Frozen Ball Ruling

The way that I understand this question is

The one ball is frozen to the rail. I shoot at the 2 ball. The CB hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball does not hit the rail and is not pocketed but the CB hits the one ball and not a rail directly. Is this a legal shot?

Or I shoot at the 2 ball. The 2 ball hits the one ball that is frozen to the rail. The CB stops dead after contact with the 2 ball and does not hit a rail. Is this a legal shot since the 2 ball did not hit the rail directly?
 
TheBook said:
The way that I understand this question is

The one ball is frozen to the rail. I shoot at the 2 ball. The CB hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball does not hit the rail and is not pocketed but the CB hits the one ball and not a rail directly. Is this a legal shot?

Or I shoot at the 2 ball. The 2 ball hits the one ball that is frozen to the rail. The CB stops dead after contact with the 2 ball and does not hit a rail. Is this a legal shot since the 2 ball did not hit the rail directly?
Click to expand...

You are understanding the question perfectly! The consensus is that it's a foul (since no ball hit a rail after contact and a ball frozen to a rail is not considered part of the rail). :p
 
I don't think the ruling is by concensus. I believe Scott Leeis correct. If the ball is near the rail it is not considered on the rail unless it was declared on the rail before the shot. Therefore if the cue ball hits that ball it would be considered legal hit.
 
kaznj said:
I don't think the ruling is by concensus. I believe Scott Leeis correct. If the ball is near the rail it is not considered on the rail unless it was declared on the rail before the shot. Therefore if the cue ball hits that ball it would be considered legal hit.
Click to expand...
Correct. By Rule:

The object ball is frozen to a rail and the player is contemplating playing a "safety." In order for the "frozen ball" rule to be in effect, the opponent
must declare the ball frozen and the player should verify. Once it is agreed the ball is frozen the player must drive the object ball to another rail (of
course, it could hit another ball, which in turn hits a rail) or drive the cue ball to a rail after it touches the object ball. If the latter method of safety is chosen the player should be sure to obviously strike the object ball first. If the cue ball strikes the rail first or appears to hit both the rail and ball
simultaneously, it is a foul unless either the cue ball or object ball went to some other rail.

Since the 1 ball is not the obvious object ball, the shooter did not commit a foul as the cue ball contacted the obvious object ball and drove into the 1 ball. As the 1 ball was not declared as "frozen" then the hit is ultimately legal and play continues without a foul being called. In order for a foul to be called, the determination of frozen would have to be declared for not only the object ball but also every other ball along the cue balls possible/intended path.

So by rule, this is a good hit. Ethically, it is not a good hit.

-saige-

P.S. --> Noticed another question raised during the course of my thread trolling concerning the cue ball contacting the same rail as the declared frozen object ball. The rule states that the cue ball must simply contact "a" rail (any rail) whereas the frozen ball must contact "another" rail (any rail that the object ball was not originally frozen to).
 
Last edited:
The call of the OP is a foul.

The call would remain a foul even if the CB hits the frozen 1 ball, and the 1 ball leaves the rail, hits the CB again and is driven back to the same rail from which it started.

A frozen ball must be driven to a different rail than the one on which it started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top