What would you do?

[Masayoshi]

How is it a problem if all you have to do is say, "it's frozen"? No one has to assume anything if they call it frozen BEFORE the shot.

I don't get the part where you say that I'm attacking a strawman. It seems like the reverse to me. Are you finally admitting that it isn't a foul if the ball wasn't called frozen BEFORE the shot?

I'm not even sure to respond to this post as what you posted had absolutely nothing that addressed the quoted post...You should work on your reading comprehension.

I explicitly stated that by that wording it was a foul. But then you come back by saying that I am apparently admitting that it wasn't a foul. WTF dude, read before you post.

 

[TheMarsMan]

This is exactly how most of the pool players in the world play. If someone rolled up on a ball I THOUGHT was frozen I can't imagine myself then disputing it if it hadn't been called. That's completely ridiculous.

The illogic and hazy thinking of Mars and others starts right here:
#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

He later convolutes this error that it is a foul by saying it isn't a foul and that he wouldn't call it a foul. He makes opposite statements then starts the name calling and disparagement. Well, actually he started the name calling before the contradictory statement. He then goes completely overboard by pretending I said something I didn't and then dispenses more of what he seems to have a talent for- disparagement of someone disagreeing with him.

The other completely off-kilter aspect in this thread are the ones haughtily accusing a player who follows the rules of the game of being unethical. As I pointed out previously their faux moralizing just creates a hazy confusion that provides cover for someone who actually is a real, living, breathing angle shooter who will pretend a ball was frozen after the shot. Repudiating that nonsense is important because it undermines pool.

I have made two statements and neither of them contradict the other.

1. If I know a ball is frozen but my opponent didn't call it frozen I wouldn't roll up to the ball to play safe. I know I could do this and it wouldn't be called as a foul because no one except me would know it was a foul. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right in my opinion.

2. If my opponent rolled up to a ball that I didn't call frozen, I wouldn't call a foul because I didn't call it froze so even if it was froze I can't get ball in hand. I understand the reason that they have the rule in place and don't have a problem with it. In all of my matches I don't remember this ever happening to me, if the ball looks close to the rail I will look before my opponent shoots.

These points are not contradictory and I believe in both of them. If you don't understand them I can't help you.

 

[Masayoshi]

I have made two statements and neither of them contradict the other.

1. If I know a ball is frozen but my opponent didn't call it frozen I wouldn't roll up to the ball to play safe. I know I could do this and it wouldn't be called as a foul because no one except me would know it was a foul. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right in my opinion.

2. If my opponent rolled up to a ball that I didn't call frozen, I wouldn't call a foul because I didn't call it froze so even if it was froze I can't get ball in hand. I understand the reason that they have the rule in place and don't have a problem with it. In all of my matches I don't remember this ever happening to me, if the ball looks close to the rail I will look before my opponent shoots.

These points are not contradictory and I believe in both of them. If you don't understand them I can't help you.

I think at this point has been backed so far into a corner that he doesn't even know what hes arguing about anymore.

 

[risky biz]

No, the player in question is not following the rules, just getting away with breaking them. As you pointed out, the cue ball can only be assumed to be not frozen after the fact. Assumption is not the same thing as reality. If the ball was frozen, a foul was commited according to the rule


This rule has no bearing on what is assumed to be true, only what actually happened. Now whether or not there was anybody to call the foul is another issue entirely.

The ball is not frozen until it is called frozen. If it isn't frozen there is no foul. If there is no foul no rules are broken.

Please show me the rule that says if it wasn't called frozen before the shot and then you shoot you have committed a foul because in "reality" it was frozen and the appearance that the opponent or referee did not call it frozen BEFORE the shot was merely a hallucination. When you do that you'll have a real basis for what is increasingly seeming like a grasping at straws argument.

By the way- jump shots suck. That's what's really bothering you, isn't it?

 

[risky biz]

I have made two statements and neither of them contradict the other.

1. If I know a ball is frozen but my opponent didn't call it frozen I wouldn't roll up to the ball to play safe. I know I could do this and it wouldn't be called as a foul because no one except me would know it was a foul. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right in my opinion.

