Frozen Cueball to object ball

[KMRUNOUT]

Once again, it is commonplace in this country to ignore WPA/BCA rules! There are as many different sets of rules as there are tournaments, each one based on what the promoter wants and the tournament director agrees to. This specific rule in question is pretty much only used in BCA sanctioned amateur events and the rare WPA event held on these shores. Even then, that does not mean the promoter has to abide by them if he so chooses.

I got into "why" I didn't like this rule on my earlier posts on this thread. Suffice to say that allowing such shots opens the door to some pretty crazy stuff taking place on the table. You might be surprised what a skilled player can do if he is allowed to shoot directly through a frozen ball. If we ever meet in person I will be glad to show you just one shot that would be an eye opener, and you wouldn't be able to tell me if I made a good hit or not.

Ok. I've played in many different tournaments including national events for APA and BCA leagues, Joss tour and Turning Stone, and this last Derby City 9 ball. I've never played in a tourney that did not allow shooting straight thru a frozen ball. Perhaps times have changed (as they always and inevitably will do).

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[jay helfert]

Only high-speed/slow-mo video examination could finally settle it. Whether the tip gets ‘trapped’ for an extended time really isn’t the issue, since the manner of stroke & number of tip contacts are what the rules specify (?). If the pack balls are all frozen to each other, then a truly legal ‘stroke’ (not ‘push’) with a loose grip should cause all contacting balls to move in unison, while the cue rebounds (?). Too firm a grip might technically be construed as a ‘push’, since the total mass of frozen pack balls would constitute unusually excessive resistance. Some might elect to jack up when frozen if calling a dead combo hidden in the pack, just to spare the referee from controversy, though positioning/shape circumstances might dictate each individual situation (?)

That's all we need now, cameras on every table watching all shots, making sure no one pushes a ball or they made a "legal" hit. Of course, we will also need a referee on each table who can review the shot in slow motion (like we see now in basketball games) to make sure he's made the correct call. Really simple and a great solution to a problem that never should have happened. Genius at work!

Better yet, all referees will now carry a hand held phone and record each shot, and be able to stop play and review any shot that is questionable, be it a push or legal. Now we're really getting somewhere!

 

[Meucciplayer]

Better yet, all referees will now carry a hand held phone and record each shot, and be able to stop play and review any shot that is questionable, be it a push or legal. Now we're really getting somewhere!

Yep, a ref constantly recording is all I need. But - hold it. We don't have such a lot of qualified refs. They might rewind the video and find out they still don't have a clue.

Got a better idea. Record the game by your regular nit, send it online to India or someplace where you can hire cheap refs and get your decision straight from Bombay. Great. The future is here.

 

[jay helfert]

Yep, a ref constantly recording is all I need. But - hold it. We don't have such a lot of qualified refs. They might rewind the video and find out they still don't have a clue.

Got a better idea. Record the game by your regular nit, send it online to India or someplace where you can hire cheap refs and get your decision straight from Bombay. Great. The future is here.

You mean the way they do it now with our credit cards. You have a question about your bill and you're routed to someone in India or the Philippines. Great system we have, anything to save money. The big companies prefer we handle it ourselves online first and only second by phone where we have to wind our way through a series of prompts and messages until we find something that remotely sounds like the information we're seeking. After we are told to wait for the next available operator, we are put on hold for ten to thirty minutes (elevator music a big plus!) until a human being can be found to talk to us. We are next read a speech about what they will be doing during our call, and the list of questions then begins to 'verify' you are who you say you are.

After they ascertain what you need to find out about, you are then told they will connect with you with the correct department and the whole process begins all over again. Does any of this sound familiar?

 

[Meucciplayer]

Actually, the first ones to outsource to India etc. were the software companies. At least those are the ones I first noticed. Others followed.

I also really appreciate the fully-automated help desks. As you said above, dial the number. Listen to "great music" for eons. Dial in lots of numbers for answers to intelligent questions, totally not applicable to your situation. Better yet, use the choice to "say" the answers. With the computer misunderstanding you and throwing you back into some other or the same routine. Listen to the tape telling you that you are number 256 in line to talk to a real person. And then the tape tells you it is only going to be a short while from now. You'll listen to that for at least 15 to 30 minutes, you hear a click, excitement goes to a level never known before - and you are cut out because of some glitch. Start again - good luck

Hell, that would be great for pool games. You can go outside for a smoke - better take more than one pack of cigarettes or a huge cigar with you. You can go have dinner during the wait. Or maybe a healthy nap?

