Proposed World Standardized Rules

One rule that I would like to see disappear is the rule about balls frozen to the rail. I mean, it's extremely rare for this to ever show up, and in 97% of cases it makes no difference to the game, because whoever hits the ball is most likely going to hit a rail anyways, so all it does is waste time while people look at the ball to see if it is frozen. Most importantly, however, it gives an unfair disadvantage to the shooter, because it's not like his opponent was trying to freeze the ball, it just happened because of luck.

Even at one pocket I think the rule is antiquated, but at nine ball or ten ball it's just ridiculous.
 
gromulan said:
One rule that I would like to see disappear is the rule about balls frozen to the rail. I mean, it's extremely rare for this to ever show up, and in 97% of cases it makes no difference to the game, because whoever hits the ball is most likely going to hit a rail anyways, so all it does is waste time while people look at the ball to see if it is frozen. Most importantly, however, it gives an unfair disadvantage to the shooter, because it's not like his opponent was trying to freeze the ball, it just happened because of luck.

Even at one pocket I think the rule is antiquated, but at nine ball or ten ball it's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
At games like one pocket, I think some rule is needed to avoid stalemate situations. As for intentionally freezing the object ball, sometimes this is possible during close safety plays, but I agree that it is uncommon.

So, I suppose what you are proposing is:

A ball driven into a cushion it is frozen to is also said to be driven to that rail.​

I'm not personally opposed to such a change, but it won't go through on this revision cycle.
 
Cuebacca said:
That's true, but if the twits are at all sneaky, it doesn't need to be obvious. For example, the slow twit would be obvious if he were standing there watching the other guy, but non-obvious if he were down on the ball taking practice strokes.
Click to expand...
The referee's instructions regarding unsportsmanlike conduct mention that the player's previous history may be taken into account when deciding the penalty. Such antics should last only part of the first tournament the twit plays in.
 
Bob Jewett said:
At games like one pocket, I think some rule is needed to avoid stalemate situations. As for intentionally freezing the object ball, sometimes this is possible during close safety plays, but I agree that it is uncommon.

So, I suppose what you are proposing is:

A ball driven into a cushion it is frozen to is also said to be driven to that rail.​

I'm not personally opposed to such a change, but it won't go through on this revision cycle.
Click to expand...

That would be the rule that I am proposing. The current wording is hopelessly antiquated. I do agree that it may be possible to intentionally freeze a ball to a rail (but in my opinion that was a lot easier in the pre-Simonis days), however I don't see where someone should gain such a big advantage from that.

In snooker, when a stalemate situation is approaching, the players are warned that if the game doesn't change within three shots each then a stalemate shall be called, regardless of score. This would be a fine rule for one-pocket and for straight pool, though in straight pool it probably wouldn't start the game over but would rather restart just that rack, with the players lagging or flipping for the break.
 
Maybe it's in there but I didn't notice it, but under what circumstances can a player switch to a different shaft on their cue during a match?
 
sjm said:
Maybe it's in there but I didn't notice it, but under what circumstances can a player switch to a different shaft on their cue during a match?
Click to expand...
Whenever it won't be mistaken for a concession of the match.
 
I'm against rules where a call has to be made based on a player's past history. Rules are meant to be objective and as close to black and white as is feasible. You can't have situations where one guy gets away with something, then another guy sees it, thinking "well it wasn't a foul so it must be ok"...then he tries the same thing and gets called on it.

I also don't get the fuss about late laggers. How does it bother me what he does after the ball's left the tip of my stick on a lag? Not like it affects the outcome. I'm applying the golden rule here and asking myself honestly "if someone waited and then lagged when my lag is almost done, would it bother me?" and the answer is no. I can't think of any reason why it should. I think you have to learn to be bothered by such things. Honestly I wish we could take turns lagging, bumping asses with someone is not ideal shooting conditions. I feel that the lag is a shot like any other, maybe the most important shot, and in no other situation am I expected to shoot with the other guy leaning over the table a foot away from me.

A suggestion - can the frozen ball rules be reworded slightly?
It took me a few rereads and now I think I finally get it, but the wording can lead to misunderstandings I think.
What I think the rules are saying in a nutshell:

-Push shots (where the stick double hits the CB so fast it can't be seen) are illegal. Also illegal are continuous contact shots like those seen in various trick shots.