2. If my opponent rolled up to a ball that I didn't call frozen, I wouldn't call a foul because I didn't call it froze so even if it was froze I can't get ball in hand. I understand the reason that they have the rule in place and don't have a problem with it. In all of my matches I don't remember this ever happening to me, if the ball looks close to the rail I will look before my opponent shoots.

These points are not contradictory and I believe in both of them. If you don't understand them I can't help you.

Actually, these are your statements:

#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

#76
"If I was playing and someone rolled up to a ball that I hadn't called frozen I would never consider calling a foul because I know the rule states that it is a legal shot if I didn't call it frozen."

You're rewriting and fabricating again.

 

[Masayoshi]

The ball is not frozen until it is called frozen. If it isn't frozen there is no foul. If there is no foul no rules are broken.

That's not what the rule says. The rule says that it is assumed to be frozen, not that it is frozen.

Please show me the rule that says if it wasn't called frozen before the shot and then you shoot you have committed a foul because in "reality" it was frozen and the appearance that the opponent or referee did not call it frozen BEFORE the shot was merely a hallucination. When you do that you'll have a real basis for what is increasingly seeming like a grasping at straws argument.

Again, strawman. What is true and what is assumed to be true are not necessarily the same. A foul occurs based on what is true. Fouls are called based on what is assumed to be true. I'm not quite sure why you don't understand this.

By the way- jump shots suck. That's what's really bothering you, isn't it?

What are you talking about?

 

[Masayoshi]

Actually, these are your statements:

#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

#76
"If I was playing and someone rolled up to a ball that I hadn't called frozen I would never consider calling a foul because I know the rule states that it is a legal shot if I didn't call it frozen."

You're rewriting and fabricating again.

Neither of those quotes contradict what he said in his post. If you want to show that he is 'rewriting and fabricating' please post some examples.

 

[risky biz]

I think at this point has been backed so far into a corner that he doesn't even know what hes arguing about anymore.

There's no argument and there isn't any corner. The rules are the rules. But you have some hazy dream about your own rules beyond the rules (the "real" rules, the rules of "reality", not the inferior plain, old rules that you didn't invent) which are better, in your hazy opinion, than the rules.

 

[risky biz]

That's not what the rule says. The rule says that it is assumed to be frozen, not that it is frozen.

6.3 No Rail after Contact
If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)

8.4 Driven to a Rail
A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.

The rules are simple as hell. If the ball wasn't called frozen then it wasn't frozen and rolling up to a ball close to the rail creates a rail contact. No foul.

Again, strawman. What is true and what is assumed to be true are not necessarily the same. A foul occurs based on what is true. Fouls are called based on what is assumed to be true. I'm not quite sure why you don't understand this.

6.3 No Rail after Contact
If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)

8.4 Driven to a Rail
A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.

The rules are simple as hell. If the ball wasn't called frozen then it wasn't frozen and rolling up to a ball close to the rail creates a rail contact. No foul.

You're spouting ridiculous nonsense. Why don't you just please write to the people who make the rules and explain to them what your "real" rules are and how much better they are? Who knows- maybe soon we can all play "real" pool by your "real" rules.

 

[risky biz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by risky biz
Actually, these are your statements:

#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

#76
"If I was playing and someone rolled up to a ball that I hadn't called frozen I would never consider calling a foul because I know the rule states that it is a legal shot if I didn't call it frozen."

Neither of those quotes contradict what he said in his post. If you want to show that he is 'rewriting and fabricating' please post some examples.

#13
". . I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul"

#76
". . I know the rule states that it is a legal shot"

As it relates to a shot a foul would be an illegal shot. The party referred to doesn't consider it a foul because it is not an illegal shot. 'Mars' disagrees with him. 'Mars' then says that it is a legal shot.

Does that help any?

 

[TheMarsMan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by risky biz
Actually, these are your statements:

#13
"The reason I posted the question is I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul because if the opponent doesn't call it the ball isn't froze according to the rules. I was just curious to see what the average player here thinks."

#76
"If I was playing and someone rolled up to a ball that I hadn't called frozen I would never consider calling a foul because I know the rule states that it is a legal shot if I didn't call it frozen."



