Go Back   OnePocket.org Forums > One Pocket Forum
Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2019, 09:13 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,115
Default Two balls frozen to cb: legal/illegal shot!

In my playing days I grew up knowing that it was illegal to shoot into more than one ball frozen to the cue ball. How I knew this I do not know, but for me it was just common knowledge, or I might of learned this from Fred Whalen or Vern Peterson, I can not recall. But I do 'not' know of any rule that specifically states this.
I am here not to argue this foul scenario but to lay out the facts as I know them, for this is very controversial, because by the rule, it states; 'when an object ball is frozen to the cue ball, you can shoot towards it'. Plus no one thus far that I have discussed this with has even heard of such a ruling nor do they agree that it is a foul to shoot towards more than one ball frozen to the cue ball. Dr. Cue, Massey, Dr. Dave. Dr. Cue stated; "it would have to based upon the governing authority". It put Dr. Dave into a frenzy for about 3 days! LOL! I should add in here that this question was posed to bcapl referees on their facebook, and they all thought it was a legal shot.

Except for one person, Dr. Bill. in a PM I posed the scenario to him and I do not believe he would mind if I shared his reply; "I believe it should be a foul for you are pushing the 1st ball through the 2nd ball". This was entirely inline with my thinking also, plus I also have another reason that I'll explain.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...J3d1dsdEhiaDNR

I was watching the World Championship Artistic Pool on TV with Eva Lawrence commentating. Eva is also a World Champion Artistic Pool Player. After this shot was made she stated; "That is a beautiful shot, but I want our viewers to know that in a regular game of pool that shot is illegal, for it is illegal to shoot into more than one ball frozen to the cue ball".
I was very glad she brought this to the attention of the viewers, plus it verified what I had known about this shot.

And this is the other reason that I think the authorities of Billiard Congress of America wanted this shot illegal.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d62...w?usp=drivesdk
Back in the day straight pool world championship matches were refereed, and just how could a referee ever be able to see a foul in real time if these types of shots were allowed. I also think they wanted to prevent the normal social player from performing what in my opinion would be very ugly shot of blasting into the stack of balls.

To be continued in my next post! Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 05-24-2019 at 10:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-24-2019, 09:30 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,115
Default

To Continue; just how did Eva Lawrence know this shot was illegal. She was a player in her own right in Sweden before she came to America. She married Jimmy Mataya who was straight pool champion, and of an age where he could bridge the gap from the golden age of pool to the present day, and I believe in most likelihood she learned this from him, or other artistic pool players.

With that said, there are other points to why this shot could be deemed illegal. In all the history of pool not once has a 'throw shot' ever been depicted with the cb frozen to more than one ball. In all the hundreds of books written about pool and how to play pool, not even once! In my 2003 Official BCA Rule Book they got into illustrations of shots, and have a section devoted to throw shots. In it the cb always travels to contact two balls that are frozen together or depicted as the cb frozen to 'one ball'.

Why do you think this is? Since as I just showed a beautiful throw shot with two ball frozen to the cb, then why are not books filled with such magnificent shots.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...J3d1dsdEhiaDNR
Here are a few examples of 'throw shots'.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...J3d1dsdEhiaDNR
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...J3d1dsdEhiaDNR
In the first above video I accidently stated to use reverse english but it should of been natural English.

To be continued in next post. Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 05-24-2019 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-24-2019, 09:48 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,115
Default

So if we take it that 'yes' it is illegal to stroke into more than one ball frozen to the cue ball, then it begs the question; "well when is it legal to shoot into more than one ball frozen to the cue ball"?
Therefore I set out to develop a foul criteria for this scenario. And this is how I wrote it up!
CUE BALL FORZEN TO TWO BALLS (criteria)
1. When the cue ball is frozen to two impeding balls or more it is illegal to stroke towards the balls if the 2nd ball frozen in not angled (45 degrees or greater) but impeding upon the 1st object ball. This shot then has to be stroke angled (45 degrees or greater). (criteria)
2. But if the 2nd Ball is angled an not impeding upon the 1st object ball then it is legal to stroke towards (45 degrees or less) the balls. (criteria)

Simply stated; " when the 2nd ball frozen in line with the cue ball is not angled 45 degrees or more upon the 1st ball then the shot has to be stroked at a 45 degree.

