Me and Earl are working on 14" leg extensions, so we'll never have to use a bridge, but will still have one foot on the floor.
Me and Earl are working on 14" leg extensions, so we'll never have to use a bridge, but will still have one foot on the floor.
I've seen it and was never clear on whether it was legal use or not.
On a related note, I was playing Ike Runnels in a tournament a few months back and he needs to jack up over a ball. So he goes to his case and amongst all the toys he had in there, he pulls out a moose-head style bridge head (just the bridge head), heads back to the table and holds it in his fist with just the side end sticking up to shoot.
I asked him about the technique afterwards and he said he had used it at a US Open 14.1 event and no one called it illegal use.
Lou Figueroa
.
Another way of using the bridge... http://youtube.com/watch?v=iHffyitzQfA
Ronato Alcano uses his shoulder.
.
Perfectly legal, he used the bridge to support the cue during the shot
But it could be argued that he used the bridge to support his body and therefore his arm and therefore his hand. Inadvertently but never ye mind.
Not exactly, it was the opposite - his body supported the bridge which is not violation of any rule :wink: But good try :grin:
EPBF=WPA - same rules
Read my post again, I dont see why I should write again what I just wrote. Or maybe you should work on your text comprehension skills..
Kyren Wilson did that in snooker match some time ago as well. No foul called. Barry Stark (snooker coach) had a video clip on this as well.
Should be legal, IMO.
https://theoldgreenbaize.com/2017/0...use-of-the-spider-gets-snooker-world-talking/
-td
The game is 14.1 - not that the game matters. The CB is very close to the stack of balls and the shooter has to reach over them to shoot. This makes bridging quite difficult. The shooter places a standard bridge across the table, one end resting on top of a long rail and the other end resting on top of the other long rail. The bridge stick is directly above the stack. The shooter rests his bridge hand on the bridge stick and shoots from that position.
I think the following is the only relevant portion of the WPA rules.
1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment
The equipment must meet existing WPA equipment specifications. In general, players are not permitted to introduce novel equipment into the game. ... If the player is uncertain about a particular use of equipment, he should discuss it with the tournament management prior to the start of play. The equipment must be used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended.
While I think that bridging in this manner is using the bridge for the purpose it was intended, it is clearly not using the bridge in the intended manner.
Now since the rule says "for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended", is "for the purpose" good enough or should the rule really say "for the purpose and in the manner that the equipment was intended"?
...
It's like allowing bank robberies because people have robbed banks before and were not caught.
A glove elevates a player's bridge hand.The BCAPL rules strictly forbids this.
BCAPL RULE 1-3.1
You may not use equipment or accessory items in a manner other than their intended use.
BCAPL RULE 1-3.1.e
You may not shoot while using any item to support or elevate your bridge hand.
There is no doubt that elevating your bridge hand in this manner is a foul. One might argue that if a player rested their cue on a bridge's shaft that it would be legal. It is a bridge after all, and a bridge is designed to elevate the cue. However, just as it is illegal to shoot a ball with the butt of your cue (yes it is), it is illegal to use a bridge to support a cue with any part of the bridge other than the head.
A different analogy would be going 5 MPH over on the freeway. Is it unlawful? Yes. Will you get called on it if observed by an official? Maybe, maybe not.
A different analogy would be going 5 MPH over on the freeway. Is it unlawful? Yes. Will you get called on it if observed by an official? Maybe, maybe not.
If the official was following the law, then yes you would. Rules of a game are not flexible. You don't get a pass if you scratch if you have nice boobs and smile at the ref.
You may be taking this a bit too seriously. Rules of a game have just as much flexibility as the rules of the road. None. Doesn’t mean you don’t get away with one every now and then.
Getting away with something does not mean the same thing as it being OK. Just because you got away with it, does not mean what you did was right.
So if you use a bridge like this, and get away with it, the only thing that happened was that someone let you get away with a foul or illegal shot. It does not make what you did legal by the rules.
I see a lot of NFL players being called out of bounds by a blade of grass pretty much. And if you "almost" make a 3 pointer, they don't just give you 3.