Another "rules" question

[chicagomike]

Suppose the CB is frozen to the rail next to an OB that may or may not be also frozen to the rail. Upon hitting the CB into the OB is it ok for the CB to fall back onto the rail it was originally frozen to?....or is it a foul provided the OB did not contact another rail?? Perhaps it's simply a point that has to be addressed prior to starting your match.

I've seen it happen as some tables have developed a gully along the rails that allows th CB to roll back into the rail.

What are your thoughts?

If this has been addressed before perhaps someone can provided the link.

Thanks!!!

 

[John Brumback]

It's a legal shot. That rail is not dead or out of play just because the cball is laying on it. John B.

 

[lll]

It's a legal shot. That rail is not dead or out of play just because the cball is laying on it. John B.

john thats how i remember the rules too
but i found this in our rules
8. Frozen balls
For a foul to result from failure to legally strike a rail after contacting a frozen ball, the ball in question must be inspected and designated as frozen prior to a player’s shot, otherwise the ball is not considered frozen. If the cue ball becomes wedged between an object ball and the cushion and frozen to both, then legal shot requirements must be met by pocketing the frozen ball, or by contacting either another ball or another cushion enroute to a legal shot. Failure to do so is a foul.
this could be a unique scenario...
bolded part from me for emphasis

 

[Tennessee Joe6]

If you go to Dr Dave's site...the referees section has examples of this, according to World Standardized Rules. And according to these video examples, it is a good shot for the cue ball to fall back against the rail after contacting the object ball.

However, in the world of One Pocket, and old school vs. young guns, this should be determined before the game starts.

The so called standardized rules are not really standardized. We have the WPA, the Onepocket.org, the DCC, etc., and every pool hall with the old-timers convenient bending of house rules.

 

[chicagomike]

Thank you...I think that pretty much clears it up. I will consider it a good hit without question.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

8. Frozen balls
... If the cue ball becomes wedged between an object ball and the cushion and frozen to both, then legal shot requirements must be met by pocketing the frozen ball, or by contacting either another ball or another cushion enroute to a legal shot.

I don't think this part of the rule is needed. All it says is "the usual rules apply to this situation". The added "explanation" only confuses things.

pj
chgo

 

[LSJohn]

I don't think this part of the rule is needed. All it says is "the usual rules apply to this situation". The added "explanation" only confuses things.

pj
chgo

Exactly.

Should be: If the CB is frozen to a rail, a legal shot requires that an OB contact a rail or be pocketed, or the CB must leave the frozen rail before contacting any rail (or something like that.)

 

[lll]

I don't think this part of the rule is needed. All it says is "the usual rules apply to this situation". The added "explanation" only confuses things.

pj
chgo

dont shoot the messenger......
i didnt write the rule....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

dont shoot the messenger......
i didnt write the rule....

Just commenting on the rule itself, Larry. We have plenty of other reasons to shoot at you.

pj
chgo

 

[NH Steve]

dont shoot the messenger......
i didnt write the rule....

I probably did, and LSJohn's suggestion that ends with, "(or something like that.) " kind of illustrates the problem. Any time you try to write rules it ultimately comes down to the problem of committing to exactly the right words, lol. I think we all "get" the concepts in these rule situations, but narrowing down the wording to succinct and irrefutably clear wording is when it gets difficult.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I probably did, and LSJohn's suggestion that ends with, "(or something like that.) " kind of illustrates the problem. Any time you try to write rules it ultimately comes down to the problem of committing to exactly the right words, lol. I think we all "get" the concepts in these rule situations, but narrowing down the wording to succinct and irrefutably clear wording is when it gets difficult.

I feel ya, Steve - making it succinct, accurate and easy to understand (not too technical sounding) is sometimes impossible. That's why rules also have "Regulations" and "Definitions" to help interpret them. For example, here's a WPA "Definition" for the situation we're discussing:

http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#8.4

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.

pj
chgo

 

[petie]

I feel ya, Steve - making it succinct, accurate and easy to understand (not too technical sounding) is sometimes impossible. That's why rules also have "Regulations" and "Definitions" to help interpret them. For example, here's a WPA "Definition" for the situation we're discussing:

http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#8.4

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.

pj
chgo

We need a guy like Straightback to help clarify the code.

 

[LSJohn]

@ pj

@ pj

I just noticed that I said, "Exactly" to your comment above, then followed that by missing your point entirely.

You were saying we don't really need special verbiage for this situation because it's already covered adequately elsewhere in the rules, right?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I just noticed that I said, "Exactly" to your comment above, then followed that by missing your point entirely.

You were saying we don't really need special verbiage for this situation because it's already covered adequately elsewhere in the rules, right?

Yeah. I recognize that some explanation is often needed, especially for unusual situations like this one... but in this case the explanation seems to contradict the general rules.

pj
chgo