-If a CB is frozen to an OB, and you move the CB in a way that also moves the OB... even a hair... you legally contacted an object ball. At this point, something has to hit a rail or pocket. Assuming all the usual requirements are met, you haven't pushed or fouled in any way.
What I think is a little confusing: "it's legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball"... my first instinct was to think 'you mean DIRECTLY towards? as in a blatant push?!' but then I realized the wording is meant to cover those situations where you shoot at a sideways angle, causing the OB to move and then completing a legal shot attempt when something hits a rail or gets pocketed. It's worded to make people aware that it's ok to do those angled strokes away from a frozen OB, but it could confuse them into thinking it's ok to do push strokes. I think the way some leagues clarify this is the 45 degree rule.

- If you're frozen to an OB and you nudge the cueball away from that ball (like behind the 90 degree tangent line) then you haven't made a legal contact with an OB. The part I think is confusing is that "playing away from a frozen ball doesn't constitute having hit that ball" because in my pool and probably others, 'playing away from a ball' is verbal shorthand for shooting sort of sideways relative to the frozen balls, so that the cueball is hitting just the edge of the OB and moves away in time to avoid any chance of a double hit. "Hey jerry, you're gonna push if you shoot like that. Play away from the shot like this so you don't foul." When I read that line, I at first thought it was saying it's not a legal contact to graze the CB across the OB it's frozen to. I didn't think of literally shooting like 180 degrees away from the frozen ball. Dunno anyone who tries that.

Lastly, something specific should be said about it being ok to jack up and shoot downwards to avoid push shots, unless it's there and I overlooked it.
 
"The new rules make a soft nine ball break legal if it works and illegal if it fails to pocket a ball or drive four balls to a rail. That is a loophole that seems a little odd. Why not simply say four balls must be driven to a rail or pocketed?"

The last set of rules I saw dated in January of 2006 had the same rule so what you quoted doesn't seem to be a revision but IMHO the SUPER soft break fundamentally changes the character of the game and makes it such that the vast majority of the game is played on the lower half of the table since with just 4 balls contacting a rail will mean that in the vast majority of cases, the balls will not pass the centerline of the table.

In addition, the "balls to the rail" rule opens up the significant possiblilty of arguments over how many balls...in fact...hit a rail thereby requiring that a ref or TD would have to witness every break.

IMHO a completely inarguable standard should be set providing that a certain number of balls must come to rest above the centerline...at least PART of the ball(s) must do so.

Credit for all pocketed balls would be given so that, for example, if the rule is 3 across the centerline, then 1 ball pocketed and 2 crossing the centerline would be a legal break.

Using the centerline cross as the standard is entirely objective...i.e. the balls are where they are and a TD would only have to be consulted to decide if a given ball has PARTIALLY crossed the line.

In a test...brief...on my own 9 ft. table, 3 balls crossing the centerline...which was mostly 2 + 1 pocketed is still QUITE a soft break.

I would be remotely possible for a ball to cross the centerline and then cross BACK over it downtable but for that to happen, the rack would have to be hit VERY hard, in which case 3 balls coming to rest over the centerline (or 2+1 in a pocket) would be the result in ALMOST all cases.

Regardless, there would be significantly less potential for argument...like 50-1 less chance than is the case with a 4 ball to a rail rule.

Regards,
Jim
 
CreeDo said:
... Lastly, something specific should be said about it being ok to jack up and shoot downwards to avoid push shots, unless it's there and I overlooked it.
Click to expand...
Neither jacking up nor shooting at a 45-degree angle has much to do with getting out of double hits. I think you are suffering from league rules which are largely broken.

I think you do not understand the frozen ball rule. If the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, you are permitted any normal stroke towards that ball. You may play directly towards the frozen ball with break-shot speed and follow. On such a shot, the cue ball might catch up with the object ball and hit it a second time. This may not be the way your league plays, but this has been the world standardized rule for quite a while.
 
Bob..."You may play directly towards the frozen ball with break-shot speed and follow."

