Frozen Ball Ruling

Samiel

Samiel

Sea Player
Silver Member
I know I saw a thread that had this ruling in it a long time back, but I've been unable to locate it. Please forgive the repost.

Let's say I have a ball, say the 1-ball, frozen to the rail. I now shoot another ball, say the 2-ball, and the 2-ball does not contact a rail, but the cueball contacts the 1-ball. Is that a good hit?

I believe it is a good hit, since the 1-ball, being frozen to the rail, is "part of the rail" and thus the cueball contacted a "rail" after contact.

I looked at the WPA rules as well, but I couldn't find a rule specific to this situation. Could anyone help me out here as to the correct ruling? Thanks!
 
I have never seen this interpreted as anything other than a foul. A ball does not count as a rail if it is frozen to it. Indeed, you must drive that frozen ball to another rail. When the rule says: "after contact the object ball or cue ball must contact a rail" it means a rail, not a ball frozen to the rail.
 
Jerry Forsyth said:
I have never seen this interpreted as anything other than a foul. A ball does not count as a rail if it is frozen to it. Indeed, you must drive that frozen ball to another rail. When the rule says: "after contact the object ball or cue ball must contact a rail" it means a rail, not a ball frozen to the rail.
Click to expand...

Good call ref! :wink:
 
I could be dead wrong and dont know, but tend to think opposite of your opinion and would be a foul. But I will def be checking back to see what others think though. Sorry I cant offer any insight.
 
You may be correct Jerry. I just recall an old post saying the frozen ball was considered "part of the rail" (which makes sense to me in a way).

EDIT: So far, it looks like the consensus is that it's a foul! :p
 
Viet...It was a BCA rule years ago. I believe that rule (frozen ball/extension of the rail) was removed, under the current WPA rules. IIRC, Bob Jewett mentioned something about this in a prior thread. In the situation you describe, the 1ball would have to be identified as "frozen" or "not frozen" prior to the shot. If it is a hair off the rail, then the shot would be legal. Otherwise, as Jerry mentioned, it would be a foul.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Foul

IMHO - It's a foul.

A ball must be "driven" to the rail after contact. If a ball is already touching the rail - it cannot be "driven" to the rail.

On an interesting note the American CueSports Alliance rulebook does indicate a ball is not assumed to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared to be frozen by a player or ref before the shot.
 
I found the thread I remembered!

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=113960

Near the end of that thread, this situation was discussed and it looks like the consensus there was that it's a foul as well! I guess there's no such thing as a ball being "part of the rail" (lol).

Now I know! :p

Thanks all!

EDIT: I think I owe TxOnePocket and AlphaDog a pizza or something.
 
Last edited:
DWoods6354 said:
IMHO - It's a foul.

A ball must be "driven" to the rail after contact. If a ball is already touching the rail - it cannot be "driven" to the rail.

On an interesting note the American CueSports Alliance rulebook does indicate a ball is not assumed to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared to be frozen by a player or ref before the shot.
Click to expand...


This is indeed an interesting note. A ball must be declared frozen before every shot otherwise it is considered not frozen. So what happens in the OP situation if the 1 ball was not declared frozen? This is a real situation because most players will not look at a ball to declare it frozen if that ball is not directly in the shot scheme.

Just curious...Ken
 
SKUNKBOY said:
This is indeed an interesting note. A ball must be declared frozen before every shot otherwise it is considered not frozen. So what happens in the OP situation if the 1 ball was not declared frozen? This is a real situation because most players will not look at a ball to declare it frozen if that ball is not directly in the shot scheme.

Just curious...Ken
Click to expand...

If the 1-ball was not declared frozen, it would have been ruled a good hit since the 1-ball would have been considered "driven to" the rail. As it was, I had declared the ball "frozen" before I took my shot (I think I miscued or something, so I wasn't expecting to come back into the frozen ball).
 
Just to clarify, I would assume that if the ball is declared frozen then either that ball or th cue ball must contact another rail or it is a foul.

The reason I ask is I was in a tourney a while back and I called the OB frozen. The opponent drove the CB into the OB and then the CB glance off of the OB and hit the same rail the OB was on originally. NOT any other rail. I argued but the TD took his side... I thought it was a bad call since the OB was frozen, something had to come into contact with a different rail..

Please let me know if I am correct or not.
 
Wait a minute...didn't I just say that? :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Samiel said:
If the 1-ball was not declared frozen, it would have been ruled a good hit since the 1-ball would have been considered "driven to" the rail. As it was, I had declared the ball "frozen" before I took my shot (I think I miscued or something, so I wasn't expecting to come back into the frozen ball).
Click to expand...
 
Joe...No! The CB contacting the rail, after contact with the frozen OB, satisfied the legal hit rule. It doesn't matter if it's the same rail the OB is on, or not.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

MOJOE said:
Just to clarify, I would assume that if the ball is declared frozen then either that ball or th cue ball must contact another rail or it is a foul.

The reason I ask is I was in a tourney a while back and I called the OB frozen. The opponent drove the CB into the OB and then the CB glance off of the OB and hit the same rail the OB was on originally. NOT any other rail. I argued but the TD took his side... I thought it was a bad call since the OB was frozen, something had to come into contact with a different rail..

Please let me know if I am correct or not.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
Joe...No! The CB contacting the rail, after contact with the frozen OB, satisfied the legal hit rule. It doesn't matter if it's the same rail the OB is on, or not.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Isnt this a rule that was just changed within the last few years? I know it used to be that you had to drive a ball (even the cueball) to a different rail.

I think it was Bob that posted a video test a while back about calling hits. This was one of the few that I missed, and was told then that the rule had been changed.

In fact, if anyone has the link to that test it should be re-posted. IMHO it was a great learning tool!

Woody
 
MOJOE said:
Just to clarify, I would assume that if the ball is declared frozen then either that ball or th cue ball must contact another rail or it is a foul.

The reason I ask is I was in a tourney a while back and I called the OB frozen. The opponent drove the CB into the OB and then the CB glance off of the OB and hit the same rail the OB was on originally. NOT any other rail. I argued but the TD took his side... I thought it was a bad call since the OB was frozen, something had to come into contact with a different rail..

Please let me know if I am correct or not.
Click to expand...

Serious 9 ball Question for anyone (situation planet earth and its a called frozen ball). I don't know the correct ruling:

Intended object ball is frozen to the rail (called frozen)

Cue ball strikes frozen ball, but then strikes another (not frozen) ball along same rail as frozen ball and cue ball strikes rail.

Foul or not?
 
woody_968 said:
Isnt this a rule that was just changed within the last few years? I know it used to be that you had to drive a ball (even the cueball) to a different rail.

I think it was Bob that posted a video test a while back about calling hits. This was one of the few that I missed, and was told then that the rule had been changed.

In fact, if anyone has the link to that test it should be re-posted. IMHO it was a great learning tool!

Woody
Click to expand...

http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVB-61.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top