Bob Jewett
Verified Member
I think that you should play by the general rules of pool if they address the subject. Why do you feel it is necessary to make up your own rules?
Legal Shot Discussion!
- Thread starter Dennis "Whitey" Young
- Start date
Dennis "Whitey" Young
Verified Member
WPA is the rule making body that is making up their own rules, and made it legal for the ob to dribble along the rail in and out of contact. Simply, Steve does not like this rule for his Official OP rules.
Steve's rule, forget about it, you are not going to get Steve to budge on this one. As he has explained it, it is an old OP rule that he discovered and obviously likes. Specifically, it is when the cb is in-between the rail and ob and frozen to both then it is not a legal shot to directly come off of that ob and back to the same rail that the cb was once frozen to. A legal shot has to be obtained by some other means.
Not much to get upset over here, for Steve has had this in his rules since conception, 2004.
All other information, is just clarifications of specific scenarios that generally players have not really thought about. No rule changes.
This one thread actually clarifies what is a legal shot is way beyond what anyone's general rules have ever done. Think about it, all these rule making bodies over all these years have had the same opportunity and format to write a complete legal shot rule but they never have.
Whitey
A legal shot is any shot that does not result in a foul. And no shot can be predetermined to be a foul, but must be based upon the merits of the outcome of the shot.
Dennis "Whitey" Young
Verified Member
Legal Shot
A legal shot is a shot that does not result in a foul. No shot can be predetermined as illegal, but must be based upon results.
1. A legal shot requires contacting a legal object ball and having the cue ball or an object ball contact a rail, or pocket an object ball.
2. But, when the object ball is frozen to a rail then the rail is not a legally contacted rail for the object ball, unless the object ball leaves that rail and contacts another ball and then contacts the same rail. If the cue ball is frozen to that same rail or contacts that rail prior to contacting the object ball then rule 1 applies.
2.1 An object ball frozen to a rail with the cue ball contacting the rail and object ball simultaneously or object ball first then rail, requires no further rail contact or ball being pocketed.
2.2 When a legal shot has yet to be obtained and an object ball frozen to another rail is subsequently contacted then that does not establish a legal shot, for no rail has been contacted.
3. When the cue ball is in-between the rail and object ball and frozen to both, it is not a legal shot to play the cue ball directly off of that object ball and directly back into the same rail. Rule 1 applies.
Note: Long rails divided by side pockets are considered separate rails.
------------------------------------
Look guys! I did not believe it was possible to write a Legal Shot Rule in 250 words, let alone still include Steve's Special Frozen Rule. I've tried before and without Steve's Rule, and was still at 300, 300 plus.
Check and see but I believe I have all the scenarios in there that have been discussed on this thread. The key to shortening the writing is referencing Rule 1, and declaring what makes the rail alive when the ob is frozen to it!
I am still not quite a fan of rule 2.2. But that is the current rule. I'd like to see that changed to; it is a legal shot to subsequently contact a ball frozen to another rail. 2.2 requires the present of mind to further check other balls frozen to other rails, very unlikely by the opponent, but possibly done by a referee.
So therefore, a subsequent contacted ball frozen to a rail will be legal if the ball is not declared frozen. Think about it! We might as well just change the rule and state it is a legal shot, just imo.
I know this must seem somewhat crazy to you guys, but for me this is very exciting! 250 words with all that covered, wow!
Whitey
A legal shot is a shot that does not result in a foul. No shot can be predetermined as illegal, but must be based upon results.
1. A legal shot requires contacting a legal object ball and having the cue ball or an object ball contact a rail, or pocket an object ball.
2. But, when the object ball is frozen to a rail then the rail is not a legally contacted rail for the object ball, unless the object ball leaves that rail and contacts another ball and then contacts the same rail. If the cue ball is frozen to that same rail or contacts that rail prior to contacting the object ball then rule 1 applies.
2.1 An object ball frozen to a rail with the cue ball contacting the rail and object ball simultaneously or object ball first then rail, requires no further rail contact or ball being pocketed.
