Frozen cue ball to object ball question

[Cuedup]

You can't "make" contact when the balls are already in contact.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

To void the foul stigma on a frozen cue ball, the CB and OB must be considered a single entity.

Nonsense. They're "considered" just what they are: two balls in contact.

"Behaving like" a single ball (both leaving the tip together) isn't the same as being "considered a single ball".

pj
chgo

 

[hang-the-9]

Even though it was frozen with cue ball?

A long time ago, I think there was a rule that shooting away from a frozen ball was considered a good contact, since they were touching already. I'm sure Mr Jewett would remember this rule better. In pool games at least, maybe it was a specific 14.1 rule? Not sure how this works in snooker either.

 

[straightline]

Nonsense. They're "considered" just what they are: two balls in contact.

"Behaving like" a single ball (both leaving the tip together) isn't the same as being "considered a single ball".

pj
chgo

In normal play there is nothing to consider. Taken in context of the frozen ball exceptions, the rule is full of holes. As I recall, the rule has flip flopped a couple times over the years too.

 

[Floydbeth]

Ok so now I’m confused

 

[Cuedup]

The rule most people first learn about playing pool is you must hit your object ball.

But that doesn't apply when the balls are frozen.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The rule most people first learn about playing pool is you must hit your object ball.

But that doesn't apply when the balls are frozen.

Yes. The rule is that if you make the frozen object ball move by shooting the cue ball at least partly into it, then you get credit for hitting it, even though someone could argue that you haven't exactly hit it.

 

[Floydbeth]

Ok thanks , so the object ball has to move even though it is frozen to cue ball and a ball must hit a rail for it to be a legal shot

 

[Bob Jewett]

Ok thanks , so the object ball has to move even though it is frozen to cue ball and a ball must hit a rail for it to be a legal shot

Yes.

 

[pt109]

A small nit here PT.... It's a hit only if it is to the advantage of the player. Shooting away from black when on reds is not a foul.

And to complete the idea.... At carom billiards what happens with a frozen ball depends on the game. You are never allowed to shoot into a frozen ball and you are not even allowed to shoot into a frozen rail. In the case of the cue ball frozen to an object ball, what happens depends on the game. At 3-cushion, the two balls are spotted at the shooter's option. At another form, you can either shoot away or have all three balls spotted, and at another form all three balls are spotted without option.

Didn’t know that about the carom rules….didn’t know it could be the player’s option.
Yeah, I failed to mention the hit/no hit situation…..it was a gaff bet years ago..freeze a cue ball to a red ball…freeze a black ball in front of another red ball…dead-in combo….bet on making a red…shoot the combo.

 

[Sheldon]

The other team captain was so sure it wasn’t a
Foul , not worth fighting about

I wish more people had this attitude. Good for you.
I'm all for sticking up for the rules, etc. but sometimes it's just better to let it go!

 

[skogstokig]

What Bob said. Shooting "away" is a snooker rule. You would be amazed what they call a push or double hit.

there is a bigger discussion on the opposite actually, how often snooker players get away with push shots

 

[Bob Jewett]

there is a bigger discussion on the opposite actually, how often snooker players get away with push shots

Is there a video of some of the problem shots that seem to have been uncalled push shots?

(To complicate matters, the definition of a push shot at snooker is different from the definition at pool.)