#13
". . I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul"

#76
". . I know the rule states that it is a legal shot"

As it relates to a shot a foul would be an illegal shot. The party referred to doesn't consider it a foul because it is not an illegal shot. 'Mars' disagrees with him. 'Mars' then says that it is a legal shot.

Does that help any?

Not wasting my time on you any longer, you obviously can't see what is obvious. BTW you make a good Troll.

 

[Masayoshi]

There's no argument and there isn't any corner. The rules are the rules. But you have some hazy dream about your own rules beyond the rules (the "real" rules, the rules of "reality", not the inferior plain, old rules that you didn't invent) which are better, in your hazy opinion, than the rules.

You posted the rules and they clear stated the contrary of what you claimed. Everything I said was according to the rules that you posted. Its kind of funny that you would post something that proves you wrong.

#13
". . I have a disagreement with a friend who believes he isn't commiting a foul"

#76
". . I know the rule states that it is a legal shot"

As it relates to a shot a foul would be an illegal shot. The party referred to doesn't consider it a foul because it is not an illegal shot. 'Mars' disagrees with him. 'Mars' then says that it is a legal shot.

Does that help any?

Those don't contradict each other. It is a legal shot because the person sitting doesn't have the power to call a foul in that situation. That doesn't mean that a foul didn't take place, just that its too late to call it.

Its kind of like in court. Criminals are found not guilty all the time in court. In fact, they are presumed innocent. Does that mean they didn't do the crime? Of course not. It just means that our system of justice places protecting the innocent as a priority over convicting criminals.

 

[acousticsguru]

8.4 Driven to a Rail
[…]
A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.

In other words, it's merely unethical, but no foul. What rule set is this, WPA?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[Masayoshi]

6.3 No Rail after Contact
If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)

8.4 Driven to a Rail
A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.

The rules are simple as hell. If the ball wasn't called frozen then it wasn't frozen and rolling up to a ball close to the rail creates a rail contact. No foul.

No, the rule says that it is assumed to not be frozen. That is different than it actually being not frozen.

The rule doesn't say "A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not assumed to be touching that rail and then touches that rail. "

It says "A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns." Referring to what actually happened rather than what is assumed to be happening.

Therefore, a foul has occurred, it just can't be called. If it did say that, maybe your argument would have a little more clout.

6.3 No Rail after Contact
If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul. (See 8.4 Driven to a Rail.)

8.4 Driven to a Rail
A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns. A ball that is pocketed or driven off the table is also considered to have been driven to a rail. A ball is assumed not to be frozen to any rail unless it is declared frozen by the referee, the shooter, or the opponent. See also Regulation 27, Calling Frozen Balls.

The rules are simple as hell. If the ball wasn't called frozen then it wasn't frozen and rolling up to a ball close to the rail creates a rail contact. No foul.

You're spouting ridiculous nonsense. Why don't you just please write to the people who make the rules and explain to them what your "real" rules are and how much better they are? Who knows- maybe soon we can all play "real" pool by your "real" rules.

No, the rule says that it is assumed to not be frozen. That is different than it actually being not frozen.

The rule doesn't say "A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not assumed to be touching that rail and then touches that rail."

It says "A ball is said to be driven to a rail if it is not touching that rail and then touches that rail. A ball touching at the start of a shot (said to be “frozen” to the rail) is not considered driven to that rail unless it leaves the rail and returns." Referring to what actually happened rather than what is assumed to be happening.

Therefore, a foul has occurred, it just can't be called. If it did say that, maybe your argument would have a little more clout.

Why don't you try to understand the difference between assumption and what actually has happened?

I can assume that your mother is so fat that she jumped in the air and got stuck. Does that make it true? If that does make it true and your mother is indeed fat enough to jump in the air and get stuck, then you are right and I rescind my arguments. If not, I am right, so please concede your arguments.

 

[scsuxci]

Maybe you should ask those who formulate rules in pool to rewrite them to your liking because they're deceptive. Maybe they'll change the rule and then every angle shooter in the pool room can claim, after the shot, that the ball was frozen.

But I think it would be a better idea to get off your self-congratulatory soapbox and ask someone to explain to you why the rule exists because you have difficulty understanding some things.

