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/AF1...?key=Sng0cER3anRtYU5FYUZlMmlidnJ3d1dsdEhiaDNR

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/1d62jdSkR6JsbOpcaYsNP2uZbcXQZNO56/view?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

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/AF1...?key=Sng0cER3anRtYU5FYUZlMmlidnJ3d1dsdEhiaDNR
Here are a few examples of 'throw shots'.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=Sng0cER3anRtYU5FYUZlMmlidnJ3d1dsdEhiaDNR
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=Sng0cER3anRtYU5FYUZlMmlidnJ3d1dsdEhiaDNR
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

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/AF1...?key=Sng0cER3anRtYU5FYUZlMmlidnJ3d1dsdEhiaDNR
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

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

same question
a slightly different set up

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

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

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.

beatle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

lll said:

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
View attachment 24487

Click to expand...

I read somewhere about this rule some years ago and the same questions were raised. It was pointed out that in Canadian straight pool rules. You are allowed to shoot two frozen balls in such a way that i hope i can explain.
The balls are frozen together and you may shoot on the 180 degree line away from the object ball. The theory is that once you strike the cue ball, the rotation will rub off the object ball thus making it a legal shot.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/EyBkJSw5fujHndHk9
click on the video to enlarge.

This shot which was coined; 3 ball Whitey, of which I am very grateful to our members to show me such respect to coin it. I posted back in Aug.'18, but actually did it a year before when the challenge was first threaded.
So this shot is actually the culmination of development of a shot criteria for when more than one ball is frozen to the cue ball.

I thought it would be nice and appropriate to bring this shot forward once again so our new members can also enjoy it, and a nice way to close out this thread. To see the full thread, it is on pg. 28.

Well, I thought this thread would be the most controversial thread ever, with a lot of participation, but to my surprise it did not turn out that way. But, anyway I brought up something new for contemplation, and as we see the fascinating game of pool does have some new discoveries. Whitey

I decided to bring this thread forward since now it has some traction being mr3c wwyd has this scenario, and being the Dr. Bill states; "it is a foul".
I have brought this up in the rule committee but as of yet has it been discussed.
Not sure all the videos are still playable, I hope so, but sometimes I accidently delete a video.
Enjoy, Whitey

Whitey; your post demonstrates the inherent problems associated with sport. RULES. All games have rules and the rules change. When I was learning to play you couldn't shoot through a frozen ball but had to shoot at least slightly away or off center. Thus throwing the ball to another location from which it was aiming. Sometime in the 70's or 80's it was decided you could shoot through the ball if you elevated your cue to 45 degrees. Now with two frozen object balls somehow the rule might be different. Not sure why? Baseball is a classic game where the rules change all the time. And it is one of our oldest sports with a long history of established rules. Back to the frozen ball(s) shot, it seems to me that if one could elevate to 45 degrees for one frozen ball, why couldn't the same rule apply to more than one frozen ball? The only reason I can think of is that there muct be some thought that the friction of both object balls moving at the same time created must result in some kind of double hit on the cueball? One Pocket has been changing or attempting to change its rules for a long time. Tournament play and the increased interest in "our game" has resulted in a perceived need to speed up the game also discussed in one of your threads. Steve Booth has lead the charge in that area and I get what he's trying to do to speed up the game and create more interest. So, in my mind it shouldn't matter how many balls are frozen to the cueball because you are only striking one ball anyway and an INTREPRETATION of whether or not the cueball struck a ball twice shouldn't really matter once the original rule was put in place. Good thread sir. Over and out.

Postmortum: who's to say you elevated your cue 45 degrees anyway? What a call that would be in a big tournament match.

all the balls are frozen to each other
i jack up 45 degrees and aim at the corner pocket
or pick another angle of aim still cue at 45 degrees
all the balls spread out
is that a foul??
just askin....

lll said:

all the balls are frozen to each other
i jack up 45 degrees and aim at the corner pocket
or pick another angle of aim still cue at 45 degrees
all the balls spread out
is that a foul??
just askin....
View attachment 431726

Click to expand...

