What would you do?
- Thread starter TheMarsMan
- Start date
This 'froze' rule is a gray area for me.
Most of the time, I don't bother looking, for me OR my opponent.
Therefore, NOT FROZE is in effect.
If I happen to notice that it's froze, I'll play it AS froze.
..but I WILL say this about the 'froze' situation....
..for every time I've seen a situation where 'froze' or 'not froze' actually
made a difference to a player's choice of shot.......
...I've seen a thousand times where it was used as a 'shark'
Most of the time, I don't bother looking, for me OR my opponent.
Therefore, NOT FROZE is in effect.
If I happen to notice that it's froze, I'll play it AS froze.
..but I WILL say this about the 'froze' situation....
..for every time I've seen a situation where 'froze' or 'not froze' actually
made a difference to a player's choice of shot.......
...I've seen a thousand times where it was used as a 'shark'
No, I just don't think one player can decide whether a ball is frozen or not, and many times the situation can't be determined with certainty unless someone really scrutinizes it. Calling fouls on yourself is a different issue, IMO, because you are the only one at the table, and perhaps the only one who could see the situation and know with certainty if there was a foul. In those cases I agree that it is absolutely the right thing to do. Even in a case where the seated player calls a foul, the shooter at the table still has a chance to plead his case, however. I saw a match b/w Mike Davis and SVB where Mike called foul on two occasions, and both times Shane said "no foul" - a discussion ensued and each time Shane stayed at the table.
Unlike a foul, however, a frozen ball situation is a determination that needs to be made before the shot, at a time when both players can approach the table, and I think there should be a consensus between players on that. If a ball is iffy, and I perceive an advantage to myself one way or the other, the only fair thing to do is get my opponent or a referee involved. Perhaps the frozen ball situation will persist after my shot, which means my opponent will potentially have to deal with it, and it is in everyone's best interest to scrutinize it and come to an agreement about it's status. That being said, if the aforementioned process does not occur (the ball is not called frozen), then I believe that the ball is not frozen regardless of how any one player feels about it, and at that point it becomes less about what a player should do than what the rules state the player can do. If the seated player is concerned about it, he should ask whether the ball is frozen.
I liken it to the 3 foul rule. If you commit 3 fouls in a row, but I neglected to warn you on 2, the rules say that the 3-foul rule does not apply. Even though there were 3 consecutive fouls, without that consensus after the 2nd foul, it is not a loss of game. I have have called 3 fouls on myself before, without the warning at 2, but I haven't seen anyone else do it, and I don't feel a player is obligated to do it if they weren't warned on 2. The rules clearly state that it is the other player's responsibility to give the warning after the 2nd foul, so I really don't see an ethical issue there.
Edit: I haven't consulted all the rule books, but the text in the APA rule book basically sums it up: "In order for the "frozen ball" rule to be in effect, the opponent must declare the ball frozen and the player should verify. Once it is agreed the ball is frozen..." These rules state that a consensus is required, and that's all I am saying. Without that, the ball is, for all practical purposes, not frozen IMO.
Aaron
Last edited:
Gotta disagree. The warning rule is to cover situations where the shooter might not be aware that he's on 2 - it doesn't absolve him of the moral responsibility to admit three fouls if he knows he committed them.
pj
chgo
I think this is about what rules are for. Are they to ensure that pool is played fairly, or are they a separate "game" to be won or lost?
I'm sure it's the former.
I like to play pool. Gaming the rules doesn't interest me.
pj
chgo
I'm sure it's the former.
I like to play pool. Gaming the rules doesn't interest me.
pj
chgo
If I looked and saw the ball is frozen, shooting the shot would never cross my mind. I would look at the ball and think, "Damn it's frozen. What's my next best play?"
Anyone who sees the ball is frozen and chooses to shoot it whether or not their opponent looked at the ball is shady in my book and won't get action again -unless they're easy money every time.
Anyone who sees the ball is frozen and chooses to shoot it whether or not their opponent looked at the ball is shady in my book and won't get action again -unless they're easy money every time.
I'm with you on all of that, Patrick, but I also think we need to look at these things realistically, keeping in mind what we need to do to protect ourselves. I'm not going to shoot the shot in question, but if my opponent does it without mentioning anything about the ball being frozen or not, I have no recourse after the fact. The issue of his morality is his own to deal with, and is not my concern. I can only blame myself if I fail to use the facility provided to me in the rules to protect myself from that situation, and it costs me the game. Plus, if I have not done due diligence and approached the table to scrutinize the situation, how can I say for certain that the ball was frozen? The same holds true if someone calls me on two fouls. Maybe I'm on two and maybe I'm not - perhaps he is mis-remembering or trying to pull a move on me. There needs to be a consensus in both cases - to protect both players.
Aaron
I'm with you on all that too, Aaron, but it's all beside the point of whether or not to call fouls on yourself - I've never had any trouble getting consensus on that
. I'm more comfortable with the miniscule risk of doing it by mistake than with not doing it at all.pj
chgo
I'm with you on all that too, Aaron, but it's all beside the point of whether or not to call fouls on yourself - I've never had any trouble getting consensus on that
pj
chgo
LOL. Yeah, my opponents have always been very agreeable when I called a foul on myself too.
I just want people to realize that they can't always expect the same behavior they themselves would exhibit in these situations. About 16% of those polled say they would shoot the shot in question. Everyone remembers Earl's foul that wasn't a foul because the ref didn't see it, and the fact that Earl had people backing him up on his decision to not call the foul on himself. Even (especially?) at the highest level, players must be aware and prepared to protect themselves.
