To the rail

FOXYCOXY

Registered
Need help on a rule. Playing 9ball when the object ball is Frozen to a rail ( say the foot rail) it is my interpretation of the Texas Express Rules , that once the cue ball makes contact with the object ball that a ball (any ball) must then contact some rail other than the foot rail. The reason for this question came about during a $match and my opponent thought that if the cue ball contacted the foot rail after contacting the object ball then there was no foul.
 
The official rule

6.5: Object Ball Frozen to a Rail

If the lowest numbered object ball is frozen to a rail, the player must 1) drive that object ball to another rail, or 2) drive another numbered ball to the rail resulting from a hit initiated by the lowest numbered ball struck, or 3) drive the cue ball to another rail, or 4) legally pocket a numbered ball. Failure to do any of these resulting from an object ball being frozen to the rail results in a cue ball-in- hand foul. The frozen object ball must be declared and the opponent must acknowledge prior to the shot.
 
the rule

FOXYCOXY said:
Need help on a rule. Playing 9ball when the object ball is Frozen to a rail ( say the foot rail) it is my interpretation of the Texas Express Rules , that once the cue ball makes contact with the object ball that a ball (any ball) must then contact some rail other than the foot rail. The reason for this question came about during a $match and my opponent thought that if the cue ball contacted the foot rail after contacting the object ball then there was no foul.

The way that rule is written is kind of misleading. When the object ball is frozen and declared frozen, that rail is dead to that object ball only. To keep you from doing double kiss as a legal hit. If there is another object ball right next to the ball, you may thin the lowest ball and drive another ball to that same rail for a legal hit. You may also thin the object ball and drive the cue ball to that rail and it is still a legal shot. That some other rail discussion came up a while back and it is just a poorly written part of the rules making it easy for misinterpretation. It was no foul. Sam
 
Satmans way is the way I have always played. If the cueball hits a rail after contact with the object ball (frozen or not) there is no foul.
 
Snapshot9 said:
6.5: Object Ball Frozen to a Rail

If the lowest numbered object ball is frozen to a rail, the player must 1) drive that object ball to another rail, or 2) drive another numbered ball to the rail resulting from a hit initiated by the lowest numbered ball struck, or 3) drive the cue ball to another rail, or 4) legally pocket a numbered ball. Failure to do any of these resulting from an object ball being frozen to the rail results in a cue ball-in- hand foul. The frozen object ball must be declared and the opponent must acknowledge prior to the shot.

Unfortunately, with the way it is worded in bold, the CB has to hit a rail other than the one the OB is frozen to.

Barbara
 
I have played the way Satman explained it for the last 7 years and no one has told me differently. BTW Scott where did you get those rules from. Do you have a link?
 
Badly worded

Barbara said:
Unfortunately, with the way it is worded in bold, the CB has to hit a rail other than the one the OB is frozen to.

Barbara

I would not call that a foul on a one pocket player. You would be in for a big fight. (not physical I would hope)
 
You can get Texas Express rules from http://www.texasexpress.com

Using these rules, if the CB hits only the same rail to which the OB is frozen (and the OB doesn't hit another rail), it's a foul since their rule says the CB must hit another rail. However, according to BCA rules, it isn't a foul. Here's the BCA rule:

3.38 OBJECT BALL FROZEN TO CUSHION OR CUE BALL
This rule applies to any shot where the cue ball’s first contact with a ball is with one that is frozen to a cushion or to the cue ball itself. After the cue ball makes contact with the frozen object ball, the shot must result in either:

(a) A ball being pocketed, or;

(b) The cue ball contacting a cushion, or;

(c) The frozen ball being caused to contact a cushion attached to a separate rail, or;

(d) Another object ball being caused to contact a cushion with which it was not already in contact. Failure to satisfy one of those four requirements is a foul. (Note: 14.1 and other games specify additional requirements and applications of this rule; see specific game rules.) A ball which is touching a cushion at the start of a shot and then is forced into a cushion attached to the same rail is not considered to have been driven to that cushion unless it leaves the cushion, contacts another ball, and then contacts the cushion again. An object ball is not considered frozen to a cushion unless it is examined and announced as such by either the referee or one of the players prior to that object ball being involved in a shot.

Once again, pool shoots itself in the foot by not having a single, clearly defined set of rules. Most people I know use the BCA definition of this rule (instance presented by FOXYCOXY is not a foul), but technically, if the Texas Express rules are being followed, it IS a foul. Personally, I'm with satman, I wouldn't have called a foul. The only real difference is that in the Texas Express rules, it says the CB must be driven to "another" rail, while the BCA rules say it must be driven to "a" rail. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion, and it's just one more reason pool needs a single, clearly defined set of rules.

