Rule question/clarification

[petie]

As we have talked about in other threads, the rules being promulgated by league players often flies in the face of long established understandings and it is in this light that I ask the following question:

OK you have an object ball frozen to the rail. Your oppo calls the ref or gets your agreement that it is frozen. Now, you can make a legal shot by making the cue ball hit the frozen ball and then hit the same rail that ball is frozen to...right? Does anyone or do any rules say otherwise?

 

[androd]

As we have talked about in other threads, the rules being promulgated by league players often flies in the face of long established understandings and it is in this light that I ask the following question:

OK you have an object ball frozen to the rail. Your oppo calls the ref or gets your agreement that it is frozen. Now, you can make a legal shot by making the cue ball hit the frozen ball and then hit the same rail that ball is frozen to...right? Does anyone or do any rules say otherwise?

I don't know or care what the rules are, but it's legal with me.
Rod.

 

[petie]

I don't know or care what the rules are, but it's legal with me.
Rod.

Thanks, Rod. I play by Rod's rules.

 

[gulfportdoc]

OK you have an object ball frozen to the rail. Your oppo calls the ref or gets your agreement that it is frozen. Now, you can make a legal shot by making the cue ball hit the frozen ball and then hit the same rail that ball is frozen to...right? Does anyone or do any rules say otherwise?

Yes, that is correct.

If the object ball were not frozen to the rail, then the shooter would be allowed to simply roll the CB to the OB, causing the OB to bump the rail.

When a ball is frozen to a rail, or to another ball, it in effect "becomes one" with the other. Since they are in effect joined, then they are regarded as a single unit. (Just my way of looking at it)

Doc

 

[NH Steve]

Thanks, Rod. I play by Rod's rules.

...and all the major standard rules agree with you

 

[wincardona]

Yes, that is correct.

If the object ball were not frozen to the rail, then the shooter would be allowed to simply roll the CB to the OB, causing the OB to bump the rail.

When a ball is frozen to a rail, or to another ball, it in effect "becomes one" with the other. Since they are in effect joined, then they are regarded as a single unit. (Just my way of looking at it)

Doc

Here's an interesting situation that could easily present itself. Based on your perception of a ball that is either frozen to a rail or another ball as being a "single unit" which then "becomes one"what would be the call if the shooter shot off a frozen ball that was also frozen to the rail and the cue ball went to the rail where the balls were frozen to? I'm thinking (the way you look at it) that since the balls are frozen both to one another and to the rail you would then have to hit another rail with either the object ball or the cue ball for it to be a legal shot. Would that be right? Interesting.

Dr. Bill

 

[petie]

Yes, that is correct.

If the object ball were not frozen to the rail, then the shooter would be allowed to simply roll the CB to the OB, causing the OB to bump the rail.

When a ball is frozen to a rail, or to another ball, it in effect "becomes one" with the other. Since they are in effect joined, then they are regarded as a single unit. (Just my way of looking at it)

Doc

Wouldn't this concept make shooting through the frozen ball legal?

 

[petie]

Wouldn't this concept make shooting through the frozen ball legal?

Just to let you know, I'm in favor of shooting through the ball if you want to and you do it with one continuous stroke.

 

[beatle]

yea bill, if both cue ball and object ball are both frozen to each other and frozen to the rail. in other words in line.

then you would have to shoot away from the object ball and move it visibly and hit another rail.

unless you could shoot away and masse the cue ball back to the same rail then it would be fine.

 

[beatle]

in all these situations i have always told my opponent what i was going to do or try to do. and then he would have to say it was okay or tell me it wasnt and then we agree on something.

 

[wincardona]

yea bill, if both cue ball and object ball are both frozen to each other and frozen to the rail. in other words in line.

then you would have to shoot away from the object ball and move it visibly and hit another rail.

unless you could shoot away and masse the cue ball back to the same rail then it would be fine.

That's what I would think, however, Art is saying that when balls are frozen their a unit and should be recognized as "one" If that were the case then if the cue ball was frozen to a ball that was frozen to the rail shouldn't you have to hit another rail other than the rail the OB is frozen to? That sounds wrong, doesn't it?

Dr. Bill

 

[beatle]

yea if the object ball is frozen to a rail and the cue ball is frozen to the object ball but the cue ball is not frozen to the rail. you can drive the cue ball to that rail as long as you move the object ball.that tells you that you didnt shoot totally away from it.
its been that way everywhere ive been for 50 years.

 

[NH Steve]

yea if the object ball is frozen to a rail and the cue ball is frozen to the object ball but the cue ball is not frozen to the rail. you can drive the cue ball to that rail as long as you move the object ball.that tells you that you didnt shoot totally away from it.
its been that way everywhere ive been for 50 years.

And still is

 

[gulfportdoc]

Here's an interesting situation that could easily present itself. Based on your perception of a ball that is either frozen to a rail or another ball as being a "single unit" which then "becomes one"what would be the call if the shooter shot off a frozen ball that was also frozen to the rail and the cue ball went to the rail where the balls were frozen to? I'm thinking (the way you look at it) that since the balls are frozen both to one another and to the rail you would then have to hit another rail with either the object ball or the cue ball for it to be a legal shot. Would that be right? Interesting. Dr. Bill

I think Beatle and Steve have already answered your question. In your example the CB could still be driven to the same rail. In fact if it were driven to another rail, the OB would still have to be shown as moved. The shooter couldn't just aim the CB 180 degrees away from the frozen OB, and shoot to another rail (although it's permissible in snooker).

Anyway, this situation understandably oftentimes causes confusion and arguments.

Doc