Cue ball and object ball touching (frozen) rule change?

Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Recently there was some discussion in another thread about the rule that applies when the cue ball is frozen to the object ball.

By "frozen" I mean that they are actually in contact and not juet real close to each other. There is a different rule for when the balls are nearly touching, but my question below is just about the frozen ball situation.

The current rule at pool is that you can shoot towards that ball with any normal stroke and if you move the object ball by shooting into it, you get credit for hitting it first. Sometimes when you shoot away from such a ball it will settle when the support from the cue ball is gone, but the player is not blamed for moving the object ball in that way nor is he given credit for having hit the ball.

At carom and snooker the rule is different: you are never permitted to shoot into a ball that the cue ball is frozen to. At carom, balls are returned to their starting spots, while at snooker, you must shoot away from the ball but you are given credit for having hit that ball if it was a legal target on that shot.

Should the rule at pool be changed? If so, what should it be changed to? Is there a single rule that will work for 14.1, nine ball, eight ball and one pocket?
 
Bob I would say keep it 'as is'. What I see as the problem with balls frozen, refs who are not "very" knowlegable about ball collisions/striking could easily make the wrong call, it would make it much easier on them.

Should the game change to accomodate the referee? I think once the game becomes a true recognized structured sport with a tour and such this issue may be looked at from the pro players point of view, not amateurs. IMHO

If you want to really stir the pot ask Mike Shamos.:D
 
I would say to leave the rule as it is. It is not very often that there is a makeable shot in this scenario. About all you can do most of the time is throw the OB somewhere or run the OB into another ball. In a call-your-shot format like 14.1, this is not going to help very much in keeping the shooter at the table. JMO.

Maniac
 
As long as you don't push the cueball, it's a legal hit. It's physics, the transfer of motion is instant. The cueball will deccelerate rapidly, so it won't hit the object ball again. The cue stick will rebound once the cue ball is hit (softer grip is better in this case).

The contention is when a player tries the shot that the balls are not push. It easy to tell a bad push because the balls will travel fairly at the same speed and in the same direction.

With a legal hit the cue ball will normally stay in the same place (or a little because of some English loaded into it). I've seen a Mexican old-timer in the bar that I go to. He can actually put intentional/significant English on the cue ball when frozen.
 
I've gotten in major arguments over this rule. It seems that (at least in my town) the "old school" people think that it is a push shot, even after I showed them the rule book. Maybe you could re-write the rule so that it is much more obvious to understand.

Vinnie
 
Bob Jewett said:
By "frozen" I mean that they are actually in contact and not juet real close to each other. There is a different rule for when the balls are nearly touching, but my question below is just about the frozen ball situation.

The current rule at pool is that you can shoot towards that ball with any normal stroke and if you move the object ball by shooting into it, you get credit for hitting it first.
Click to expand...

IMO, shooting a frozen CB+OB with level stroke straight away shouldn’t be allowed.

I’ve seen the videos and agree that a legal (single) hit can occur, but gives or allows the shooter a license (if you will) to potentially commit a double hit and get away with it. Also, if possible, the rule should be consistent across the board, whatever the rule ends up to be, with all other pocket billiard games. I don’t particularly agree with snookers rule, but some contact should be required.

Rick
 
Bob Jewett said:
Should the rule at pool be changed? If so, what should it be changed to? Is there a single rule that will work for 14.1, nine ball, eight ball and one pocket?
Click to expand...

Mr. Jewett,

The rule is OK as it stands for the pocket billiard games. Carom and Snooker are in worlds of their own. They don't care much about us pocket billiard players anyway.

If you look at the rule from a players perspective (as I am sure you always do) and not a Ref's view... maybe the wording could be improved.

Exactly what is a 'normal stroke'? is a Masse a normal stroke? doesn't the cue tip spend more than the average hit time on the cue ball?

Cue Ball frozen to the Object ball when hit, does the cue tip stay in contact with the cue ball longer than normal?

Seems to me that there is (as usual with the rules) more work to be done.

I understand the BCA League is going to revamp their rules this year. And the World Standard Rules will be doing the same next year, only not to the same degree as the BCA League.

I believe you are the one that said that the WPA was considering omitting the 'cue ball only fouls' from their rules.
 
Tom In Cincy said:
I understand the BCA League is going to revamp their rules this year. And the World Standard Rules will be doing the same next year, only not to the same degree as the BCA League.
Click to expand...

Aw, man. I was under the impression that the BCA Rules are the same as WPA World Standardized Rules. Is that not true? I compared my cute little BCA league rule book with the rules on the wpa-pool website and they appeared to be the same, although I haven't compared every section word-for-word. :confused: :(
 
By the way, I agree with Tom and others that the rulebook could benefit from further clarification regarding the type of stroke that results in a push shot foul. Also, I don't think the rules state explicitly that you are allowed to shoot through a frozen ball. One would have to argue that its OK, based on the type of stroke and the time that the tip is in contact with the cueball, which could be hard to convince someone of without futher guidelines in the rules.

Back to the question, I like the fact that you can take a stroke through a frozen ball. I used to think that you weren't allowed to and when I found out that you could, I didn't like it. Now that I've had some time for the rule to sink it, I like it. Would it make sense to start a new thread so that it can be a poll?
 
