Object Ball Frozen to Rail Rule

[Jude Rosenstock]

You are talking about who is responsible for calling the foul or rule, I was talking about the actual physical circumstances around the shot. Who should call the rule to be enforced is not relevant to the rule as simply existing.

I guess my point is, there's not much to utilize by making the correlation. The only commonality is that two things are touching ("frozen"). After that, object balls frozen to rails have nothing in common with cue balls frozen to object balls. If there's some value I'm missing, please feel free to point it out.

 

[hang-the-9]

I guess my point is, there's not much to utilize by making the correlation. The only commonality is that two things are touching ("frozen"). After that, object balls frozen to rails have nothing in common with cue balls frozen to object balls. If there's some value I'm missing, please feel free to point it out.

Well the thing between them is "why are they considered touching and for what reason". If a ball on a rail that is frozen is considered as a legal contact even though it does not need to move to be legal, then a cueball is also touching the other ball, and is also a legal contact. Why would one need to be hit back to the item it's touching but the other does not? If they both do, then that is pretty logical, if it's touching already, it is not a legal hit just because it's already there, it has to be moved to there. And if only one is OK but other is not, it's the same situation, both items frozen to some other one, but in one case it's a legal contact, in the other it's not, which breaks down logically.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Well the thing between them is "why are they considered touching and for what reason". If a ball on a rail is on that rail and is considered as a legal contact even though it does not need to move to be legal, then a cueball is also touching the other ball, and is also a legal contact. Why would one need to be hit back to the item it's touching but the other does not? If they both do, then that is pretty logical, if it's touching already, it is not a legal hit just because it's already there, it has to be moved to there. And if only one is OK but other is not, it's the same situation, both items frozen to some other one, but in one case it's a legal contact, in the other it's not, which breaks down logically.

Okay so, you're arguing that when the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, I can shoot in any direction, so long as the object ball moves, it's legal (we're going to assume a legal stroke was performed). So, object ball frozen to the rail, so long as the object ball moves, it too should be legal?

 

[hang-the-9]

Okay so, you're arguing that when the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, I can shoot in any direction, so long as the object ball moves, it's legal (we're going to assume a legal stroke was performed). So, object ball frozen to the rail, so long as the object ball moves, it too should be legal?

No, I'm saying neither should be legal, for the same reasons. The object ball does not need to move in the case of shooting away from it, just the fact it's already touching constitutes a legal hit on it (going by the rules that do or did have that rule), similar to a ball being on the rail is a legal touching of that rail when you shoot into it, under the proposed change that is. Which is why I think the existing rule that another ball has to contact a rail, or that ball needs to move to another rail for a legal hit. Otherwise we are using the fact it's already in contact as a factor for "legal contact". So if a cueball is frozen to the 1 ball in 9 ball, you can shoot away from the 1 and it's considered a legal contact with that ball because they were already in contact when you shot, even if the 1 does not move at all. To me at least that seems the same thing as a ball touching the rail already being counted for a legal hit on a ball even if nothing else hits another rail. The fact of it touching is used to meet the legal hit criteria in both cases.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I doubt that even 1% of racks would end in a stalemate. Can you think of any common position that would result in a stalemate at eight ball, nine ball or one pocket?

Well, we can eliminate 9ball completely since the Three Foul Rule eliminates the possibility of a stalemate. 8ball too can be eliminated since its stalemates are strictly related to imminent illegal pocketing of the 8ball, nothing to do with freezes.

That leaves 1p.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

No, I'm saying neither should be legal, for the same reasons. The object ball does not need to move in the case of shooting away from it, just the fact it's already touching constitutes a legal hit on it (going by the rules that do or did have that rule), similar to a ball being on the rail is a legal touching of that rail when you shoot into it, under the proposed change that is. Which is why I think the existing rule that another ball has to contact a rail, or that ball needs to move to another rail for a legal hit. Otherwise we are using the fact it's already in contact as a factor for "legal contact". So if a cueball is frozen to the 1 ball in 9 ball, you can shoot away from the 1 and it's considered a legal contact with that ball because they were already in contact when you shot, even if the 1 does not move at all. To me at least that seems the same thing as a ball touching the rail already being counted for a legal hit on a ball even if nothing else hits another rail. The fact of it touching is used to meet the legal hit criteria in both cases.

Ah, I get your point. But, I'd like to add, the difference between your two scenarios is, when a ball is frozen to the rail, you're still interacting with that rail. Like, if I soft bank a frozen ball, it's still rebounding off that rail. If my cue ball is frozen to the object-ball and I shoot away from it, I'm not interacting with that object-ball at all.