If this criteria was adopted then it would allow for shots like this to be developed. https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...J3d1dsdEhiaDNR
On the other hand it also opens up the door for what could be some ugly stack play shots!

It was in the development of this shot criteria that I stumbled upon the above shot. And also it was not to much after that, that poolisboring put up his challenge of making the center ball when 3 balls are spotted. So I had an inclination of how to do that shot, thus the development of the 3 Ball Whitey!

Well that pretty well sums this up! thanks, Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 05-24-2019 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:01 AM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,391
Default

how does your rule say whats legal in this case scenario?
the stack is between your pocket and the cue ball
the cue ball is frozen
Name:  cue ball frozen to stack.jpg
Views: 88
Size:  39.5 KB
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:03 AM
lll lll is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: vero beach fl
Posts: 14,391
Default

same question
a slightly different set up
Name:  cue balll frozen to stack 2.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  37.6 KB
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:17 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,115
Default

There is another aspect of this that I forgot to mention. Michael Phelan who is considered our American Founding Father developed rules for pool plus much other aspects of pool. But in his rule book it states a shot known as a 'Bowery or a Timberlick, and one other name that I can not recall, but the shot is when a ball is frozen to the cue ball. They state as being 'jawed to the cue ball'. This shot was developed at the turn of the 20 century in of course the Bowery.

Well Europe became enamored with our American games and especially 8-ball but they were not enamored at all with a shot being legal that has the cb frozen to the object ball, thus that shot was never legal in Europe, and therefore we have the game 'Black Ball', Europe's equivalent of our 8-ball, except that one shot is outlawed.

So now fast forward to the WPA wanting to take over, and especially wanting the American market and large tournaments, thus developing their own rules. But a compensation was to allow the shot with cb frozen to ob. They did not like it but had to do it. Black Ball Leagues never did adopt this, but did eventually become part of WPA with the understanding that this shot was still illegal.

If any one can remember how the original writing of the WPA double hit was wrote, you would understand their total disdain towards this shot. They did everything they could to influence the players to not do this shot, falling just short of not completely saying do not do this shot. Currently they have lightened up on their writing.

But with this said, and considering their total disdain for shooting a shot when the cb is frozen to an ob, would they even think of allowing a player to shoot into more than one ball frozen to the cb.

Not on your life! Pretty long winded but needed to get the point across!Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 05-24-2019 at 11:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:43 AM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,115
Default

Thanks Larry,
Note sure if your asking about the rule literally, or about my foul criteria. I also have questions as to full meaning of this rule, and the true answers may only become evident if someone from the that era recalls this, and I hope someone has the resources to research this, such as contacting Eva or Jimmy Mataya.

But, your diagram is interesting because there are no gaps, which obviously gaps create double hit or push fouls. And this is one strong argument for the shot to be legal. If more than one ball is frozen to the cb and there are no gaps between the balls then it is legal to shoot into the balls. So that is one point for the other side of this discussion.

But if we take it literally at its meaning then you can not contact the balls and need to shoot away. Shooting Away means not to contact the ball at all. Which to me seems totally incorrect although other games are played this way.

But if you were to apply the shot criteria that I developed then you would contact the ball you are frozen to on a 45 degree angle or greater to avoid pushing through the balls, or as Dr. Bill and I concluded; to avoid pushing the 1st ball through the 2nd ball.

In practical sense when applying to OP and you wanted to play an intentional then you would gently tap the cue ball on a 45 degree angle, but not less than that angle which is towards the ball frozen to the cb.