Bob Jewett said:
...Should the rule at pool be changed?...
Click to expand...
As long as the cueball's path conforms approximately to your 2X fuller system, I think it should stay legal. I can't say I have a good reason, other than I've practiced it, and it preserves an interesting and crowd pleasing shot. Of course, that does leave it to the judgement of the referee in borderline cases, but isn't that one reason we have referees.

Jim
 
Last edited:
I know one rule that i would change is the jumping rule. Now picture this, if you snooker yourself you must have to kick, if your opponent snookers you then you can jump Hehehehe.
 
I think the question is can someone cheat or gain an unfair advantage in some way by shooting this shot with a normal stroke.

I know you can when the balls are slightly apart and shoot a double hit. A ball may not be possible to make as is. Then you hit it, then ball moves to better position, then tip contacts cue ball a second time - cue ball hits object ball again - ball is pocketed.

I don't see how you can gain any unfair advantage when the cue ball is frozen to the object ball though. It is one hit. (Of course if you have read 99 critical shots and see that the alignment is slightly off for a pocket, you can hit the cue ball at an angle to "throw" the object ball into the pocket.)

Also I and others in my area have spent the last couple of years teaching players that a normal stroke it OK in these situations. They are just beginning to learn this. Changing the rule would confuse them terribly for years to come!
 
i agree Billy Bob. There is alot of confusion with this kind of shot at the leagues here. I have seen Allen Hopkins show this shot in a tip of the day. If the balls where touching you can shoot the shot with a normal stroke he said right thru the balls, but if they aren't you must elevate your cue. I had this great shot where i knew i can pocket the ball but the cueball and objectball were touching, so i really didnt' want to shot the shot with a normal cue, but i knew it was otaye so i did it anyways. It was the only time i didn't have any controversal call on it heheeh. Somewhat to the 99 Critical Shots you mention'd

The blue line is where one might think at first to shoot the shot to pocket it as its the correct angle, but its about throw. So correct me if i was wrong is this shot legal? Purdy shure i made the right shot.

CueTable Help

 
Last edited:
TheConArtist said:
...correct me if i was wrong is this shot legal?...
Click to expand...

Yes this is legal because they are frozen. Also what I was talking about.

The cue ball and one ball are pointing to the right of the corner pocket, but you can hit the cue ball aiming with the black line and it will magically throw the ball the direction of the pocket and hopefully pocket the ball.

I like these shots because I call them ahead of time and my opponent says "Yeah Right!". Then I pocket my ball and my opponent stands there with a dazed look in his eyes. "How did you do that?"
 
How about something like this...

Something like this may help to make everyone happy...

3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is a foul. (See Rule 2.20 for judging this kind of shot.) Exception: If the object ball is frozen to the cue ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. An object ball is not considered frozen to the cue ball unless it is examined and announced as such by the referee or by both player's agreement prior to that object ball being involved in the shot. If a third ball is close by, care should be taken not to foul on that ball under the first part of this rule.


Just rearranged a little and a point added to declare a frozen ball.

Vinnie
 
Bob,
I play both Pool & Snooker. Shooting away in Snooker works because of the other rules associated with snooker...lack of need for rails etc.

If I was playing 9ball and I was shooting on the 2 and frozen to it I have a HUGE advantage. I simply go one rail behind any ball or cluster and your virtually guaranteed ball in hand.

example:

CueTable Help



Nick
 
IMO, shooting a frozen CB+OB with level stroke straight away shouldn’t be allowed. ...
Click to expand...
Well, OK, but if it shouldn't be allowed, there needs to be a specific rule. Suppose you are playing nine ball and after the break the cue ball is frozen to the one ball. What should happen? Then consider similar situations in 14.1, one pocket and eight ball. If it is a foul to shoot into a frozen ball, does the nine ball player above have to kick at the one ball? Does something spot? Ball in hand anywhere? Like snooker, where you get credit for shooting away?

Let me play Devil's advocate: There is no rule at pool that will work if shooting into a frozen ball is changed to a foul. Prove me wrong by proposing a rule that will work. I say you can't.
 
Sorry for posting this to two different threads; I didn't notice this thread until it was too late.

While I agree that the current rule of allowing the shooter to shoot into a frozen ob will always be a controversial one, I'm having a difficult time deciding whether changing the rule would have a positive or negative impact on the rotation games, which are what I predominantly play. There is always only one "on-ball" in rotation games, obviously, and, supposing that the cb is frozen to it, are you going to force the shooter to kick at the on-ball? If so, then I don't think I'd welcome such a change to games like 9-ball and 10-ball.

My reasoning is that, due to the rail-after-contact rule (which does not exist in snooker, BTW), frozen-ball situations are almost always purely chance happenings; hardly ever are they the result of an intentional defensive maneuver. As such, I think that punishing the incoming shooter by making him shoot away from the ob is not the fairest way to handle the situation. If the shooter put himself frozen to the ball, then he got a bad roll. Do we compound it by forcing him to kick? If his opp. put him in that spot, then his opp. got a good roll. Do we reward him even more for it?

As we all know, being frozen to the on-ball is no gift; it's a crappy situation even if you can shoot toward the ob. Why not give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, and, assuming he can execute a legal shot (as defined by the current rules), let him shoot toward the ball? If it were a situation that came up all of the time, then you could argue that it doesn't matter what the rule says, because it will even itself out over time, but this is a very rare occurrence, and the way the rules dictate the situation could potentially alter the outcome of an entire set.

As always, JMHO.

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