One more unclear thing, this time in the BCA rule, specifically part D above. It says that, "A ball which is touching a cushion at the start of a shot and then is forced into a cushion attached to the same rail is not considered to have been driven to that cushion unless it leaves the cushion, contacts another ball, and then contacts the cushion again." Isn't this a prime example of a double-kiss? Doesn't it make a double-kiss legal? If so, what's the purpose of this rule again?

-djb
 
Last edited:
Not really

DoomCue said:
You can get Texas Express rules from http://www.texasexpress.com

Using these rules, if the CB hits onle the same rail to which the OB is frozen (and the OB doesn't hit another rail), it's a foul since their rule says the CB must hit another rail. However, according to BCA rules, it isn't a foul. Here's the BCA rule:



Once again, pool shoots itself in the foot by not having a single, clearly defined set of rules. Most people I know use the BCA definition of this rule (instance presented by FOXYCOXY is not a foul), but technically, if the Texas Express rules are being followed, it IS a foul. Personally, I'm with satman, I wouldn't have called a foul. The only real difference is that in the Texas Express rules, it says the CB must be driven to "another" rail, while the BCA rules say it must be driven to "a" rail. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion, and it's just one more reason pool needs a single, clearly defined set of rules.

One more unclear thing, this time in the BCA rule, specifically part D above. It says that, "A ball which is touching a cushion at the start of a shot and then is forced into a cushion attached to the same rail is not considered to have been driven to that cushion unless it leaves the cushion, contacts another ball, and then contacts the cushion again." Isn't this a prime example of a double-kiss? Doesn't it make a double-kiss legal? If so, what's the purpose of this rule again?

-djb

The key in your scenario which is different than the double kiss is that it contacts another ball. Think of it as the object ball now as a cue ball. In my opionion the double kiss is illegal because it is frozen and you cannot see if the object ball comes off the rail to hit a cushion as the cue ball compresses the object ball. I cannot see that action so it is considered a foul and no arguements. That is why you better delcare it frozen before the shot.
In one pocket these shots come up all the time.
And another think Texas Express is a new rule format. I vote to ban it.
 
nfty9er said:
The key in your scenario which is different than the double kiss is that it contacts another ball. Think of it as the object ball now as a cue ball. In my opionion the double kiss is illegal because it is frozen and you cannot see if the object ball comes off the rail to hit a cushion as the cue ball compresses the object ball. I cannot see that action so it is considered a foul and no arguements. That is why you better delcare it frozen before the shot.
In one pocket these shots come up all the time.
And another think Texas Express is a new rule format. I vote to ban it.
Isn't the CB "another ball?"

-djb
 
yes it is

DoomCue said:
Isn't the CB "another ball?"

-djb
Thats why if u double kiss the object ball and the cue ball goes to another rail that is a legal shot. But if the object ball you hit doesn't it is a foul if it was frozen. You can send another ball off another ball to a rail or the cue ball.
 
FOXYCOXY said:
Need help on a rule. Playing 9ball when the object ball is Frozen to a rail ( say the foot rail) it is my interpretation of the Texas Express Rules , that once the cue ball makes contact with the object ball that a ball (any ball) must then contact some rail other than the foot rail. The reason for this question came about during a $match and my opponent thought that if the cue ball contacted the foot rail after contacting the object ball then there was no foul.
The correct rule is that after the cue ball contacts an object ball, some ball must be driven to a rail. Driving a frozen ball into the cushion it's sitting on doesn't count as driving that ball to a rail. The important word here is "after." However, if the frozen object ball were to leave that cushion and somehow return to that cushion later, that new rail contact would count.

It's too bad that this rule has been screwed up for so long. I suspect it's because the people writing the rules didn't understand the purpose of this particular rule. For the proposed new wording for the WPA rules, see Rules 7.2 and 9.4 in http://www.sfbilliards.com/Rev1.html

In the Texas Express rule set, Rule 6.5 is not needed and confusing, as I see it.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It's too bad that this rule has been screwed up for so long. I suspect it's because the people writing the rules didn't understand the purpose of this particular rule. For the proposed new wording for the WPA rules, see Rules 7.2 and 9.4 in http://www.sfbilliards.com/Rev1.html

In the Texas Express rule set, Rule 6.5 is not needed and confusing, as I see it.

THANK YOU BOB!! I didn't agree with the wording for the TE rules, but I had to interpret it literally.

Barbara
 
Back
Top