Legal shot with frozen CB-OB. Where's the rule, please?

VTEC John

Active member
Some players got in an argument over this at my local room today. Cue ball is frozen to another ball. The shooter intends to make a legal shot by driving the cue ball to a rail. A couple of players insisted that one can simply shoot the cue ball directly away from the OB to a rail for a legal shot. In Dr. Dave's video FOULS IN POOL at the top of this forum (10:29 in), he makes it clear that the frozen OB must move in addition to the CB touching a rail. All good. My question is: can anyone direct me to the BCA, or other, rule that applies to this situation and backs up Dr. Dave?
 
Some players got in an argument over this at my local room today. Cue ball is frozen to another ball. The shooter intends to make a legal shot by driving the cue ball to a rail. A couple of players insisted that one can simply shoot the cue ball directly away from the OB to a rail for a legal shot. In Dr. Dave's video FOULS IN POOL at the top of this forum (10:29 in), he makes it clear that the frozen OB must move in addition to the CB touching a rail. All good. My question is: can anyone direct me to the BCA, or other, rule that applies to this situation and backs up Dr. Dave?
In snooker, if they are frozen, it is a legal hit to hit away from the object ball, but not in any pool game. Not sure where to find this in the rulebook, but everybody knows this.
 
Sorry can't direct you to confirm in the bca rulebook but it seems a given that the object ball should move.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Some players got in an argument over this at my local room today. Cue ball is frozen to another ball. The shooter intends to make a legal shot by driving the cue ball to a rail. A couple of players insisted that one can simply shoot the cue ball directly away from the OB to a rail for a legal shot. In Dr. Dave's video FOULS IN POOL at the top of this forum (10:29 in), he makes it clear that the frozen OB must move in addition to the CB touching a rail. All good. My question is: can anyone direct me to the BCA, or other, rule that applies to this situation and backs up Dr. Dave?
In snooker, if they are frozen, it is a legal hit to hit away from the object ball, but not in any pool game. Not sure where to find this in the rulebook, but everybody knows this.



Page 31.

Section 1. Paragraph 20.5
 
Sorry can't direct you to confirm in the bca rulebook but it seems a given that the object ball should move.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Right? If balls are frozen, it must be possible to shoot away from it it some direction.

Therefore, the 'strick ball' requirement can only occur if there is some gawdam movement of that ball!
 
So the CSI rule says you don’t get contact by shooting away from the OB. The WPA rule says you get contact if the OB moves. Taken together, they back up exactly what Dr. Dave says. Thanks for the responses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Try that 'shoot away/no contact' shit where i play and you may end up in the parking lot. Pool ain't snooker thankfully.
I agree….I’ve played many snooker players at pool….I’ve said that pool doesn’t need a special rule about contacting a froze ball……snooker does because you don’t have to hit the damn ball.
 
OK so when a cue ball and object ball are frozen then there is existing contact between the balls at that point- but that is not the same as ball contact made during the execution of a shot- which is required for shot leglity- whether the shot is a safety attempt or a ball pocketing attempt.
So in the poster's example of a safety attempt with frozen CB and OB- there must be proof of actual renewed contact between the CB and OB to begin the legal safety attempt- that would be in the form of some confirmed OB movement during the shot itself. This is just how I would judge the safety attempt in terms of ball contact prior to rail contact.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top