CB on lands on top rail

This is a long time ago and my memory of the shot is a bit fuzzy. But, I got along well with some of the better players and I had one step up and show me a shot one time.

The cue ball and object ball were frozen to the foot rail. It was simple to make the object ball, but the next shot was up around the head rail. He had me elevate the cue in a similar fashion to a jump, then make the object ball, jump the cue ball up slightly and have it fall on top of the foot rail and then roll off toward the head rail.

Haven't thought about that shot in years, but I do remember using it to get out of a few tight spots back in the day.
 
poolplayher said:
Yes, cause it’s not resting on playing surface. I witness this happen at a WPBA event and that was the referee’s call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Once I made the 9 on the break for $20 a game and the cue stopped on top of the rail. I argued it was considered the playing surface because it had felt :)
 
Korsakoff said:
This is a long time ago and my memory of the shot is a bit fuzzy. But, I got along well with some of the better players and I had one step up and show me a shot one time.

The cue ball and object ball were frozen to the foot rail. It was simple to make the object ball, but the next shot was up around the head rail. He had me elevate the cue in a similar fashion to a jump, then make the object ball, jump the cue ball up slightly and have it fall on top of the foot rail and then roll off toward the head rail.

Haven't thought about that shot in years, but I do remember using it to get out of a few tight spots back in the day.
Click to expand...
I don't think that shot can work if both balls are actually frozen to the cushion. The cue ball needs to be slightly farther from the cushion than the OB so it will land on the nose of the cushion when it comes down. The shot doesn't require too much power.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I don't think that shot can work if both balls are actually frozen to the cushion. The cue ball needs to be slightly farther from the cushion than the OB so it will land on the nose of the cushion when it comes down. The shot doesn't require too much power.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you are correct. I haven't had time to go to my table and give it a try. I do remember that it wasn't that difficult to execute once I became aware of it. Literally had not thought about it in years.
 
fjk said:
Once I made the 9 on the break for $20 a game and the cue stopped on top of the rail. I argued it was considered the playing surface because it had felt :)
Click to expand...


Had to laugh! Sometimes it is a matter of who gets in the first word, or who is loudest, or longest arguing! A matter of might makes right. Some Valley's I played on had rails that angled in towards the cloth on the table just a little. Made for a lot more balls staying up on the rails. I usually hollered to play it as it laid! Many people were lining up the shot when I let them off the hook. A numbered ball on the top of the rail almost guaranteed bad results!

Hu
 
Island Drive said:
There's an old video/somewhere of Ron Rosas banking a ball down the long rail.
The obj. ball jumps to the GC top rail, hops over the side pocket.
Stays on the rail and then pockets in the corner. :)
Click to expand...
I believe it's on Accustats Highlights Video Volume 1..still available!!!
 
hang-the-9 said:
There was a video of some snooker shots that had a shot that travelled on the rails for a bit then pocketed a ball (I think it may have actually been the object ball that was hopped off the table, then into a pocket. It was counted as good, so that is not a rule in snooker.
Click to expand...
I've seen that happen on a snooker table a few times over the the years.
 
Sounds like you wanna bet I cant cut that ball on the end rail in from right here atop this piece of chalk in 25 tries.
 
This is a very interesting question............So, if you are measuring a tables playing surface, it includes the rail in its dimensions. In other words if a table is a 41/2 X 9 the measurment starts where the rail cloth is hammered into the featherstriping. How it's not part of the playing surface but is part of the table measurment is a bit of a mystery. Anyone have any ideas?
 
Baby Huey said:
This is a very interesting question............So, if you are measuring a tables playing surface, it includes the rail in its dimensions. In other words if a table is a 41/2 X 9 the measurment starts where the rail cloth is hammered into the featherstriping. How it's not part of the playing surface but is part of the table measurment is a bit of a mystery. Anyone have any ideas?
Click to expand...
It is not part of the playing surface because the playing surface is clearly defined already. No need to guess or redefine. The playing surface does not include the rails. Nose to nose is the definition.

The 9 x 4 1/2” are only nominal dimensions like a 2 x 4. The closest 9’ measurement is the *outside* length of the table including the wooden rails. I’ve seen on English sites a 9’ table is advertised as a 9 x 5 table, which wouldn’t be wrong.
 
It's only a foul if it stays off the table. If it lands on the rail and comes back to the surface then the shot is good.
 
Cornerman, your point is well taken. It seems a bit of a mystery anyway why the table size measurement isn't nose to nose??
 
Baby Huey said:
Cornerman, your point is well taken. It seems a bit of a mystery anyway why the table size measurement isn't nose to nose??
Click to expand...
A fun fact: By one way of looking at things, what we call a 9-foot table is closer to 8 feet.

If a ball goes straight up and down the center of the table, what is its maximum straight run? If it starts frozen to the middle of the foot rail and goes to frozen on the head rail it has travelled not quite the distance between the noses. You have to subtract half the ball on each end. That's 2 1/4 inches taken off the length. So, we have:

100 inches nose-to-nose
-2.25 inches for the ball diameter
______
97.75 inches total travel up and down the table.

Let's see... 8 feet is 96 inches. That makes the travel 8 feet and 1 and 3/4 inches.

Sounds like an 8-foot table to me. I guess we're going by the diagonal measurement like video screens. That's slightly over 9 feet.
 
There is a 4.5-foot measurement on a "four and a half by nine foot" table. That measurement is across all the green part of the table including the cloth on the rails. The cloth-covered part of the rail is two inches wide. 4.5 feet is 54 inches. 54 inches minus the two inches on each side is 50 inches. That gives the nose-to-nose width. The length is twice that, giving 50x100. You can see that there is no real 9-foot dimension.

Similarly, a "10-foot" table has a green width of 5 feet or 60 inches. Nose to nose is 56. 14 inches per diamond. 112 inches in length,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top