Object Ball Frozen to Rail Rule

[hang-the-9]

I was recently involved in a discussion about the Object Ball Frozen to a Rail rule and it got me thinking. Perhaps it's because I mostly play 9ball and 8ball but even when I play other games like 14.1, when an object ball is declared frozen, I never feel like my choices are suddenly limited and I never ever foul, nor do I see others foul. Honestly, I've been playing the game a long time and I can count on one hand how many times declaring a ball frozen to the rail changed anything.

To me, this results in a big waste of time. The opponent says it's frozen. The shooter disagrees. They get a ref. The ref says it's frozen and then the shooter does nearly the exact same thing they were going to do before, except they make a minor adjustment to ensure it's legal.

In fact, I would venture to say, the rule is far more applicable on the novice/intermediate level. I rarely see pros or high level amateurs jumping out of their chairs to say balls are frozen. It's nearly always done on the novice/intermediate level and most of the times it results in a foul, it's because a novice either didn't understand the rule or didn't know enough to avoid it.

If you think this rule has real value, please explain. I'm happy to be wrong here but I just think it's a silly "gotcha" moment.

I would not change the rule unless we remove the rule that a ball has to hit a cushion after a shot like snooker, the two rules are very much linked. A ball has to strike a rail for a legal hit. If it's already on the rail there is no motion on it to hit a rail, so it's the same thing as if the ball never reached that rail after a hit. I think it adds some more strategy and difficulty to the game on how to handle frozen ball shots, especially when kicking as you can easily go off the rail first and fail to make a legal hit. This is not that hard of a situation and is not that common that it is hard to work around. Considering all the time wasters that exist in the game, like racking, this is a very small thing. There are lots of other close call areas just as difficult to referee, double hits with small gaps between the cue ball and object ball for example, and we would not want to remove everything that needs some skill to play and judge would we?

One of the rare times I would disagree with Bob about minimizing the rules, I think we need to have some complexity in the rules to make the game a challenge to play, up to the point of being silly about it of course. I actually liked the old rule were you can play safe to a rail only a certain amount of times, it made safety play a bit more of a challenge and added some skill and variety to the shots.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would not change the rule unless we remove the rule that a ball has to hit a cushion after a shot like snooker the two are very much linked. A ball has to strike a rail for a legal hit. If it's already on the rail there is no motion on it to hit a rail, so it's the same thing as if the ball never reached that rail after a hit. I think it adds some more strategy and difficulty to the game on how to handle frozen ball shots.

My proposal would be to still require rail contact but to consider driving a frozen ball into the cushion as rail contact.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

As an example argument, this one has been mentioned a couple of times as actually happening:

Your opponent calls the 7 ball frozen at one pocket. You play off some other ball. Your opponent rolls up onto the 7. "Foul, spot a ball." "Not a foul." "Wasn't that called frozen?!?" "No, you didn't call it frozen. That was a new shot. It has to be called for each shot."

Also, there's shooting quickly before any call can be made. And deciding whether one skinny thread touching from the nose of the cushion constitutes being frozen.

At 14.1 the "two safes on the same close-to-the-cushion ball" rule has gone away. It was immensely complicated and most people didn't understand it.

I'm a rules minimalist for the most part -- sort of a libertarian approach to the game. If the action does not cause significant problems, do not make a rule against it. Another example is using your cue stick to measure things. Some rule sets have a rule against that. The player does not get any unfair benefit from it so don't make a rule against it.

I was once refereeing an APA match between two low ranked players in 8ball. There were a couple balls frozen to the rail. The opponent called all of them frozen, had me come over to confirm, and then the shooter went for something else, keeping the balls frozen. Because it was APA and I wanted to avoid future problems, I informed them that the declaration needed to occur before every shot. He had to ensure the shooter was aware in order for a foul to be called. It got ridiculous. Every shot, the shooter would yell, "10 is frozen, 12 is frozen, 14 is frozen". In the end, no foul was ever called.

 

[hang-the-9]

My proposal would be to still require rail contact but to consider driving a frozen ball into the cushion as rail contact.