2.2 When a legal shot has yet to be obtained and an object ball frozen to another rail is subsequently contacted then that does not establish a legal shot, for no rail has been contacted.
3. When the cue ball is in-between the rail and object ball and frozen to both, it is not a legal shot to play the cue ball directly off of that object ball and directly back into the same rail. Rule 1 applies.
Note: Long rails divided by side pockets are considered separate rails.
------------------------------------
Look guys! I did not believe it was possible to write a Legal Shot Rule in 250 words, let alone still include Steve's Special Frozen Rule. I've tried before and without Steve's Rule, and was still at 300, 300 plus.
Check and see but I believe I have all the scenarios in there that have been discussed on this thread. The key to shortening the writing is referencing Rule 1, and declaring what makes the rail alive when the ob is frozen to it!
I am still not quite a fan of rule 2.2. But that is the current rule. I'd like to see that changed to; it is a legal shot to subsequently contact a ball frozen to another rail. 2.2 requires the present of mind to further check other balls frozen to other rails, very unlikely by the opponent, but possibly done by a referee.
So therefore, a subsequent contacted ball frozen to a rail will be legal if the ball is not declared frozen. Think about it! We might as well just change the rule and state it is a legal shot, just imo.
I know this must seem somewhat crazy to you guys, but for me this is very exciting! 250 words with all that covered, wow!
Whitey
Last edited:
catkins
Verified Member
so even if the balls are frozen, if you masse and the cue ball hits the same rail twice but the object ball hits a cluster so no other rail is contacted it is a foul?
mr3cushion
Verified Member
Another scenario to ponder.
catkins
Verified Member
my personal choice here though I know it probably will not happen is simplicity of if a ball leaves the rail and comes back it is good. it is not a big deal if some one gets a way with something like a crooked table one time to create a simplified rule in my opinion. Other wise it feels a bit like playing in bars where people try to make super complex rules for no real reason in my eyes
Dennis "Whitey" Young
Verified Member
Catkins, I believe you are referring to Steve's Rule, of the cb in-between the rail and ob and frozen to both. If so, yes that would be a foul. The rail the cb is frozen to is not alive for the cb when coming directly off the ob it is frozen to. This is the intent of Steve's Rule.
In your scenario the ob or an ob is not driven to a rail, therefore the cb must be driven to a rail. The same rail it is frozen to can only be legally first contacted if the cb subsequently comes off of another ball and then back to the same rail it was frozen to.
I maybe should write rule 3 a little more specific.
So if you are battling nursing the balls then this is the optimum position you want to get your opponent in.
I hope this is clear, and referring to the scenario you want to be clear about!
Whitey
Dennis "Whitey" Young
Verified Member
mr3c, I am not familiar with this shot, as far as the action of the balls. But, by the common knowledge of the rule, if an object ball is frozen to a rail and leaves that rail and contacts a ball and then returns to the same rail, it is a legal shot.
So, if this happens, even though it involves the cb then it is a legal shot.
A 'ball' imo can be the cb. In the opinion of WPA, I believe they only recognize 'Ball' as being an 'object ball'. So, definitions can be of importance when writing rules.
I define 'Ball' as; a single or multiple balls including the cb.
More comments anyone!
Excellent question!
Thanks, Whitey
So, if this happens, even though it involves the cb then it is a legal shot.
A 'ball' imo can be the cb. In the opinion of WPA, I believe they only recognize 'Ball' as being an 'object ball'. So, definitions can be of importance when writing rules.
I define 'Ball' as; a single or multiple balls including the cb.
More comments anyone!
Excellent question!
Thanks, Whitey
Dennis "Whitey" Young
Verified Member
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oHePtHjLAwHrn8hw6
This was brought up by Doc and mr3c. Bob replied to Doc, that no the object ball when double kissed does not re-contact the rail.
So I did a video. I was close to the shot when executing and could not visually see the object ball leave the rail and then re-contact the rail. I am not saying it is not possible to occur, and a few times I thought it might of happened, eyes playing tricks, possible.