Right but possibly you would clarify that for us. Does the rule permit a shot "directly towards the frozen ball" in the sense that the stroke must track the line of centers OR can you shoot "directly toward" ANY PART of the frozen OB which, it seems to me, would permit the infamous push shot.

I overheard an argument about that very issue not long ago at JOB's.

THANKS!

Jim
 
I think you do not understand the frozen ball rule. If the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, you are permitted any normal stroke towards that ball. You may play directly towards the frozen ball with break-shot speed
Click to expand...

I think one of the leagues I've played in wouldn't permit that, but I'll believe you when you say it's allowed in pro play.

The problem is, it shouldn't, as it's blatantly a double hit. You'd have to break the laws of physics to avoid having the tip of the stick touch the cue ball twice. If it's a foul when they're a quarter inch apart, it shouldn't stop being a foul when they're frozen, even if the double hit is harder to see or feel.
 
CreeDo said:
... The problem is, it shouldn't, as it's blatantly a double hit. You'd have to break the laws of physics to avoid having the tip of the stick touch the cue ball twice. ...
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the other way around. You would have to change the physics to get a double hit.

If you work through the details, the cue tip strikes the cue ball only once when playing directly towards an object ball that is frozen to the cue ball. This is because the tip is much more compressible than the balls. You can test this for yourself by using the eight ball as the cue ball and a little side spin and looking for multiple chalk spots on the eight ball. Or, you can see this on some of the ultra-high-speed videos that have been made of cue tips contacting cue balls.

But that's academic, since the rule is the way it is.
 
Bob Jewett said:
How do you define push shot?
Click to expand...


Sustained contact between the tip of the cue stick and the cue ball.But it is difficult to judge except in obviously longer sustained contact.
' carry' in Volley Ball game is analogues to 'push' in pool.When you are passing/lifting the ball with all the five fingers of the hand and if the referee thinks that there is a sustained contact between the fingers and the ball the referee will call it a foul. :cool:
 
Last edited:
CreeDo said:
I think one of the leagues I've played in wouldn't permit that, but I'll believe you when you say it's allowed in pro play.

I play only pro rules and the pro rules allow that.11-12 years ago I was playing a guy in Jacksonville,Fl for fish heads.That frozen ball situation came.Anticipating that my opponent is going to call foul on me I called third party to be the referee on that frozen ball situation.I made the ball and then the 9 ball and won the match.the guy was getting ready to pick a fight and called it foul because he considered my shot as a push.I quickly grabbed the money that was posted and kept on the light.Then the guy kept on and on and I have to say something to shut him up.He then said that he will call police and file charges on me if I punched him( I told him that I will deck him down right in the pool hall).
I was tired of arguments over the rules and after that I quit gambling in pool because I did not want to go to prison on charges of assault & battery.
Click to expand...
 
Can you explain it to me (for the sake of academics)?

I'll see if I can test it (I know of an HSV video archive at http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/index.html but they didn't have exactly what we're looking for).

I would think that even frozen to an object ball, the cue ball and OB don't leave the tip simultaneously as one moving object... the energy passes from the tip to the cue, and from the cue ball to the OB. The cue ball's energy is all gone once the OB starts rolling away, and therefore it shouldn't be moving, but the tip is still travelling forward and must hit it again.

Or maybe what's happening is that it never leaves the tip during this energy transfer, and that it's just getting a double dose of the forward swing's energy but is still in contact with the tip (it has no way to get off the tip, all available space in front of it is taken up)?
 
vagabond said:
Sustained contact between the tip of the cue stick and the cue ball.But it is difficult to judge except in obviously longer sustained contact.
' carry' in Volley Ball game is analogues to 'push' in pool.When you are passing/lifting the ball with all the five fingers of the hand and if the referee thinks that there is a sustained contact between the fingers and the ball the referee will call it a foul. :cool:
Click to expand...


Determining whether there is a sustained contact between the cue tip and the cue ball or not is based on subjective feelings unless it was gross.How do you define sustained action?I do not think we have definition that is acceptable to every one.In my opininon in masse shot there is sustained contact ( push)between the cue tip and the cue ball and is a foul if push is considered as a foul.
here is my guide line to know whether there is a sustained action or not.
think of a `pimp slap`-no sustained contact
` upper cut` in boxing - there is a sustained contact.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top