Help needed: Frozen balls!!

[mikepage]

Hmm, I'd still say it's illegal. You're shooting at directly to a frozen ball which is frozen to another object. For instance, you are not allowed to shoot this directly.

START(
%AE3I3%BL7P8%CE6J5%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%IL7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%PE7K8%WE7M5%XE8T7%eB3a3
)END

The arrow points the direction of the shot and it's a foul if you'd shoot this one as diagrammed.

It's not a push shot.

It's not a double hit.

What would make it a foul?

mike page
fargo

 

[mjantti]

It's not a push shot.

It's not a double hit.

What would make it a foul?

mike page
fargo

The frozen ball rule applies only with one ball frozen to the cueball. I have confirmed this from EPBF/WPA officials long ago. The rules don't literally disallow it, but the frozen ball rule applies only with one ball, you cannot push a row of frozen balls forward. If you don't take my word for it, ask any good referee or BCA/WPA official.

EDIT: I think the rule was explained to me that shooting through one ball is legal, but shooting through 2 or more balls will result to a push shot or double hit.

 

[mikepage]

The frozen ball rule applies only with one ball frozen to the cueball. I have confirmed this from EPBF/WPA officials long ago. The rules don't literally disallow it, but the frozen ball rule applies only with one ball, you cannot push a row of frozen balls forward. If you don't take my word for it, ask any good referee or BCA/WPA official.

I don't think it's a foul. I can't imagine why it would be. Bob Jewett? You listening?

mike page
fargo

 

[Donovan]

The frozen ball rule applies only with one ball frozen to the cueball. I have confirmed this from EPBF/WPA officials long ago. The rules don't literally disallow it, but the frozen ball rule applies only with one ball, you cannot push a row of frozen balls forward. If you don't take my word for it, ask any good referee or BCA/WPA official.

EDIT: I think the rule was explained to me that shooting through one ball is legal, but shooting through 2 or more balls will result to a push shot or double hit.

You know there is nothing I could find about multiple balls frozen. But the other two I discussed are legal. I don't know if it matters. The rule simply says if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball. So, I would say since that is true and there is no rule about multiple balls frozen, I would think it would still be OK. But now this one is a deduction guess. I don't know the official answer to that one.

 

[mjantti]

You know there is nothing I could find about multiple balls frozen. But the other two I discussed are legal. I don't know if it matters. The rule simply says if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball. So, I would say since that is true and there is no rule about multiple balls frozen, I would think it would still be OK. But now this one is a deduction guess. I don't know the official answer to that one.

I'm 90% positive it's a foul, but we'd surely need Bob Jewett now. Booob !!

How about putting this issue on a halt and return to it after I get official confirmation on this rule ? I'd like to confirm myself as well... I can tell that I'm not a newbie to the official rules (not APA, duh) , I've gone through an EPBF rules and refereeing instructor training course given by WPA officials just recently in which they covered the new rules.

 

[Donovan]

I'm 90% positive it's a foul, but we'd surely need Bob Jewett now. Booob !!

How about putting this issue on a halt and return to it after I get official confirmation on this rule ? I'd like to confirm myself as well... I can tell that I'm not a newbie to the official rules (not APA, duh) , I've gone through an EPBF rules and refereeing instructor training course given by WPA officials just recently in which they covered the new rules.

Sounds Great! PM me when you find out something. Thanks BRO!

 

[Tbeaux]

I'm 90% positive it's a foul, but we'd surely need Bob Jewett now. Booob !!

How about putting this issue on a halt and return to it after I get official confirmation on this rule ? I'd like to confirm myself as well... I can tell that I'm not a newbie to the official rules (not APA, duh) , I've gone through an EPBF rules and refereeing instructor training course given by WPA officials just recently in which they covered the new rules.

MJANNTI,

You're an EPBF ref? If you have time maybe you could check the last ten or so posts on the Mosconi thread. Seems Solly ran into a rules problem that could use clarification.


Deep,
When I saw the title of this thread I started to post advice to use warm water....glad I had it wrong (J/K).


Terry

 

[off_tizilt]

i recognize that blackcreek cue of yours.. did you buy it off of thecuedealer.com? just wondering cuz i wanted to buy it as well but it was sold before i could.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I don't think it's a foul. I can't imagine why it would be. Bob Jewett? You listening?

mike page
fargo

If the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, it is legal to take a normal stroke towards that ball. There is a problem if there is a second object ball close by.

As an example, suppose the cue ball is frozen to the one, and the two ball is straight ahead along that same line. If there is a few-balls separation to the two ball, and you play fast with draw straight towards the two, the one and cue ball will go out at nearly the same speed, the one will hit the two and stop, the cue ball will hit the one and stop. The re-struck one will be going nearly the same speed as the two, and the cue ball will draw back. It is a beautiful action to behold.