Before I get too enthusiastic about the brave new world and Big Brother watching me I'll get outta here

 

[Nostroke]

You mean the way they do it now with our credit cards. You have a question about your bill and you're routed to someone in India or the Philippines. Great system we have, anything to save money. The big companies prefer we handle it ourselves online first and only second by phone where we have to wind our way through a series of prompts and messages until we find something that remotely sounds like the information we're seeking. After we are told to wait for the next available operator, we are put on hold for ten to thirty minutes (elevator music a big plus!) until a human being can be found to talk to us. We are next read a speech about what they will be doing during our call, and the list of questions then begins to 'verify' you are who you say you are.

After they ascertain what you need to find out about, you are then told they will connect with you with the correct department and the whole process begins all over again. Does any of this sound familiar?

Like a weekly occurrence. I once made a girl cry by yelling things like " DO YOU WANT TO HELP ME OR KEEP ASKING ME QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PROBLEM!!!??? " i felt bad when she started crying but it is near impossible for me to remain calm through all that shit!

 

[Pete]

Ok. I've played in many different tournaments including national events for APA and BCA leagues, Joss tour and Turning Stone, and this last Derby City 9 ball. I've never played in a tourney that did not allow shooting straight thru a frozen ball. Perhaps times have changed (as they always and inevitably will do).

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Don't play at Max's. That's where my team cap said he would like to see it. So some of you great guys sent me links to the rule for him.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Two other examples from history....

Here is the PBA rule (9 ball) from 1988. That was the men's professional tour organization at the time.

If the cue ball is touching the lowest numbered ball prior to the
shot, the player may shoot towards it, providing that his cue stick strikes
rather than pushes the cue ball.
​

I was a referee for the 1980 World Championships (14.1) at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. The rule there was that if the referee could not see a second distinct hit on a close shot, it was assumed no foul occurred. Since you can't actually see a second hit on a frozen ball (because there is no second hit) shooting at frozen balls was legal.

I didn't really agree with the "no-see, no-happen" rule since it is generally not possible to see the second hit, but it is possible to tell from the action of the cue ball whether one occurred. But I was not making the rules, so I judged shots by the locally-made-up rule.

In one match Irving Crane had a thin cut along the cushion and the cue ball was very close to the object ball and the cushion. It is very hard to avoid the second hit on the cue ball after it comes back off the cushion.

Crane shot the shot, there was a nasty sound and the cue ball left the area at about a 45-degree angle from the rail. Since I could not see a second hit, I said "39". His opponent, Richie Florence, was steamed. Both players knew two hits had occurred. There was no foul by the rules of that tournament.

 

[paaca]

As Bob said above, in snooker you can shoot away from the frozen OB and it's counted as a "hit" - in pool it's not. What is the minimum requirement for getting a "hit" on a frozen OB in pool? I play that the OB must visibly move (i.e., the CB must be aimed slightly toward the OB compared with the tangent line).

Since I only play snooker I need to add to what Bob said. He said you can play away from te object ball. In fact, you MUST shoot away from the object ball because if the object ball moves you played a push shot which is a foul.

 

[Nostroke]

As Bob said above, in snooker you can shoot away from the frozen OB and it's counted as a "hit" - in pool it's not. What is the minimum requirement for getting a "hit" on a frozen OB in pool? I play that the OB must visibly move (i.e., the CB must be aimed slightly toward the OB compared with the tangent line).

Since I only play snooker I need to add to what Bob said. He said you can play away from te object ball. In fact, you MUST shoot away from the object ball because if the object ball moves you played a push shot which is a foul.

Snooker essentially agrees with my position that it is impossible not to push and or double hit a frozen ball. Pool says may as well swing away as everything is a foul seeing as hitting an OB is a must in pool-Not sure about the rule on that for the rest of snooker.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... In fact, you MUST shoot away from the object ball because if the object ball moves you played a push shot which is a foul.

And you have to be careful because the definition of "push shot" at pool is very different from a "push shot" at snooker.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Snooker essentially agrees with my position that it is impossible not to push and or double hit a frozen ball. Pool says may as well swing away as everything is a foul seeing as hitting an OB is a must in pool-Not sure about the rule on that for the rest of snooker.

See my comment above about the difference in the definitions in the two games. Those Brits have a different word for everything.

