I'm new to this forum and spent a bit of time looking for my particular question and could not find it.
I have been playing in leagues for 15 years and this particular league uses the World Standardized rules for 8 ball.
My opponent shot his final object ball on the table with the intention of positioning himself for the 8 ball. He legally pocketed his object ball, but in doing so, froze the cue ball against the 8 ball. He informed me that the cue ball was frozen to the 8 ball. He then shot the cue ball away from the 8 ball (the 8 ball did not move), struck a cushion, and sent the cue ball down table in a position where I was forced to make a long bank shot on my final object ball.
I called the foul and was informed by multiple people that this was a legal shot based on the fact that contact was already made between the cue ball and the 8 ball before striking the cue ball away from the 8 ball (the actual shot taken). I even confirmed this with my team captain but my entire team, including me, thought this was incorrect. However, I did not argue since it was confirmed by more than one person, but at the time, I felt like I was "taken for a ride". I ended up losing the game playing the long bank shot and missed. The 8 ball was hanging over a side pocket so I virtually had no safety shot available since my object ball was on another cushion. Our particular league plays a four game night, and gives prizes to those with the most four game perfect nights at the end of the season. This was my only loss of the night as a result of this rule so I was a little aggravated because I could have had a perfect night.
Now, it seems that the group of people frequenting this forum know what they are talking about so I would like confirmation if this is indeed true. I have read the rule several times and believe that I correctly called the foul and should have received ball in hand, however, some rules are always up for interpretation and I need to be kept honest.
Your opinions would be great.
- quickshot on 2/2/2010 8:41:46 PM
The eight ball did not move so i would have to say he played a defensive shot and put you in a tough spot with a shot you did not make. I do not see a foul here.
- guest on 2/3/2010 6:48:11 AM
So, the shot my opponent played was indeed a legal shot? Just want to be absolutely sure, because I think if I play this shot the same away against someone else in my league, they will call the foul on me.
- quickshot on 2/3/2010 7:39:26 AM
It sounds like the reason you are upset is not the shot but the losing. Which is normal. Put it behind you and move on.
The likelyhood of it happening again to you is nil considering it had not happened in the past 15 yrs. But, because of the experience you are now well equipped to make a call on the shot if it ever comes up in any game with anyone.
Making a positive from a negative.
- Mitch Alsup on 2/3/2010 9:50:46 AM
I googled up the rules:
The notion of a legal shot is that you use a legal stroke and must "hit" one of his balls first.
So, the question is whether "already touching" is a hit or not. In most sets of rules it is not. In this set of rules it remains unspecified.
I would ask the league for clarification before the next match. "Is a CB frozen to an OB considered to have been already hit." Now if the ruling is that it has; ask "Does this mean that; if the CB is frozen to an opponents ball: is every possible stroke a foul?" It is this second question that drives the other sets of rules to establish that a frozen ball has not been hit.
- guest on 2/3/2010 10:35:35 AM
That is precisely my line of thinking (it would be an automatic foul if I froze the cue ball on the opponent's object ball if the rule is true no matter what stroke is taken) and the league is being asked via my captain. I suspect that the league will not have a definite answer either. I'll come back and post what they say, but any other opinions?
Thanks for your post, Mitch.
- quickshot on 2/3/2010 5:37:02 PM
The obvious is apparent. Your opponent made a legal shot on his last object ball and the cue ball came to rest next to the 8 ball. That is a result of a legal shot and is not a foul. He did not hit the 8 ball in the form of a shot. He than had no shot on the 8 so he played a defensive shot instead. He is legal from the getgo. I know this from my experience 2 weeks ago. I sunk the last object ball and trying to play position I ended up next to the 8 ball after bumping into it. For me the angle left me with a shot which I made and scratched on. You lose some...you win some.
- Fenwick on 2/4/2010 2:10:42 PM
I've been following this tread from the start. As I understand it the cue ball is frozen to the 8 ball. Now if this was snooker they consider shooting away from a frozen ball being that they are touching is considered a good hit. No movement of the object ball is necessary.
Back to the case at hand. There is no space between the cue ball and the 8, they are frozen together. Your opponent shoots away and his thinking is since they are touching already the 8 ball does not have to move.** Wrong!**
"My opponent shot his final object ball on the table with the intention of positioning himself for the 8 ball. He legally pocketed his object ball, but in doing so, froze the cue ball against the 8 ball. He informed me that the cue ball was frozen to the 8 ball. He then shot the cue ball away from the 8 ball (the 8 ball did not move), struck a cushion, and sent the cue ball down table in a position where I was forced to make a long bank shot on my final object ball."