After you have played that shot several times, begin to move the two ball towards the one-cue frozen pair. Eventually you will stop getting the beautiful action.

What happens? You double-hit the cue ball, which has stopped upon arrival at the stopped one ball.

A clause was added to the WPA/BCA rules in about 1997(???) for such a close-by second object ball at the request of the Europeans. As I recall, the rule does not go into much detail, nor does it specifically address the situation where the second object ball is frozen to the first which is frozen to the cue ball. I would argue that by analogy or extension or cussedness, the double-frozen shot should also be permitted.

An interesting situation at 14.1 (or one pocket or 8 ball) is when the cue ball is frozen to the rack or a large cluster. Usually there are gaps in the cluster, and the special clause applies preventing you from shooting directly towards the cluster. Maybe it also applies if there are no gaps.

 

[mnShooter]

I think what you're remembering is the guideline for referees in situations when the balls are close but not frozen. A double hit is illegal, and the easiest way to judge a double hit is by the action of the cueball. The guideline is something to the effect that if the cueball goes forward more then a half a ball or a chalk width, then it must have been a double hit foul.

None of that applies here because the balls are frozen.

mike page
fargo

I have heard of this rule and I can definitely make a good hit and follow more than a half ball when the balls are within a chalks width. It's got to be the dumbest rule I've ever heard of.


I think you guys all missed the point of the initial post. He is asking if the cue ball is touching the object ball, does the object ball have to move to be a legal hit? The answer is yes. I have never seen anyone shoot a shot like this. Would make 9 ball very interesting. I cannot believe snooker uses this rule. That's stuff I would only think of if I was on drugs and hadn't slept in days.

 

[mjantti]

A clause was added to the WPA/BCA rules in about 1997(???) for such a close-by second object ball at the request of the Europeans. As I recall, the rule does not go into much detail, nor does it specifically address the situation where the second object ball is frozen to the first which is frozen to the cue ball. I would argue that by analogy or extension or cussedness, the double-frozen shot should also be permitted.

An interesting situation at 14.1 (or one pocket or 8 ball) is when the cue ball is frozen to the rack or a large cluster. Usually there are gaps in the cluster, and the special clause applies preventing you from shooting directly towards the cluster. Maybe it also applies if there are no gaps.

I trust your word on this Bob and allow this shot as legal. Hear that: I was wrong ! Wrong ! But, I think there is a point where you just cannot get a legit shot if there is a row of frozen balls with the cueball. But where does the line go when the shot is considered a push shot ? It's hard to imagine a legit shot with cueball pushing through a row of 15 frozen balls without making a foul ? I think this subject should be brought up in the WPA rules conference... well, maybe they'll change it in 2008 or something

To Tbeaux: Yes, I've gone through the training seminar hosted by EPBF and officially I could referee European Championships for instance. And in the rules section, I graduated with a highest score in the rules test among the representatives from Sweden and Norway and Finland Without the couple of nasty trick questions in the test, I would've scored the max points... grumble...

 

[mikepage]

[...]
I think you guys all missed the point of the initial post. He is asking if the cue ball is touching the object ball, does the object ball have to move to be a legal hit? [...]

I agree the thread got of track, but that question was answered in reply #6

mike page
fargo

 

[mjantti]

I agree the thread got of track, but that question was answered in reply #6

mike page
fargo

A thread that drifted only slightly off-topic ? Noooo way...

 

[CaptainJR]

yes you have to make the objectball move if they are frozen, and like i said you can hit the ball at an angle just by knicking the edge of the objectball if you don't want to have you cue jacked up in the air, as this is the only way to have a normal stroke, other then this you have to shoot a 90 degree angle so you don't foul the cueball.

Was going to let this slide, but then you said it again.

I'm sure you mean to say 45% angle. (90% would be straight up)

 

[deep]

I think you guys all missed the point of the initial post. He is asking if the cue ball is touching the object ball, does the object ball have to move to be a legal hit? The answer is yes. I have never seen anyone shoot a shot like this. Would make 9 ball very interesting. I cannot believe snooker uses this rule. That's stuff I would only think of if I was on drugs and hadn't slept in days.

Yes thats what i originally wanted to know but all the other rules concerning frozen or near frozen ball has made some very interesting reading.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

i recognize that blackcreek cue of yours.. did you buy it off of thecuedealer.com? just wondering cuz i wanted to buy it as well but it was sold before i could.

Indeed i did.

 

[Cornerman]

Whats the rule for when the cb and object are frozen like the cb and 3 are?? Do you have to shot away from the object ball like in snooker and if so would this shot have been legal??

No, you must make that 3-ball move. So, this is different than snooker.

 

[Cornerman]

I think that if the cue ball does anything other than what it would do if they were seperated a little, then it's a push. I don't know the technical ruling, but someone will.

Frozen ball thread by Colin Colenso

For some reason, this shot that comes up more often than many other shots is confused by most players.