A frozen ball is already touching the cushion, even if you don't shoot at it. Which to me makes sense that some other ball has to be moved to hit a cushion or this ball to another cushion for it to have the motion for a legal hit.

Here is a similar example as to the logic in my head. When you call a push out, you can't just say it and walk away form the table, you actually have to strike the ball legally. Why? If the rules of hitting a legal ball or a cushion are suspended, why can't you just walk away and hand over the table as is? It's to make the shot a skill shot not just a way to get around the rules with in a simple way. Or another example, where the ball is on the table using the edge or the base (usually when it comes to deciding if it's over the line or not). If people say it's the edge, my argument there is a ball hanging in the pocket, the ball edge is over the hole, so if they say the edge is the placement of the ball then if I hang up a ball in the pocket with the edge over the hole, that ball is actually a made ball and I can just drop it in the hole. The rail contact on a frozen ball to me makes sense in both ways, one rule supports the other and makes the shot a challenge vs just tapping it.

In this case we have a requirement of one rule that after contact the ball has to hit a rail (for those that fail to pocket a ball of course). A ball ON the rail can't hit that rail since it's already on it. You can't fall off a cliff if you are already at the bottom of it, you would need to find a second cliff to fall off.

 

[hang-the-9]

I was once refereeing an APA match between two low ranked players in 8ball. There were a couple balls frozen to the rail. The opponent called all of them frozen, had me come over to confirm, and then the shooter went for something else, keeping the balls frozen. Because it was APA and I wanted to avoid future problems, I informed them that the declaration needed to occur before every shot. He had to ensure the shooter was aware in order for a foul to be called. It got ridiculous. Every shot, the shooter would yell, "10 is frozen, 12 is frozen, 14 is frozen". In the end, no foul was ever called.

So the rule that each shot the balls have to be checked makes sense since during the shots the rails are moved and the balls may drift from the rail. There was a straight pool match where someone scratched on the break without touching the stack. The ref went to re-rack with the spotted ball and one of the players told him that is not the rule, you just place the spotted ball in the rack without a re-rack since the racking was completed and the spotted ball and the rack may have shifted during play.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The ref went to re-rack with the spotted ball and one of the players told him that is not the rule, you just place the spotted ball in the rack without a re-rack since the racking was completed.

That rule has changed. The ref may rerack now. The point is to do what is needed to make a solid rack.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

And deciding whether one skinny thread touching from the nose of the cushion constitutes being frozen.

I cannot tell you how many arguments have occurred over this. Once you start breaking out flashlights and magnifying glasses (which has happened), what constitutes "frozen" becomes problematic. Do threads count? If not, almost nothing is frozen.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I have to say, I find the poll results fascinating. I know it's only 14 votes but 100% believe this rule is important (I haven't voted). Pretty evident that Bob Jewett and I are in the minority here and although that doesn't surprise me, I guess I'm a little surprised by how overwhelming the numbers are.

 

[easy-e]

I have to say, I find the poll results fascinating. I know it's only 14 votes but 100% believe this rule is important (I haven't voted). Pretty evident that Bob Jewett and I are in the minority here and although that doesn't surprise me, I guess I'm a little surprised by how overwhelming the numbers are.

I agree with you and Bob.

 

[BRussell]

I've seen a few fouls from not hitting a (-nother) rail when the ball is frozen, but not a lot. But I also haven't seen many arguments about it. I really don't think I've ever seen an actual heated argument about it, more like a light-hearted "I saw some light!" and then the other guy looks too and then it's over.

I don't have a problem with the rule, but I do like Bob Jewett's idea that hitting a frozen ball would count as a rail. Then it just wouldn't matter if there's a tiny gap or no gap.

I'm curious Jude - do you feel the same way about the rules on cue ball frozen to object ball? Those double hit rules cause way more fouls that inexperienced players don't understand, IMO. People double hit all the time when the balls are close together, but don't realize it or don't believe they've fouled. The balls being frozen together is a much less common subset of those problems, but really changes how you can play it to avoid arguments.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I've seen a few fouls from not hitting a (-nother) rail when the ball is frozen, but not a lot. But I also haven't seen many arguments about it. I really don't think I've ever seen an actual heated argument about it, more like a light-hearted "I saw some light!" and then the other guy looks too and then it's over.

