Object Ball Frozen to Rail Rule

[Jude Rosenstock]

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.

 

[Tin Man]

I see your point.

The thing is the rule doesn't seem to change anything because it already exists. In other words, no one rolls onto a frozen ball because it isn't allowed. If it was allowed it might be done more. If it didn't exist it might come up more often.

I don't think it really disturbs play too much. It isn't a common situation but if it prevents situations where people take turns rubbing a ball then I think it serves a purpose.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I see your point.

The thing is the rule doesn't seem to change anything because it already exists. In other words, no one rolls onto a frozen ball because it isn't allowed. If it was allowed it might be done more. If it didn't exist it might come up more often.

I don't think it really disturbs play too much. It isn't a common situation but if it prevents situations where people take turns rubbing a ball then I think it serves a purpose.

Are you suggesting you can make contact with a frozen object ball and it would remain frozen? I mean, I'm sure that's physically possible but I wouldn't say that's a likely outcome. Most of the time, any contact will move the object ball off the rail slightly and then the rule no longer applies.

Regarding not being able to determine if the rule changes anything because it already exists, I beg to differ. I think, as the shooter, you would know if you felt limited or not. Like, once the ball is declared frozen, are you ever thinking, "Damn, if only it weren't frozen, I'd have a much better safety to shoot." Honestly, that thought has never crossed my mind but again, maybe it's because I'm playing mostly 9ball.

 

[straightline]

I think it has validity in that if a ball is indeed frozen, simply banking the ball into a hook or creating a hook by simple stopping the cue ball would still require subsequent cushion contact - a bit more involved than just separating the balls around the most convenient obstacle.

 

[The_JV]

Well, I definitely think the rule should exist, and it also changes game play as well. If I may be so bold, I consider myself to be a decent player, and will always take the time to inspect something that might be frozen if my opponent hasn't already said so.

Having to contact a rail after a frozen ball hit changes the shot a great deal. You are either forced to hit the shot hard enough that the OB reaches another rail, or cut it with enough angle that the CB does. Lets not forget that if the shooter is attempting a kick, the difficulty increases.

I'll genuinely be surprised if this poll doesn't go 100% on the first option.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I think it has validity in that if a ball is indeed frozen, simply banking the ball into a hook or creating a hook by simple stopping the cue ball would still require subsequent cushion contact - a bit more involved than just separating the balls around the most convenient obstacle.

Do you see these fouls called often?

 

[The_JV]

Do you see these fouls called often?

Often...?..., no. Called...?..., yes most certainly.

In fact I'd say you're more likely to see the subsequent 'no rail' foul made by the stronger class of player. It's not about a lack of knowledge but more so a miss-step in weight/angle in returning a safe.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Often...?..., no. Called...?..., yes most certainly.

In fact I'd say you're more likely to see the subsequent 'no rail' foul made by the stronger class of player. It's not about a lack of knowledge but more so a miss-step in weight/angle in returning a safe.

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.

 

[straightline]

Do you see these fouls called often?

I usually check if the possibility of a foul or a non compliant shot arises. But having declared a ball frozen, the shot is usually compliant. One thing I don't see and which might come into play, is determining the status of every ball "at" a cushion just in case.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

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.

From my experiences, the most common scenarios where the foul gets called are kick shots, especially in 8ball where you might try to kick a ball from your group and hide behind it. It's literally the only shot I can think of where my strategy would have to change.

 

[alphadog]

Here is my take. If the ball does not have to be declared "frozen" then there will be arguments about " no rail " afterwards. If people need to get a ref to rule then yes being frozen must be important.

 

[gregcantrall]

I would vote to do away with the drive a rail requirement all together. Snooker thrives without such a requirement.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Here is my take. If the ball does not have to be declared "frozen" then there will be arguments about " no rail " afterwards. If people need to get a ref to rule then yes being frozen must be important.

I see. Yes, it is physically possible to have a ball frozen to the rail and cut it away from the rail (no interaction with the rail it's frozen to). To do it, you'd probably need the cue-ball in the jaws of the pocket but it can be done. Do you think that's what they're guarding against?

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I would vote to do away with the drive a rail requirement all together. Snooker thrives without such a requirement.

I think the rail requirement in pool is important because there's an expectation that single rack games, like 8ball and 9ball, shouldn't take very much time. Snooker games aren't really "single rack" since balls are returning to the table and there is no expectation that a game of snooker will be over within minutes (unless Ronnie O'Sullivan has a reasonable shot).

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. It serves as great evidence of how much American and British billiards have diverged over the years and yet still maintain great rule sets.

 

[straightline]

Here is my take. If the ball does not have to be declared "frozen" then there will be arguments about " no rail " afterwards. If people need to get a ref to rule then yes being frozen must be important.

That's about the size of it.

I would vote to do away with the drive a rail requirement all together. Snooker thrives without such a requirement.

That type of play is so lame though.

 

[garczar]

I would vote to do away with the drive a rail requirement all together. Snooker thrives without such a requirement.

Huh?? There's a reason that's called 'bar rules'. Doing away with the rail contact rule would turn pool into a snail-paced shitshow. IMO that's the worst part about snooker. Being able to just roll up on a ball to hook someone is complete nonsense.

 

[Nick B]

Comes up much more in One Pocket. You will see a tick-tack exchange until one of the players is forced to play away because of wedge will result in foul.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I've proposed a few times that the rule be deleted. It causes arguments and does not avoid many stalemates.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I've proposed a few times that the rule be deleted. It causes arguments and does not avoid many stalemates.

this goes right to the core of what I'm talking about. I just don't see the value of the rule. Quite literally, I can think of one scenario where my shot selection would outright change if a ball were frozen. Nearly every other scenario, I'm going to make a mild adjustment and make sure I get contact with the cue-ball.

It's just my opinion but I feel the shooter should be allowed to proceed uninterrupted as much as possible. I understand the point of the Three Foul Rule. I understand the point of a ball frozen to the cue ball. And, I understand the point of stopping play to watch close hits. I just don't see the point of balls frozen to rails. If the rule went away, would pool really have a noticeable change? Or would we just avoid a lot of arguments and rulings? In my opinion, the real victims are novices who don't understand. Maybe it's just me (and maybe I'm jinxing myself) but I can count on one hand how many times I've fouled this way in the last 30 years.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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.