I will concede, if an object ball is frozen to the rail near a pocket and the cue-ball is in the jaws of the same pocket, it's possible to make contact without interacting with the rail. In that instance, I'd probably say it's a foul unless another rail was contacted.

 

[alphadog]

You do realize, you're now opening the door for 1p players to bark at you for a game.

Jim merely offered you a chance to experience 1 pkt. He wasn't really woofing At least he didn't go gambletard.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Well, we can eliminate 9ball completely since the Three Foul Rule eliminates the possibility of a stalemate. 8ball too can be eliminated since its stalemates are strictly related to imminent illegal pocketing of the 8ball, nothing to do with freezes.

That leaves 1p.

Suppose the final ball in 8 or 9 is near the middle of the short rail and the cue ball is near and straight out from it. If neither player is willing to play the cue ball off and away (perhaps to the other end of the table), that could result in a stalemate. Under the current rule, they might tippy-tap safes on the ball until it happens to get frozen and then the next player is forced to play away.

I think at 1P this scenario is less likely because the players have different goals for the shot.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Suppose the final ball in 8 or 9 is near the middle of the short rail and the cue ball is near and straight out from it. If neither player is willing to play the cue ball off and away (perhaps to the other end of the table), that could result in a stalemate. Under the current rule, they might tippy-tap safes on the ball until it happens to get frozen and then the next player is forced to play away.

I think at 1P this scenario is less likely because the players have different goals for the shot.

You're right. You could have two players tapping the cue ball into an object ball right on the fifty yard line for eternity and yes, the frozen-to-the-rail rule would guard against it but I think (and I'm sure you agree) that's a helluva rare instance to guard against.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Jim merely offered you a chance to experience 1 pkt. He wasn't really woofing At least he didn't go gambletard.

Either way, I'm trying to have a conversation about rules. If I wanna make a 1p game, I'm sure I can do it without anyone's help and without a 3 hour drive.

 

[hang-the-9]

Ah, I get your point. But, I'd like to add, the difference between your two scenarios is, when a ball is frozen to the rail, you're still interacting with that rail. Like, if I soft bank a frozen ball, it's still rebounding off that rail. If my cue ball is frozen to the object-ball and I shoot away from it, I'm not interacting with that object-ball at all.

I will concede, if an object ball is frozen to the rail near a pocket and the cue-ball is in the jaws of the same pocket, it's possible to make contact without interacting with the rail. In that instance, I'd probably say it's a foul unless another rail was contacted.

Yes so in the case of the cushion contact, you would have to say the ball needs to be hit "more" into the rail LOL which sounds a bit funny out loud.

I mean it's not hard to say the frozen ball applies to the rail and not another ball, but I was just looking for some logic into why a frozen ball would not be considered as a rail contact for a legal hit, past the simple reason that doing it that way makes the game a bit harder to execute and require a skill shot to make a legal hit.

I'm all for not having overly complex rules that can create as many issues as they try to solve (9 ball racking, 3 point rule) but I'm also against making the game simpler (no rail contact like in snooker, jump cues, frozen ball on the rail made easier).

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Yes so in the case of the cushion contact, you would have to say the ball needs to be hit "more" into the rail LOL which sounds a bit funny out loud.

I mean it's not hard to say the frozen ball applies to the rail and not another ball, but I was just looking for some logic into why a frozen ball would not be considered as a rail contact for a legal hit, past the simple reason that doing it that way makes the game a bit harder to execute and require a skill shot to make a legal hit.

I'm all for not having overly complex rules that can create as many issues as they try to solve (9 ball racking, 3 point rule) but I'm also against making the game simpler (no rail contact like in snooker, jump cues, frozen ball on the rail made easier).

Your logic reminds me a lot about baseball rules. I'm a big baseball fan so you'll have to forgive me. 9 players, 9 innings, 27 outs. Baseball clearly went out of their way to be extremely democratic. Every player has an equal chance to be a hero. I mean, these rules have obviously changed a bit over time (the DH is the most notable one) but I still love how baseball has a higher logic to it. I think that's what you're looking for and I can certainly appreciate that.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... but I was just looking for some logic into why a frozen ball would not be considered as a rail contact for a legal hit, past the simple reason that doing it that way makes the game a bit harder to execute and require a skill shot to make a legal hit. ...

I suspect that the original reason was to avoid the possibility of a long series of tiny safeties. The "only twice to a near cushion" rule at 14.1 was for the same reason in case a close OB didn't freeze after a few taps.

 

[ChrisinNC]

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.

It’s important only if the player shooting next is planning to play a certain safety in which the cue ball may not get to a cushion – generally the same cushion the object ball is deemed frozen to.