I don't have a problem with the rule, but I do like Bob Jewett's idea that hitting a frozen ball would count as a rail. Then it just wouldn't matter if there's a tiny gap or no gap.

I'm curious Jude - do you feel the same way about the rules on cue ball frozen to object ball? Those double hit rules cause way more fouls that inexperienced players don't understand, IMO. People double hit all the time when the balls are close together, but don't realize it or don't believe they've fouled. The balls being frozen together is a much less common subset of those problems, but really changes how you can play it to avoid arguments.

Cue balls frozen to object balls are an entirely different story. That's double-hit stuff and there are things that can only happen if you double-hit OR push-through the cue ball. I like the current rule where if it's frozen, you can do anything, but any noticeable gap means the exception is not in play. I know this is also a big trap for novices but I'm a firm believer in clean play. If they're frozen, you're awarded an exception. If they're not, you have to play it clean.

 

[justnum]

An alternative proposal is to change table conditions to avoid a ball-rail freeze

cheap fix put some hard surface under the cushion to prevent that ball rail freeze position.

 

[gregcantrall]

I do find it interesting though that, to your point, there is no rail requirement AND if the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, that counts as contact.

Upon further review.....I will go vote. The touching ball scenario in snooker is interesting. While foreign it’s understandable. So a similar treatment of a ball touching a rail in pool would work for me.

 

[hang-the-9]

An alternative proposal is to change table conditions to avoid a ball-rail freeze

cheap fix put some hard surface under the cushion to prevent that ball rail freeze position.

Ah, no, we won't be doing that.

 

[hang-the-9]

Cue balls frozen to object balls are an entirely different story. That's double-hit stuff and there are things that can only happen if you double-hit OR push-through the cue ball. I like the current rule where if it's frozen, you can do anything, but any noticeable gap means the exception is not in play. I know this is also a big trap for novices but I'm a firm believer in clean play. If they're frozen, you're awarded an exception. If they're not, you have to play it clean.

You technically can't just do anything if they are frozen, you can still foul with a push on the cueball with a too long of a contact, but you can stroke though them in a normal forward motion legally since the ball won't bounce back to hit the tip twice. You still can't place the cue tip on the ball and shove them forward together like you are herding them even if they are frozen.

Frozen cueball and object ball is another side of this rule, at least I think so. If a ball is on the rail and it's OK to just tap it and have it be legal, should in pool it also be legal to shoot away from a frozen ball and consider it a good contact like in snooker? The balls are already touching in both instances, so if one is OK, the other should also be. I personally would not want to see either of those rules changed, but if you change one, then it is only logical both can, and should, be.

Lets say you have a cueball frozen to the 1 and the 9 ball is hanging in a pocket, in this new rule set you can just shoot away from the 1 because they are touching, you have a legal hit, and make the 9 directly with the cueball. And if this frozen ball rule is not changed, then the frozen cushion rule should not be since the idea behind each is the same, namely if it's touching, it's not considered for the rail or ball contact.

Going in this direction will end up with pool and snooker contact rules be pretty much identical, which in pool may cause issues due to the smaller table, easier pockets and thus less difficulty in shot situations and escaping safeties or playing safeties, or even normal shots.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I've seen a few fouls from not hitting a (-nother) rail when the ball is frozen, but not a lot. But I also haven't seen many arguments about it. I really don't think I've ever seen an actual heated argument about it, more like a light-hearted "I saw some light!" and then the other guy looks too and then it's over.

I just want to add, there are two types of arguments to be had in a frozen to the rail scenario.