Take care,
Aaron
I voted no but I'm sure I'm guilty of some wrong doings along the way. I can see both sides of this arguement. It's the players responsibility to pay attention. Hell, when I'm playing and my opponet is shooting I've been known to call a ball froze from my chair just so they don't shoot until I can go take a look for sure.
This is a minor infraction compared to some of the ruthless crap I've seen before. What about moving your coin twice or allowing the opponent to sleep his coin? Or how about arguing over a bad hit when you know it was bad? Or barely touching the cue ball during your warm up strokes?
This is a minor infraction compared to some of the ruthless crap I've seen before. What about moving your coin twice or allowing the opponent to sleep his coin? Or how about arguing over a bad hit when you know it was bad? Or barely touching the cue ball during your warm up strokes?
I'm very glad pool is becoming more honorable. Some people haven't a clue to how things used to be. It's like you are Lenina Huxley, and 1980's pool is Simon Phoenix. Drugs and gambling made some really good pool players do some really horrible things. And this is part of the reason pool is where it's at today.
The Evil Pool Player creedo..."I've been moved on and so others WILL be moved on as well".
How do these infractions stack up?
1.) Getting shot in the asse by a pimp with a pocket 22 because you aired him? Saw Gabby walk into the bath room, heard a bang and saw a guy coming running out holding his asse. - Slick Willies on Westheimer.
2.) How about getting your pocket clipped when you fall asleep in your chair? I watched Hatter do it at Grand Central Station with a razor blade when I was 15 years old. Took him about 30 seconds and he was gone. I was too young to know how to do anything about it.
3.) How about stealing part of the post money when the opponent goes to the bathroom and then arguing about it at the end when he lost? Seen it Byron do it to his own boy T-bone at Cornbreads. Everyone on the rail saw it but no one said a single word.
The Evil Pool Player creedo..."I've been moved on and so others WILL be moved on as well".
How do these infractions stack up?
1.) Getting shot in the asse by a pimp with a pocket 22 because you aired him? Saw Gabby walk into the bath room, heard a bang and saw a guy coming running out holding his asse. - Slick Willies on Westheimer.
2.) How about getting your pocket clipped when you fall asleep in your chair? I watched Hatter do it at Grand Central Station with a razor blade when I was 15 years old. Took him about 30 seconds and he was gone. I was too young to know how to do anything about it.
3.) How about stealing part of the post money when the opponent goes to the bathroom and then arguing about it at the end when he lost? Seen it Byron do it to his own boy T-bone at Cornbreads. Everyone on the rail saw it but no one said a single word.
Last edited:
I didn't understand
what he meant by his wording. Does he mean the opponent played a safety, and rolled up on a ball, froze to it, and it is my shot. But if I am frozen, I will have to play a kick shot.
Or he froze to one of my balls, and I can shoot the ball it is froze to. If this is the case, I would declare the ball frozen so I could shoot through the ball if I had some type of shot with it.
what he meant by his wording. Does he mean the opponent played a safety, and rolled up on a ball, froze to it, and it is my shot. But if I am frozen, I will have to play a kick shot.
Or he froze to one of my balls, and I can shoot the ball it is froze to. If this is the case, I would declare the ball frozen so I could shoot through the ball if I had some type of shot with it.
What I meant: You are playing eight ball and you have an easy safety on one of your balls by just rolling up on it but it is froze to a rail. Your opponent didn't call it froze, would you shoot the shot?
I edited my original post to add froze to a rail.
This is the correct call.
This was the more likely scenario which you didn't describe: it's your responsibility to call a frozen ball. A lightbulb came on and you decided to not call it. Your opponent shot a legal shot. You then tried for a ball in hand coup claiming your opponent fouled due, not to the rules of the game, but due to "ethics", a subject that you expounded on as your hand began to tingle in anticipation of pulling off your clever coup.
Be upfront about it and admit you were angle-shooting.
How does someone "cheat" by adhering to the basic rules of the game? A cheater is someone who insists that the rules of the game are irrelevant and that instead of being responsible to call a frozen ball himself, as the basic rules require, it's his opponent's responsibility to call a frozen ball for him. AFTER the opponent shoots a legal shot.
You and others have the "ethics" completely backwards. Not to mention that a lot of people here have a Pavlovian impulse to believe the first side of the story they hear.
This discussion about a frozen ball is also ridiculous in that there was no frozen ball. If it wasn't called frozen it wasn't frozen.
To be real honest, this type of play, especially in gambling is all too common.
I personally would not play the shot, even if the other person did not take the effort to go and see if the ball was frozen to the rail.
Many would if money was riding on the game.
My own integrity would be at stake and even if NO ONE else knew I did it, I would know I did it.
Once a person starts doing stuff like this and then rationalizing and justifying it, future ethic and moral decisions become blurred.
The principles of honesty and integrity become watered down.
Honesty, integrity, self control, respect, proper conduct, etc.. in sports and games are noble and great qualities to have, even if it means losing a game or money by sticking to these principles which are 100% the best way to go.
I personally would not play the shot, even if the other person did not take the effort to go and see if the ball was frozen to the rail.
Many would if money was riding on the game.
My own integrity would be at stake and even if NO ONE else knew I did it, I would know I did it.
Once a person starts doing stuff like this and then rationalizing and justifying it, future ethic and moral decisions become blurred.
The principles of honesty and integrity become watered down.
Honesty, integrity, self control, respect, proper conduct, etc.. in sports and games are noble and great qualities to have, even if it means losing a game or money by sticking to these principles which are 100% the best way to go.
Last edited: