What would you do?

[acousticsguru]

The rule isn't even vague in this respect: of course the shooter may call a foul on himself. That's the point.

The other aspect is that rules should be read in accordance with the corpus. Does everyone think they fulfill the minimum requirement of contacting an object ball with the cue ball, then pocketing an object ball or driving any ball to a cushion when they shoot said type of shot.

What happens in reality is this: shooter sees ball is frozen. Shooter may know the rule, and because no one else called the ball frozen, decides to take advantage of the situation and rolls the cue ball up to it. Shooter knows no ball was driven to a rail after contact, and couldn't possibly claim he saw this happen, thus what he just did was get away with something that's a loophole in the rule set rather than in accordance with either the corpus (the complete set) of the rules, nor the spirit of the game (rolling the ball up to a ball is a legal shot in Snooker, but every pool player knows it's not a pool shot, except if played as an intentional foul in disciplines where there is no ball in hand for not fulfilling the minimum requirement, such as in Straight Pool etc.).

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

 

[Patrick Johnson]

..........

 

[risky biz]

The rule isn't even vague in this respect: of course the shooter may call a foul on himself. That's the point.

The other aspect is that rules should be read in accordance with the corpus. Does everyone think they fulfill the minimum requirement of contacting an object ball with the cue ball, then pocketing an object ball or driving any ball to a cushion when they shoot said type of shot.

What happens in reality is this: shooter sees ball is frozen. Shooter may know the rule, and because no one else called the ball frozen, decides to take advantage of the situation and rolls the cue ball up to it.

You can personally call it taking advantage of the situation but those who wrote the rules will call it PLAYING BY THE RULES.

Shooter knows no ball was driven to a rail after contact, and couldn't possibly claim he saw this happen, thus what he just did was get away with something that's a loophole in the rule set rather than in accordance with either the corpus (the complete set) of the rules, nor the spirit of the game (rolling the ball up to a ball is a legal shot in Snooker, but every pool player knows it's not a pool shot, except if played as an intentional foul in disciplines where there is no ball in hand for not fulfilling the minimum requirement, such as in Straight Pool etc.).

You can force feed YOUR fabricated guilt-thought into the brain of some imaginary player in a discussion group but you're not going to be able to force feed YOUR fabricated guilt-thought into the brain of a real person who will probably describe you as exactly what you are in a venue where speech isn't moderated if you attempt it.

The shooter doesn't have to "know" or "see" anything. All he need be mindful of is that he shoots a legal shot and abides by the rules of pool, something that you seem to have a terrific problem with.

Once again- please communicate your brilliant ideas about the rules of pool to those who write those rules rather than being a world class, name-calling cry baby in a discussion forum.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

risky biz:
those who wrote the rules will call it PLAYING BY THE RULES.

They might allow that it's within the rules, but I seriously doubt they'd agree it's what's intended by the rule. It's clearly taking advantage of a loophole - technically legal but not really "sportsmanlike".

pj
chgo

 

[PGHteacher]

Has anyone else noticed that the people that are rude & hostile are the people that are saying “I voted yes there is nothing wrong with this play.”? I think the 2 camps are not actually warring over the same thing.

My personal feeling is that the ones who voted no are the deeper thinkers. The ones who voted yes are saying (and thinking) that “the ball is not frozen until it is declared as such” and why can’t you stupid people understand that? After all it’s right there in black & white right? Read the rule it is clear and concise.

And then logic clicks in for most of us and we say humm; how could it not be frozen until it is declared as such? How could a declaration of whether it is or is not frozen change the physical reality of whether it is frozen or not? And then most of us conclude that a pronouncement can not change a physical reality the reality must be a physical one it has to be touching the rail or not.

From that most of us say “well then why is the rule written that way” and then comes the argument; well I think the rule is written that way to best satisfy everyone and it does a very good job of it. It is written and practiced this way so you can’t say “it was frozen” post facto.

There are always going to be those people out there that are going to try to “get around the system”, “get over on someone”, “dupe people” and the like; some of them are even proud when they do it.

That’s why I found this question impossible to answer in the poll; because with all those people I would make this play on them; so at present I would say I would do this to 21.88% of the people here without a second thought, and to 78.13% of the people here I wouldn’t even think about doing it; it would be a definite “NO!”

 

[Softballmvp]

Whether or not it is a shady move, at least from the perspective of e.g. Snooker or European players, depends on his reply to your question if he thought the ball frozen when he rolled the cue ball up to it. One will learn all one needs to know about a guy's cold-bloodedness and contempt for his fellow men from his reply. I guess that's why the OP was curious to hear how people would answer his question.

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

I don't know for sure. I knew the ball hadn't moved, I'm assuming he knew the ball hadn't moved and was still frozen so therefore he is cold blooded in your eyes. Honestly, I didn't care. The thought in my head wasn't "this guy is immoral". The thought in my head was, hmmm, just learned something. It was my fault I didn't make the call. And I will know for next time.