1. is the ball frozen? (fact)
2. was the player warned? (protocol)

In games like 9ball, the arguments will almost always be fact-based since, once the shot is played, the ball is likely no longer frozen. In non-rotation games (1pocket, 14.1, 8ball), balls can remain frozen to the rail for several innings so protocol issues come into play. That's probably where you're going to find your most heated arguments.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You technically can't just do anything if they are frozen, you can still foul with a push on the cueball with a too long of a contact, but you can stroke though them in a normal forward motion legally since the ball won't bounce back to hit the tip twice. You still can't place the cue tip on the ball and shove them forward together like you are herding them even if they are frozen.

Frozen cueball and object ball is another side of this rule, at least I think so. If a ball is on the rail and it's OK to just tap it and have it be legal, should in pool it also be legal to shoot away from a frozen ball and consider it a good contact like in snooker? The balls are already touching in both instances, so if one is OK, the other should also be. I personally would not want to see either of those rules changed, but if you change one, then it is only logical both can, and should, be.

Lets say you have a cueball frozen to the 1 and the 9 ball is hanging in a pocket, in this new rule set you can just shoot away from the 1 because they are touching, you have a legal hit, and make the 9 directly with the cueball. And if this frozen ball rule is not changed, then the frozen cushion rule should not be since the idea behind each is the same, namely if it's touching, it's not considered for the rail or ball contact.

Going in this direction will end up with pool and snooker contact rules be pretty much identical, which in pool may cause issues due to the smaller table, easier pockets and thus less difficulty in shot situations and escaping safeties or playing safeties, or even normal shots.

See, I don't think these rules are related at all. When an object ball is frozen to the rail, it activates a new foul. When the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, it eliminates a foul (specifically the double hit). This is evident by who is responsible for making the declaration. When an object ball is frozen the rail, the sitting player will make the declaration. When the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, the shooter will declare it.

Honestly, the rule that most closely resembles the frozen-to-the-rail rule is the Three Foul Rule (which, btw, I think is absolutely necessary). It's the only other instance where the sitting player must notify the shooter of a special circumstance in order to benefit.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You technically can't just do anything if they are frozen, you can still foul with a push on the cueball with a too long of a contact, but you can stroke though them in a normal forward motion legally since the ball won't bounce back to hit the tip twice. You still can't place the cue tip on the ball and shove them forward together like you are herding them even if they are frozen.

Frozen cueball and object ball is another side of this rule, at least I think so. If a ball is on the rail and it's OK to just tap it and have it be legal, should in pool it also be legal to shoot away from a frozen ball and consider it a good contact like in snooker? The balls are already touching in both instances, so if one is OK, the other should also be. I personally would not want to see either of those rules changed, but if you change one, then it is only logical both can, and should, be.

Lets say you have a cueball frozen to the 1 and the 9 ball is hanging in a pocket, in this new rule set you can just shoot away from the 1 because they are touching, you have a legal hit, and make the 9 directly with the cueball. And if this frozen ball rule is not changed, then the frozen cushion rule should not be since the idea behind each is the same, namely if it's touching, it's not considered for the rail or ball contact.

Going in this direction will end up with pool and snooker contact rules be pretty much identical, which in pool may cause issues due to the smaller table, easier pockets and thus less difficulty in shot situations and escaping safeties or playing safeties, or even normal shots.

Also, I didn't reply to your paragraph about bad play since that's a bit more obvious. Yes, you can't hit the cue ball illegally now that they're frozen. The cue ball and object ball are treated as a single mass so the double-hit is no longer an issue but general cuing rules still apply.

 

[mikemosconi]

Well this reminds me of the push shot call foul- so many people are not sure of what constitutes a push shot foul when the cue ball and object ball are very close to each other or touching- can cause REAL problems in a bar!

How does one actually SEE a cue ball hitting an object ball twice when they are close together and shot forward- I can't see it- maybe some can hear it. I don't like either rule. If you are good enough to hit an OB frozen to a rail and leave it there - good for you I say - and if you don't touch any other balls except the intended OB in pushing a shot forward - then what difference should it make?

 

[jtompilot]

Is there a particular game where you see these fouls most often? I'm just trying to get a sense of the most common scenarios where this rule has an effect.

Its an important rule in 1P.