lol.

Carl

 

[tatcat2000]

:thumbup: I wonder if it was such an obvious legal shot, why wasn't the ruling contested. lol.

Carl

If I knew the answer to that one, I'd be sitting on a mountain top in somewhere in Nepal...:banghead:

That's why I was so careful with my disclaimers about lack of knowledge of the internal workings of the WPBA...

 

[randyg]

It was very clear that the cue ball hit that rail after contact. Looks like some one goofed.
randyg

 

[Captain K.]

i had the same question during a BCA league match. i thought the cueball or OB had to hit a different rail other than the one that the OB was frozen to. I was told no, if the cueball contacts the same rail that the OB was frozen to, it is a legal shot.

OB frozen, cue ball hits frozen OB then hits the same ralil as frozen OB good hit

OB frozen, and cue ball is frozen to OB or same rail as OB then hits the OB and both balls only contact the same rail without hitting another ball and then being driven to said rail
FOUL

Hope this helps
Kennan

 

[satman]

It wouldn't be the first time.

It was very clear that the cue ball hit that rail after contact. Looks like some one goofed.
randyg

You might assume, that the ref was more concerned with the 2 ball, than anything else. It's definitely a good hit, in any rules I ever played. Ref's make mistakes, in all sports. Maybe we need a protest system for tv matches, and an anylyst crew, like in football.

 

[CarlB]

Woo Hoo, Instant Replay for Pool! lol.

Lets give em little Red Flags to throw too.

Carl

 

[Captain K.]

Woo Hoo, Instant Replay for Pool! lol.

Lets give em little Red Flags to throw too.

Carl

Well if the majority of all players from pro down to newbees had the integrity to hand the ball to their oponnet when they felt they fouled instead of sayin "well the ref did not call it no foul" You would not need refs let alone replay.

They do it in golf, that sport seems to do well

Kennan

 

[CarlB]

Well if the majority of all players from pro down to newbees had the integrity to hand the ball to their oponnet when they felt they fouled instead of sayin "well the ref did not call it no foul" You would not need refs let alone replay.

They do it in golf, that sport seems to do well

Kennan

I agree...there was a little sarcasm in my post.

Carl

 

[Nostroke]

That was the worst call i have ever seen in pool.

 

[tatcat2000]

OB frozen, and cue ball is frozen to...same rail as OB then hits the OB and both balls only contact the same rail without hitting another ball and then being driven to said rail
FOUL

Not if the cue ball leaves the rail before it contacts the frozen OB. If it does leave the rail first (which is highly likely in most circumstances), the shot is legal under both WSR and BCAPL rules, since it left the rail and returned after hitting another ball. There is no requirement that the other ball it hit not be frozen. It is only a foul if the cue ball never leaves the rail berore it contacts the frozen OB.

OB frozen, and cue ball is frozen to OB...then hits the OB and both balls only contact the same rail without hitting another ball and then being driven to said rail
FOUL

Most likely not in BCAPL play, but I need to check with the office on this one. The principle behind BCAPL Applied Ruling 1.19 Situation 6 will likely apply here. That principle is that contact with a ball frozen to a rail does not constitute contact with that rail. Probably open to interpretation under WSR...Bob??

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Here is a video. The first portion of the clip is during their explanation of the rule, the second is the foul in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7w-ZnYGa7g

The only tricky part of the call is whether the cue ball hit the two ball first or hit the cushion just before the two ball. Even on the low-res video, it's easy to see from the action of the balls that the cue ball hit the two ball and then hit the cushion.

It's good that the bad call did not affect the outcome of the game. It's bad that the bad call stood because such calls confuse both the fans and the players as to what the real rules are.

 

[Jeff G. Martin]

Good discussion guys.

I emailed Alison Fischer (Contributor & Editor for NYCGrind.com), and Dean Roeseler (President/CEO DR Pool Promotions), to see if either of them could add some insight as to what happened, as both of them were in the audience. Maybe there was some sort of discussion about the call.

 

[Bob Jewett]

It is useful to understand why the frozen object ball rule exists. It is intended to prevent a long series of very soft safeties on a frozen ball in which neither player is willing to drive the cue ball away from the frozen object ball. The rule, if it is written well, should do no more than prevent that stalemate situation.

In previous sets of rules, if a ball was frozen to the rail on one side of the side pocket and was driven down table to freeze on the other side of the side pocket, it was considered a foul (if no other rail contact had occurred). Such a situation poses no issue of a stalemate. Under the current WSR it is not a foul because the object ball left the side rail as it passed the side pocket and then contacted the side rail. Notice that the ball doesn't have to contact some other ball before it returns to the rail -- it just has to leave and return.

Another example: Efren is playing one pocket and his opponent has frozen the cue ball to the middle of the foot rail with an object ball frozen to both the cue ball and the foot rail and pointed straight into the opponent's pocket. Efren plays a masse shot, barely skimming the object ball as the cue ball leaves the cushion. The cue ball then reverses course and comes back on the other side of the object ball and freezes to both the object ball and the rail, leaving the balls now pointed straight at Efren's pocket, exactly reversing the shot. No foul.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Efren is playing one pocket and his opponent has frozen the cue ball to the middle of the foot rail with an object ball frozen to both the cue ball and the foot rail and pointed straight into the opponent's pocket. Efren plays a masse shot, barely skimming the object ball as the cue ball leaves the cushion. The cue ball then reverses course and comes back on the other side of the object ball and freezes to both the object ball and the rail, leaving the balls now pointed straight at Efren's pocket, exactly reversing the shot. No foul.

That's a good illustration of the principle, but the shot (freezing to the opposite side of the OB) doesn't seem possible. I'd love to see it - it would immediately become my favorite shot of all time.

pj
chgo

 

[Tennesseejoe]

Go to Dr. Dave's web site and look at section NV B.61. In it are examples of good and foul shots. This is one the finest works on pool rules. Better yet, just buy his cd's.