I brought this up playing in two leagues this week; BCA, World Standardized rules. The conclusion of the captains, players and the league operator where all the same. There has to be some movement of the frozen object ball for it to be a good safe. The fact that it was the 8 ball does matter. Same ruling on any frozen ball when the cue ball is involved. The rule for a good safe is hitting a ball and driving either the cue ball or a object ball to a rail. I cant see how you can hit a object ball without it moving ever so slightly.** Again if the 8 never moved how can it be a good hit?**
Unless your league has some unique rule I would say the safe as described was a foul.
- quickshot on 2/4/2010 3:45:22 PM
This has turned out to be a very interesting question. I also discussed it with some friends and the consenus was that if the 2 balls were touching the element of contact was there when the shot was made. I wonder if it is possible to get a professional league ruling on this.
- Fenwick on 2/4/2010 8:40:04 PM
I played again tonight and got the same answers. Lets look at it in reverse and forget it's the 8 ball. The cue ball is frozen to a solid and you have stripes. You hit away without disturbing the solid ball and strike and pocket one of your balls or drive it to a rail. Clean hit IMHO. If the opponents ball in this case the 1 - 7 moves it's a foul, correct?
- guest on 2/6/2010 7:18:54 PM
That would be logical, and I have never been called for a foul shooting away from an opponent's object ball if the cue ball is frozen to it.
I found out that my league will not have a meeting until later this month so I'll report back ASAP.
- dereke on 2/7/2010 9:40:17 PM
if he made the last shot and ended up frozen to the 8 ball that is still the last shot he has not yet struck the cue ball with his cue yet. there for it does not count for a leagle hit on the next shot because he has not yet made the shot he would have to hit the 8 again and then go to a rail to make it legal
- quickshot on 2/8/2010 9:25:21 PM
After doing some research on the rules the following has been posted from a knowledgeable source.
The subject has also been called a foul by a few other knowledgeable players. So I hereby retract my original opinion and go with the foul call.
I hope this will straighten out the problem.
World Pool Association Rules of Play 6.7 Double Hit / Frozen Balls
If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made.
However, if the cue ball is touching an object ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball (provided it is a legal target within the rules of the game) and if the object ball is moved by such a shot, it is considered to have been contacted by the cue ball. (Even though it may be legal to shoot towards such a touching or "frozen" ball, care must be taken not to violate the rules in the first paragraph if there are additional balls close by.)
The cue ball is assumed not to be touching any ball unless it is declared touching by the referee or opponent. It is the shooter' s responsibility to get the declaration before the shot. Playing away from a frozen ball does not constitute having hit that ball unless specified in the rules of the game.
- guest on 2/16/2010 8:55:45 AM
Thanks for that information.
My league ruled the same way, it was indeed a foul. Thanks for posting your opinions on the topic and finding a specific rule that clears up confusion.
- snickel on 3/14/2010 8:23:13 PM
IN RECARDS TO THE CUE BALL BEING FROZEN TO THE OBJECT BALL
YEARS AGO THIS FOUL WAS CALLED ON ME..
I WROTE IN FOR A EXPLAINATION OF THE RULE.
IT STATED THAT WHEN EVER YOU ARE SHOOTING AWAY FROM THE OBJECT BALL THAT THE CUE BALL IS FROZEN TO IT IS NOT A FOUL ,,,
THE KEY HERE IS "IF YOU ARE SHOOTING AWAY FROM THE FROZEN BALL".
THEN IT IS A LEGAL SHOT
- Debebe on 11/10/2012 9:53:20 AM
Canada - I'm sorry you had to go through so much to find what you have been right about all along. I was very surprised that no one in your league had a clue about this rule. I see the situation you were faced with come up often enough to know that suggesting that hitting the cue ball away from an object ball that it was frozen to, is legal, is the most absurd ruling that I have ever heard. The best way to look at this I guess is that you sacrificed one game for the greater good of informing a whole lot of people that would have probably stolen games from well informed players such as yourself.
Now without further due, I would just like to say that "quickshot" is the kind of person that has no clue what he's talking about but instead of saying "I do not know" keeps going on and on without even staying on the subject at hand most of the time. He must feel like an ass after all those condescending remarks to find out that he was clueless. "It seems you were more upset about the losing..."?! "he was legal from the getgo"?! Who asked you about the previous shot?! What a ...... Bag! And you might want to look up he difference between "than" and "then". You should also apply your quote about wasting time, to yourself! Admitting that you were wrong is a good start to recovery...