A far as, "I'm" concerned it is!

Baby Huey, the problem with pocket 'General' billiard rules are in the stone age. Plus there are rules of today that have replaced rules of yesteryear that are not as good.

But, I have a hard time trying to name one high end tech rule that is in any governing body, say WPA or BCAPL, of pool rules! There is not one foul rule that has a specific foul criteria spelled out explaining why it is a foul.

I believe at one time it was a foul to shoot into more than one ball frozen to the cb. Just like in spotting a ball frozen to the cb was once a rule, but I can not prove this like I did for spotting an ob.

In '61 Johnston City OP rules it states that the winner of the lag can give up the break but maintains the right to choose their pocket. This is also how it is in my '68 rule BCA rule book, but yet we do not play this way. Just an example of another rule that few would even know or remember.

I wanted to allow shooting into two ob frozen to the cb, so I set up this scenario and worked it. I found that if I stroke it on 45 degrees then the cb does not push through the tangent line, and also if the 2nd ball is froze on a 45 degree then the 1st ball does not push through it when stroked directly towards the 1st ball.

So I developed a foul criteria. In real life if the cb is frozen to balls in the stack, then do a tap intentional @ 45 degrees angle, you then are not pushing through the ball.

You would like to see OP go to; two balls have to contact a rail on the break. Either the cb and an ob, or two ob. I think this is a good rule, very worthy of discussion, as is the '61 Johnston City winner of the lag rule, as with BIH a warning is giving if when having BIH the player does not place the cb legally within the kitchen or the ob is not legal to hit. Whitey

Dennis "Whitey" Young said:

Baby Huey, the only problem with pocket billiard rules is the one's that govern them. They hold back rules so that they can not progress, and thus the rules of play have been in the stone age for as many decades as you would wish to go back. Plus there are rules of today that have replaced rules of yesteryear that are not as good.

But, name me one high end tech rule that is in any governing body, say WPA or BCAPL, of pool rules! Name me one foul rule that has a specific foul criteria spelled out explaining why it is a foul.

I believe at one time it was a foul to shoot into more than one ball frozen to the cb. Just like in spotting a ball frozen to the cb was once a foul, but I can not prove this like I did for spotting an ob.

In '61 Johnston City OP rules it states that the winner of the lag can give up the break but maintains the right to choose their pocket. This is also how it is in my '68 rule BCA rule book, but yet we do not play this way.

I wanted to allow shooting into two ob frozen to the cb, so I set up this scenario and worked it. I found that if I stroke it on 45 degrees then the cb does not push through the tangent line, and also if the 2nd ball is froze on a 45 degree then the 1st ball does not push through it when stroked directly towards the 1st ball.

So I developed a foul criteria. In real life if the cb is frozen to balls in the stack, then do a tap intentional @ 45 degrees angle, you then are not pushing through the ball.

You would like to see OP go to; two balls have to contact a rail on the break. Either the cb and an ob, or two ob. I think this is a good rule, very worthy of discussion, as is the '61 Johnston City winner of the lag rule, as whit BIH a warning is giving if when having BIH the player does not place the cb legally within the kitchen or the ob is not legal to hit. Whitey

Click to expand...

so this break would be eliminated??

lll said:

all the balls are frozen to each other
i jack up 45 degrees and aim at the corner pocket
or pick another angle of aim still cue at 45 degrees
all the balls spread out
is that a foul??
just askin....
View attachment 431726

Click to expand...

Larry, I believe you are not stroking on a 45 degree angle. But imagine just how many fouls could occur if you stroke through this rack. Gaps will come open and then illegally close with a double hit/push. Whitey

lll said:

so this break would be eliminated??
View attachment 431727

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly! I do believe this is the scenario that needs discussion, as Baby Huey has brought up in the past. thanks, Whitey