If you were to poll 100 players, 99.5 would be wrong on the ruling, a rule that has been in the BCA rulebook for decades now. Even my 1977 BCA rulebook is explicit about this shot.

If the balls are frozen together, you may shoot with any normal stroke directly at the balls.

If the balls aren't frozen together, you must take care to not double hit the cue ball. If the balls aren't frozen together, and you shoot directly at the object ball and the cueball goes flying forward, you are 99.99999999999999999999999999% assured to have DOUBLE HIT the cueball. That is a foul.

For some reason (I have my theory), a lot of people (even professional players) have mistakenly called this a push shot foul. It's not. A push shot has it's own definition. But, because people see this illegal shot in games like 14.1 and one-pocket, where a player pushes (like a push broom) the cueball when it's frozen to an object ball, they have associated this with the the illegal double hit as described above. It's not the same thing, folks. Read your rulebook. A push shot describes an illegal stroke on the cueball. It has nothing to do with any object ball, though most illegal push shots involve an object ball.

There is a bizarre guideline in the BCA rulebook concerning just how far apart the cue ball and object ball have to be, and how far forward the cueball can go after the shot. But, it's a guideline that needs an overhaul, as again, out of 100 players polled, 99 will screw up the guideline as well.

Bottom line: frozen balls, you can shoot directly at them. Separated balls, shooting directly at them is a DOUBLE HIT waiting to happen.

Fred

 

[poolboy17]

For some reason, this shot that comes up more often than many other shots is confused by most players.

If you were to poll 100 players, 99.5 would be wrong on the ruling, a rule that has been in the BCA rulebook for decades now. Even my 1977 BCA rulebook is explicit about this shot.

If the balls are frozen together, you may shoot with any normal stroke directly at the balls.

If the balls aren't frozen together, you must take care to not double hit the cue ball. If the balls aren't frozen together, and you shoot directly at the object ball and the cueball goes flying forward, you are 99.99999999999999999999999999% assured to have DOUBLE HIT the cueball. That is a foul.

For some reason (I have my theory), a lot of people (even professional players) have mistakenly called this a push shot foul. It's not. A push shot has it's own definition. But, because people see this illegal shot in games like 14.1 and one-pocket, where a player pushes (like a push broom) the cueball when it's frozen to an object ball, they have associated this with the the illegal double hit as described above. It's not the same thing, folks. Read your rulebook. A push shot describes an illegal stroke on the cueball. It has nothing to do with any object ball, though most illegal push shots involve an object ball.

There is a bizarre guideline in the BCA rulebook concerning just how far apart the cue ball and object ball have to be, and how far forward the cueball can go after the shot. But, it's a guideline that needs an overhaul, as again, out of 100 players polled, 99 will screw up the guideline as well.

Bottom line: frozen balls, you can shoot directly at them. Separated balls, shooting directly at them is a DOUBLE HIT waiting to happen.

Fred

This is a pretty good explanation. The only thing I would add is that it doesn't make a difference how far apart the cueball and object ball are (unless frozen). Granted, the closer together they are the more likely a foul will occur. If they're dead frozen...you may shoot through it with a "normal forward stroke." However, if they are not frozen...the only rule is - you cannot commit a cueball foul by double hitting or pushing the cueball. Even if you're at a 45 degree angle, a foul can occur. A lot of shooters think if they elevate to a 45 degree angle and draw it that they can get out of a double hit. Possibly they can but the closer the cueball is to the object ball...the greater the likely hood that your tip or ferrule will double hit the cueball.

Don't get caught up in the "guideline". It merely attempts to explain what a double hit might look like. The cueball can be double hit if the object ball is very close or a couple of inches away.

Many people believe (because of the guideline) that the cueball cannot ever pass through the center of the object ball. This is flat wrong! You can...as long as you don't double hit the cueball. I have seen many players execute VERY close hits without committing a foul. Then again, I've seen players double hit the cueball when the object ball was three inches away.

 

[Donovan]

I'm 90% positive it's a foul, but we'd surely need Bob Jewett now. Booob !!

How about putting this issue on a halt and return to it after I get official confirmation on this rule ? I'd like to confirm myself as well... I can tell that I'm not a newbie to the official rules (not APA, duh) , I've gone through an EPBF rules and refereeing instructor training course given by WPA officials just recently in which they covered the new rules.

I was gone when Bob Jewet came in. However it was a great thread and I'm glad we got those answers. Thanks for playing nice. You just gotta love the comaraderie in here!

 

[mikepage]

I was gone when Bob Jewet came in. However it was a great thread and I'm glad we got those answers. Thanks for playing nice. You just gotta love the comaraderie in here!

I'm 90% positive it's a foul, but we'd surely need Bob Jewett now. Booob !!

After Mjantti called Mr. Jewett a Booob, I thought for sure it'd go down hill from there...

mike page
fargo