High speed camera work shows there is no double hit on a frozen ball.

 

[DynoDan]

Only high-speed/slow-mo video examination could finally settle it. Whether the tip gets ‘trapped’ for an extended time really isn’t the issue, since the manner of stroke & number of tip contacts are what the rules specify (?). If the pack balls are all frozen to each other, then a truly legal ‘stroke’ (not ‘push’) with a loose grip should cause all contacting balls to move in unison, while the cue rebounds (?). Too firm a grip might technically be construed as a ‘push’, since the total mass of frozen pack balls would constitute unusually excessive resistance. Some might elect to jack up when frozen if calling a dead combo hidden in the pack, just to spare the referee from controversy, though positioning/shape circumstances might dictate each individual situation (?)

Turns out, issue is moot re: shooting directly into a CB frozen to the pack in 14.1. Experimentation demonstrates result is entirely unpredictable, compared to hitting a dead combo from distance. If such a rare situation should occur in future, I would likely elect to shoot away safe.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Snooker essentially agrees with my position that it is impossible not to push and or double hit a frozen ball.

As Bob says, the definition of "push" is different in snooker vs. in pool, so snooker can't "agree with your position" regarding pool.

pj
chgo

 

[Protractor]

One of the coolest shots occurs when ,with frozen CB, shooter shoots thru/pushes thru the CB with elevated butt of cue, and the CB travels a desired distance and stops...a very useful shot for safety ploys. I assume this is totally legal? Some guys can control the distance the CB travels to a "t".

That is the way I typically shoot a frozen CB/OB anyways. Unless it is pointed at an open pocket it is going to be a safety and in my experience it's rarely the case that CB following the OB gets you something useful and is more difficult to control. If a an open pocket is slightly off line I'll sometimes use left or right to spin it in.

Regarding the push shot consideration, all we have around here is a couple amateur leagues and the one that has rules that aren't made up (VNEA) dictates that frozen OB/CB must be shot at an angle of 45 deg or greater relative to the axis of the pair. My take is that they force this to avoid contention over whether it was a push or not but it forces me to elevate whether I want to or not.

 

[kevoka]

That's all we need now, cameras on every table watching all shots, making sure no one pushes a ball or they made a "legal" hit. Of course, we will also need a referee on each table who can review the shot in slow motion (like we see now in basketball games) to make sure he's made the correct call. Really simple and a great solution to a problem that never should have happened. Genius at work!

Better yet is to not go this route, and wait for all the other sports to become so dam boring, with everyone waiting around for the reviewing process to take 10 minutes, they gravitate back to pool as the most exciting event to watch.

:grin-square:

 

[dr_dave]

Object ball frozen to the rail one diamond away from the corner pocket. Cue ball frozen to the object ball at a 45-60 degree angle. I can shoot the object ball straight into the corner pocket with one clean stroke.

Jay,

It sounds like you are describing the shot in the following video:

HSV B.28 - Frozen-ball kiss, miscue, and push shots and fouls

Is that the one? If it is, that is a foul. Even worse, it is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul due to the intentional miscue. For more info, see:

miscue fouls resource page

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Call it what you want, but it will take a very good referee to call it a foul. :smile:
I'd be glad to show you how to make this shot sometime and couple of other "legal" shots that you'd enjoy. How about shooting directly through a frozen object ball to make (or even bank) a second object ball? There is a way to aim properly to make this shot.

I assume you’re talking about Bob Jewett’s “two times fuller” method. Yes, it’s pretty accurate when hit right.

For those interested, this system is described and demonstrated (along with other related systems) here:

Frozen Ball Aiming Systems in Pool

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

And you have to be careful because the definition of "push shot" at pool is very different from a "push shot" at snooker.

For those interested in examples of illegal "push" shots in pool, several good videos are available here:

push shot foul resource page

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[jay helfert]

Jay,

It sounds like you are describing the shot in the following video:

HSV B.28 - Frozen-ball kiss, miscue, and push shots and fouls

Is that the one? If it is, that is a foul. Even worse, it is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul due to the intentional miscue. For more info, see:

miscue fouls resource page

Regards,
Dave

Thanks Dave, but that's not it. I can make the one ball shooting at it and not away from it. Yes, it's a push, but a hard one to see for an inexperienced ref. You would spot it and so would Bob Jewett, but many people would be left scratching their heads. I know because I've showed it to many people already.