 

[Softballmvp]

LOL. You're arguing not hitting a rail is just a little foul?

Pool players.

pj
chgo

Actually, no, not at all. That isn't at all what I meant. What I meant is that speeding and rolling through stop signs could be considered immoral. Driving faster and running stop signs could put some people's lives in danger. Could very easily be considered immoral, yet most of us do it. That is what I was attempting to say with that remark.

 

[Banks]

Actually, no, not at all. That isn't at all what I meant. What I meant is that speeding and rolling through stop signs could be considered immoral. Driving faster and running stop signs could put some people's lives in danger. Could very easily be considered immoral, yet most of us do it. That is what I was attempting to say with that remark.

Translation: "It's not cheating if I don't get caught."

This is why the NBA started fighting the flop.

 

[Softballmvp]

Everyone else is arguing the same thing over and over for 15 pages. 2 guys arguing "it's legal, how can it be immoral" and the others arguing "unethical because you knew it". Just wording it differently over and over, and then the same again. I look at it this way, would I shoot that shot? No. I believe Risky Biz even said himself he voted No. But would I look at my opponent and scream immoral? No, I would be ticked at myself for not making the call. I cannot control him. I can control me.

I mean if someone asked you to gamble straight up and you knew him, and knew you would dominate, would you take the game to make some money? If so, are you immoral?

Is fouling on purpose to improve your table position, or to mess up your opponents table position (tying up balls or whatever), immoral? You are fouling on purpose, right? But it's strategy.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
You're arguing not hitting a rail is just a little foul?

Softballmvp:
What I meant is that speeding and rolling through stop signs could be considered immoral. Driving faster and running stop signs could put some people's lives in danger. Could very easily be considered immoral, yet most of us do it.

Most of us don't purposely endanger anyone. Taking this shot is purposely cheating someone.

pj
chgo

 

[acousticsguru]

You can personally call it taking advantage of the situation but those who wrote the rules will call it PLAYING BY THE RULES.



You can force feed YOUR fabricated guilt-thought into the brain of some imaginary player in a discussion group but you're not going to be able to force feed YOUR fabricated guilt-thought into the brain of a real person who will probably describe you as exactly what you are in a venue where speech isn't moderated if you attempt it.

The shooter doesn't have to "know" or "see" anything. All he need be mindful of is that he shoots a legal shot and abides by the rules of pool, something that you seem to have a terrific problem with.

Once again- please communicate your brilliant ideas about the rules of pool to those who write those rules rather than being a world class, name-calling cry baby in a discussion forum.

Fact is, and remains, rules are meant to be read according to the corpus. I already explained what this means. You already decided to ignore it. What more is there to say other than: you are calling me a cry-baby? LOL! You're too cute to be true, you know.

Makes me wonder: have you noticed someone pointed out in this thread that you're actually a nice person in real life? Read through all your flaming and derogatory remarks towards me, and you'll not just figure out who the cry-baby is, but also why that person's claim seems grossly far-fetched. I won't say the person's wrong. But you're certainly trying your utmost to disguise it, and if so, you're doing a great job… :thumbup:

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

 

[acousticsguru]

I don't know for sure. I knew the ball hadn't moved, I'm assuming he knew the ball hadn't moved and was still frozen so therefore he is cold blooded in your eyes. Honestly, I didn't care. The thought in my head wasn't "this guy is immoral". The thought in my head was, hmmm, just learned something. It was my fault I didn't make the call. And I will know for next time.

That's the attitude I teach my students: to know what's the proper thing to do, as well as to promote sportsmanlike behaviour whenever and wherever one can, but to expect others to have the same innate ethical/moral compass is too much to ask (= only need to follow this thread), even if one might think we all share an interest in our beloved sport not to down upon by those who think it's a game and not a sport to begin with.

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

 

[acousticsguru]

You can personally call it taking advantage of the situation but those who wrote the rules will call it PLAYING BY THE RULES.

Please stop pretending you're playing by the rules any more than anyone else contributing to this thread. Fact is, you play by your interpretation of the rule, and people like me, play by my interpretation of the rule. I am not participating in this discussion merely to be provocative. Logically, an interpretation of the frozen ball rule that is in accordance with the minimum requirement for a legal pool shot (= pocket an object ball or drive any ball to a rail after contact) is the interpretation that's in accordance with the corpus of the rule set, and thus obeying the spirit rather than merely the letter of the rule. You're not physically driving a any ball to a rail rolling the cue ball up to a frozen ball, regardless of whether or not it's being called frozen for practicality's sake (and we do not appear to disagree on that aspect: calling the ball frozen is a fair and safe way of preventing arguments). No use pretending one knows better what "those who wrote the rules" had in mind than them. If the interpretation of the rule is in accordance with the corpus, it's likely to be correct. If it's not, it can't be.

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

 

[Foolio]

I don't get it. Couldn't you just contact the object ball then contact the adjacent rail with the cue ball? Is this legal or does the cue ball have to contact another rail? I'm starting to get confused on the rules on frozen balls.