Very tough call. I tried different techniques but was unsuccessful in clearly getting the ob to leave the rail and then go back to the rail.
Whitey
This was brought up by Doc and mr3c. Bob replied to Doc, that no the object ball when double kissed does not re-contact the rail.
So I did a video. I was close to the shot when executing and could not visually see the object ball leave the rail and then re-contact the rail. I am not saying it is not possible to occur, and a few times I thought it might of happened, eyes playing tricks, possible.
Very tough call. I tried different techniques but was unsuccessful in clearly getting the ob to leave the rail and then go back to the rail.
Whitey
Bob Jewett
Verified Member
That shot has been studied with high speed video (about 1000 frames per second). The object ball does not leave contact with the cushion between contacts with the cue ball. It sinks into the rail after the first contact, the cue ball advances very slightly, and then the object ball hits the cue ball before the OB leaves the cushion. The video is available somewhere on the internet, probably on Dr. Dave's site.
mr3cushion
Verified Member
All Top 3Cplayers understand the physics of the, 'Double Kiss' shot Bob. My question on This forum, "Is the shot legal?"
Last edited:
gulfportdoc
Verified Member
From what they're saying, a double kiss from an OB frozen on the rail --in isolation-- is a "no rail" foul.
mr3cushion
Verified Member
Doc, You must of missed where I said, 'High Ball' on CB will cause the CB to go Forward to kiss the OB back to the rail!
NH Steve
Administrator
I would say the shot you describe is a foul. All the rules say something to the effect of a frozen ball has to reach a contact beyond the rail it is frozen to -- or the cue ball has to contact a rail. You said the cue ball did not contact a rail and the frozen ball did not go anywhere, so by all the rule definitions that I know of, it looks like a foul.
NH Steve
Administrator
Yes, that Efren masse 180 degrees around a ball on the foot rail -- he did that once that I personally witnessed at DCC. His opponent tried to do the same in return but failed. I almost think it was against Dave Matlock, and it was not on the TV table.
mr3cushion
Verified Member
You, must of missed this also! I said, "'High Ball' on CB will cause the CB to go Forward to kiss the OB back to the rail!"
I, Never said the OB didn't go anywhere!
Last edited:
NH Steve
Administrator
They address the subject, yes, but they get an "incomplete"
NH Steve
Administrator
So you are saying -- although others are saying video generally says the OB doesn't actually leave the rail -- but you are saying it clearly does leave the rail so that an observer would see that "it left the rail, and then returned". By the current WPA rules it sounds like your shot would be legal. Just the same way an OB can dribble in and out of contact with a rail and be legal by their rules at this time. If we adopted the no dribble rule
I believe it would make your kiss shot illegal too -- for the same reason.If there was a little jump involved, then you probably could obtain a more obvious "leaving the rail" before the follow came back and caused that extra rail contact?? I don't know...
mr3cushion
Verified Member
Just for argument sake, the OB is off the cushion a hair's width. The player hit the OB, full in the face with Follow on the CB, the OB contacts the rail immediately, CB is going, 'forward' knocks the OB back to the cushion. Same effect can happen with the OB frozen. I'm hitting this shot with soft speed, I don't think people visualize a, 'double kiss' at that speed!So you are saying -- although others are saying video generally says the OB doesn't actually leave the rail -- but you are saying it clearly does leave the rail so that an observer would see that "it left the rail, and then returned". By the current WPA rules it sounds like your shot would be legal. Just the same way an OB can dribble in and out of contact with a rail and be legal by their rules at this time. If we adopted the no dribble rule
Last edited:
catkins
Verified Member
so your saying that with the slow speed the ob pushes the cue ball off the rail and itself moves off the rail before the follow takes to return it to the rail, or are you saying that the cue ball hits object ball rebounds and allows enough time for the ob to clear the rail before the cue ball returns to push it to the rial. I am asking out of curiosity by the way ?