The way I under
stood it was,would I take a shot that I knew was bad but my opponent
wouldn't notice and gave my explanation.If your trying to get a rise out
of people like myself by typing little jabs of insults,let me assure you
I deal with c-nts everyday in my line of work so when I come to AZ
to conversate and discuss pool I don't need someone like yourself who
becomes a Bear behind the keyboard but probably a Squirrel when you
leave your treehouse to tell me a damn thing.So re-read what I wrote
and lets try again.

 

[risky biz]

Not wasting my time on you any longer, you obviously can't see what is obvious. BTW you make a good Troll.

Well, if you're finished contradicting yourself, dispensing disparaging comments in lieu of producing a logical statement, and name calling then have a good evening.

 

[risky biz]

You posted the rules and they clear stated the contrary of what you claimed. Everything I said was according to the rules that you posted. Its kind of funny that you would post something that proves you wrong.

But only in a mind as confused as yours seems to be.

Those don't contradict each other. It is a legal shot because the person sitting doesn't have the power to call a foul in that situation. That doesn't mean that a foul didn't take place, just that its too late to call it.

It isn't a foul if it's a legal shot. And, it is a legal shot. It is not a foul. You're pretending it's a foul and getting upset because I won't pretend with you.

Its kind of like in court. Criminals are found not guilty all the time in court. In fact, they are presumed innocent. Does that mean they didn't do the crime? Of course not. It just means that our system of justice places protecting the innocent as a priority over convicting criminals.

Hopefully there are not, wherever you live, very many innocent people dragged before and tried by a lynch mob ranting that they're guilty no matter how legal their behavior is, endlessly fulminating that no matter how carefully they obeyed the law they are still guilty of a crime because in the mob's opinion there is some kind of real crime committed by them even though all the laws of the land state that there was no crime. Hopefully, mob instigators like that would be removed from public venues and bound over for psychiatric observation.

 

[risky biz]

Originally Posted by risky biz
Maybe you should ask those who formulate rules in pool to rewrite them to your liking because they're deceptive. Maybe they'll change the rule and then every angle shooter in the pool room can claim, after the shot, that the ball was frozen.

But I think it would be a better idea to get off your self-congratulatory soapbox and ask someone to explain to you why the rule exists because you have difficulty understanding some things.

The way I under
stood it was,would I take a shot that I knew was bad but my opponent
wouldn't notice and gave my explanation.If your trying to get a rise out
of people like myself by typing little jabs of insults,let me assure you
I deal with c-nts everyday in my line of work so when I come to AZ
to conversate and discuss pool I don't need someone like yourself who
becomes a Bear behind the keyboard but probably a Squirrel when you
leave your treehouse to tell me a damn thing.So re-read what I wrote
and lets try again.

Well, if you want to be a huffy/puffy internet bully and call names rather than expend what you must think is the tremendous effort required to understand why the rule exists then go ahead and do whatever floats your personal boat.

 

[risky biz]

No, the rule says that it is assumed to not be frozen. That is different than it actuallybeing not frozen.

Are you wondering why they didn't use your wording? I mean- you actually seem very convinced of and passionate about this so I assume you've given this a lot of thought. You must think they were actually very inept to not include in the rule an explanation of the difference between the ball being assumed to actually not be frozen and being assumed to not be frozen when it's actually frozen. Do think there is a major failure in their explanatory powers here? Actually, I think you're assuming that they never thought of the distinction and simply assumed that there was no distinction in actuality. But actually there is and maybe they should include them in the rules, assuming that they're willing to actually consider your suggestions. Maybe I can track down an e-mail address for you. Assuming you actually want to pursue this discussion any further with someone who can really make the rules better. Really.

 

[smoooothstroke]

You have an easy safety in eight ball to just roll up on a ball and leave your opponent nothing. The ball is froze to a rail, but your opponent didn't call it froze. Would you shoot this shot?

And if your opponent is totally indifferent to what you are doing on your turn at the table should you call it frozen and then pick up the CB and hand it to him?

It is not a players responsability to watch the game for his/her opponent.As long as you are not deceptive and you do not intentionally hurry a shot to deny your opponent a chance to follow what you are doing,you have done your part in playing fair and honest.
calling safe should be enough to let your opponent know what you are up to assuming they even care.