 

[Hungarian]

I don't get it. Couldn't you just contact the object ball then contact the adjacent rail with the cue ball? Is this legal or does the cue ball have to contact another rail? I'm starting to get confused on the rules on frozen balls.

Don't mess our arguement up with common sense Foolio

 

[risky biz]

Translation: "It's not cheating if I don't get caught."

How does someone "get caught" playing by the rules? They are expected to play by the rules. That's why rules are written. It's glaringly obvious that the ones here who maintain that the rules should be ignored are the first ones that someone should suspect of cheating.

The rules explicitly make clear that a shot is legal if a ball is not called frozen. The rules even go to the extent of directing players to assume that a ball is not frozen if it isn't called frozen. The rules therefore make clear that it's the reponsibility of the last shooter or the referee to call the ball frozen and they allow the incoming shooter to call a ball frozen but don't require or even encourage him to.

If the last shooter who later claims he was trying to and succeeded in freezing the ball to the rail at the time of his shot didn't even bother to go look at it closely and call it frozen why the hell should the incoming shooter bother to go around the table to look at it closely and call it frozen or not? And, no- it's not a good enough reason that the first shooter could turn out to be a big crybaby and claim you fouled when the rules are crystal clear that you didn't.

 

[risky biz]

Most of us don't purposely endanger anyone. Taking this shot is purposely cheating someone.

pj
chgo

No it isn't. You're only purposely pretending that it is.

If the rules say you're wrong why don't you complain about it to the people who write the rules?

 

[risky biz]

Fact is, and remains, rules are meant to be read according to the corpus. I already explained what this means. You already decided to ignore it. What more is there to say other than: you are calling me a cry-baby? LOL! You're too cute to be true, you know.

Makes me wonder: have you noticed someone pointed out in this thread that you're actually a nice person in real life? Read through all your flaming and derogatory remarks towards me, and you'll not just figure out who the cry-baby is, but also why that person's claim seems grossly far-fetched. I won't say the person's wrong. But you're certainly trying your utmost to disguise it, and if so, you're doing a great job…

The objective of every post you have submitted has as it's purpose to undermine and destroy the rules. Your silly pretension that all the other rules work in wondrous and unseen ways to destroy this rule is just plain silly and seems the production of an immature mind.

You can call posting the real rules and explaining them "flaming" but the fact slapping you in the face is that since I and a couple of others have started posting here about the true intent of the representations of you and a few others the "yes" column has gone from 17% to 21.54%. The unethical quality of the presentations by yourself and others has actually increased the "yes" votes. Congratulations. The voting is telling me who the crybaby is while you tell yourself that you aren't the cry baby. Some accomplishment.

 

[risky biz]

Please stop pretending you're playing by the rules any more than anyone else contributing to this thread. Fact is, you play by your interpretation of the rule, and people like me, play by my interpretation of the rule. I am not participating in this discussion merely to be provocative. Logically, an interpretation of the frozen ball rule that is in accordance with the minimum requirement for a legal pool shot (= pocket an object ball or drive any ball to a rail after contact) is the interpretation that's in accordance with the corpus of the rule set, and thus obeying the spirit rather than merely the letter of the rule. You're not physically driving a any ball to a rail rolling the cue ball up to a frozen ball, regardless of whether or not it's being called frozen for practicality's sake (and we do not appear to disagree on that aspect: calling the ball frozen is a fair and safe way of preventing arguments). No use pretending one knows better what "those who wrote the rules" had in mind than them. If the interpretation of the rule is in accordance with the corpus, it's likely to be correct. If it's not, it can't be.

Rolling up with adequate energy to a ball close to the rail will cause a rail contact if the ball is not frozen which it wouldn't be if not called frozen.

The rules specify that a ball is to be considered not frozen if it hasn't been called frozen. Therefore a roll-up shot is legal and there is no such thing as a shot that is both legal and a foul.

Your "corpus" nonsense will make no headway in destroying this rule other than with someone who is nonsensical.

The rules:

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.)
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=121&pagetype=rules#6.7

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.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=123&pagetype=rules#8.4

27. Calling Frozen Balls
The referee should be careful to inspect and announce the status of any object ball that might be frozen to a cushion and the cue ball when it might be frozen to a ball. The seated player may remind the referee that such a call is necessary. The shooter must allow time for such a determination to be asked for and made, and may ask for the call himself.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=10&pagetype=static_content#27

 

[risky biz]

I don't get it. Couldn't you just contact the object ball then contact the adjacent rail with the cue ball? Is this legal or does the cue ball have to contact another rail? I'm starting to get confused on the rules on frozen balls.

The example we're discussing is of an object ball near a rail but not called frozen. The next shooter gently rolls the cue ball up to the object ball and either gently bounces it off the rail or freezes it to the rail and calls it frozen for a safety.

It's a legal shot also if the cue ball contacts a rail after contacting the object ball.