I developed a definition for 'Stroking Towards'; it is to stroke a shot on an angle less than 45 degrees. Stroking Angled; is stroking a shot on more than a 45 degree angle.

So you would want to stroke this shot; 'Stroke Angled'. A ball can not be pushed when stroked angled.

I think the real question is going forth; do you really want players slamming through a stack of balls when the cue ball is frozen to the stack, and frozen to more than one ball? Pretty hard to judge the fouls, that could occur!

Thanks again Larry! Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 05-24-2019 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:51 PM
beatle beatle is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,970
Default

every time you put in a new rule you created two new arguments and angles to get around it.

for one how do you determine 45 degrees.

why not leave pool as it is. the better player always wins as it is. the losing ones want to change the rules as to justify their losing more games than winning.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-24-2019, 02:11 PM
Dennis "Whitey" Young Dennis "Whitey" Young is online now
Verified Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Klamath Falls, Or.
Posts: 1,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatle View Post
every time you put in a new rule you created two new arguments and angles to get around it.

for one how do you determine 45 degrees.

why not leave pool as it is. the better player always wins as it is. the losing ones want to change the rules as to justify their losing more games than winning.
For knowledge and for the sake of discussions, to answer your question of how a player can determine 45 degrees, I do it by the diamond system. Also if you go by perpendicular to a straight on hit, which is a 90 degree off of center to center, and divide that in half and you get 45 degrees. APA uses the 45 degree hits for their rule on Close Proximity Shots.

The throw shot where I make the center ball in the pocket, I used the diamonds to pick up the 45 degree hit. I gage it from the 2nd diamond long rail to center diamond short rail.

As far as rule changes, they are always changing. WPA rules today are not the same rules as they were in 2004 when Steve was developing his own OP.org rules, and decided to use WPA rules for the general rules. Beatle, if you want the rules to stay the same, then OP.org would need to develop their own 'General Rules' and not go by WPA. Is the BIH-BHL the same rule you played by when you were a youngster, No it is not! If and when, and I think it is going to happen in the near future, when WPA develops their own OP rules, then that will be the world standard.

Jumping a ball off the table was not a foul when Jansco first put on their OP tournaments, nor was there a 3 ball foul rule in placed, rules change. The 3 shot rule in Straight Pool pertaining to nursing the ball to a rail, is no longer a rule anymore. And it is a shame for IMO this is a great rule and should apply to all games of pool. So rules are changing right before our eyes, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, unless you are in a position of authority.

I think in 5 - 10 years the game of OP is going to be played completely different than it is today, because it is exponentially increasing in tournament numbers, and these tournaments are going to get these players through these tournaments in the days allowed. And those tournament rules will become the new standard for OP.

But Beatle, no one is suggesting changing any rules, that is not possible anyway. And has any rules ever been changed since you were a member? They have been discussed, yes, but no changes, right!

No, I am just bringing up how I knew how pool was played, and Eva Lawrence also confirmed this in her commentating. It is just a discussion, and there is the complete other side of the discussion for we have in place that when an object ball is frozen to the cue ball then you can shoot into it. And I doubt that WPA would even think of what if more than 1 ball is frozen to the cb. thanks, Whitey

Last edited by Dennis "Whitey" Young; 05-24-2019 at 03:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-24-2019, 03:57 PM
darmoose darmoose is offline
Verified Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,308
Default

I agree with beatle, the more rules you have to consider the more complications and disagreements you are gonna have.

I don't think one should be allowed to shoot through even one frozen ball, frozen to the CB.

I think a far better way to play is that when frozen to a ball, you must shoot away from the ball. How far away, you ask?

Shoot away from the OB at an angle that can be visibly seen to not cause the cue stick to hit the OB on the follow through. That might be 45 degrees or more, but someone standing in line with your cue stick (if they want to) can see if you have enough angle, no arguments.


__________________
The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

Last edited by darmoose; 05-25-2019 at 06:48 AM. Reason: error
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All original content Copyright Onepocket.org and/or the original author. All rights reserved.