The only two safeties I can think of where it is important for the opponent to deem whether the object ball is frozen are for a straight on full ball intentional double hit which the cue ball rebounds straight back off the frozen object ball and must reach another cushion or cause another ball to reach a cushion, or when the player is attempting to slow roll the cue ball to gently tap up against the object ball but not get to a cushion.

Otherwise, I agree with you, I don’t know why players waste so much time and effort deeming whether an object is frozen to a cushion when the safety or shot they will be attempting will make that a moot point.

The other thing I don’t understand is why the shooter bothers checking and letting their opponent know if it’s frozen. It’s up to the opponent to determine whether it’s frozen. However, if the shooter is planning to play a safety in which it could be a factor, then it is the courteous thing to do to check as to whether it’s frozen and to communicate that to their opponent.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

It’s important only if the player shooting next is planning to play a certain safety in which the cue ball may not get to a cushion – generally the same cushion the object ball is deemed frozen to.

The only two safeties I can think of where it is important for the opponent to deem whether the object ball is frozen are for a straight on full ball intentional double hit which the cue ball rebounds straight back of the frozen object ball and must reach another cushion, or when the player is attempting to slow roll the cue ball to gently tap up against the object ball but not get to a cushion.

Otherwise, I agree with you, I don’t know why players waste so much time and effort deeming whether an object is frozen to a cushion when the safety or shot they will be attempting will make that a moot point.

The other thing I don’t understand is why the shooter bothers checking and letting their opponent know if it’s frozen. It’s up to the opponent to determine whether it’s frozen. However, if the shooter is planning to play a safety in which it could be a factor, then it is the courteous thing to do to check as to whether it’s frozen and to communicate that to their opponent.

I'm glad you see my point and you're right, those are really the only kinds of safeties that you'll commonly see thwarted by a ball being declared frozen. I mean, there are plenty of other scenarios but truthfully, when I look back on the 30 years I've been playing pool, I can't think of more than a half dozen times calling a ball frozen actually yielded any fruit. However, I'm also not a 1p player so I'll concede, games with a lot of bunting will yield a different experience.

This all reminds me of a 14.1 league I used to run. On any given day, I could have a dozen matches happening throughout the room and there'd always be that one match where neither player could tell who won the lag. They'd immediately walk across this 8,000 square foot room to come get me to make a ruling. After a few weeks of this, I realized I was handling it all wrong. I started telling them, "Don't waste my time. If you can't tell who won, lag again. That's far less trouble than coming to get me." That's not to mention, these matches would often be a hundred innings and take a couple hours. The lag couldn't be more meaningless.

If we got rid of the rule, this would be one less thing to argue about. That's really my point.

 

[alphadog]

Since it seems it seldom ever effects you , why are you asking everyone else to change?

I feel it is a logical rule.

 

[pt109]

I doubt that even 1% of racks would end in a stalemate. Can you think of any common position that would result in a stalemate at eight ball, nine ball or one pocket?

My first thought, Bob, was straight pool. It would be a horrible game if you could legally roll into the pack.
...to a lesser degree, all the other pool games.
.....rolling into the pack is what I don’t like about snooker rules....I’ve seen a fair amount of stalemates.

Strange, on the froze to a rail rule, I really can’t recall when it made a difference to me.

 

[fastone371]

In my league and the people we shoot tournaments with the opponent doesnt worry about getting up to check if someone calls a ball frozen. I have already asked my opponent who was at the table if one of his balls were frozen and trusted his answer so I dont really see it causing a delay. I liked the frozen declaration because we play a lot of barbox 8 ball and it comes up a lot. On the other hand hearing how you guys propose to eliminate it I now think we should do away with it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

My first thought, Bob, was straight pool. It would be a horrible game if you could legally roll into the pack.
...to a lesser degree, all the other pool games.
.....rolling into the pack is what I don’t like about snooker rules....I’ve seen a fair amount of stalemates.

Strange, on the froze to a rail rule, I really can’t recall when it made a difference to me.

Yes, I completely agree that rolling up as in snooker is a bad idea. Pool needs rail contact.

It's just that nudging a frozen ball should be OK. It would be like pretending a frozen ball is not quite frozen. Why should a hundredth of an inch make a difference to the shot?

 

[pt109]

Yes, I completely agree that rolling up as in snooker is a bad idea. Pool needs rail contact.

It's just that nudging a frozen ball should be OK. It would be like pretending a frozen ball is not quite frozen. Why should a hundredth of an inch make a difference to the shot?

Like I said in an earlier post....I can’t recall the ball froze to a rail affected my action.