I knew MS could do it
Mike Sigel & Tony Robles Exhibition Tonight at Amsterdam Billiards in NYC
- Thread starter GG11
- Start date
Thanks for the updates! That was hilarious!!!
Hey guys-
Pretty good play-by-play there.
I got in a bit late (at the mercy of the trains) and missed the Robles 'circle-combo' opening show-stopper shot; but I did hear a lot about it!
I agree the runs were fairly small, but both players were running over 50 at times. I think Mike had the high run of 83 or so? (please correct me as I was not taking notes).
The safe battles were great. That is what 14.1 is about- really good safes. Mike got flustered at one point, as he lost his turn due to a scratch (that 11 ball scratch I think) and was sitting. He came to the table on a Robles foul, and when he touched the ball (thinking he had one) he was reminded he was on two. He was not happy at that point- I'd go so far as to say he was rattled by that.
But other than that (and the falling on the floor dead trick) it was a pretty good game. No one was getting any 'great' rolls, and a lot of difficult shots had to be pulled out, that rerally should not have been needed on a more 'friendly' table.
I'm glad I went, and look forward to hearing about future matches like this. It's a nice room.
Anyway- here are some pictures. I have 135 to weed through so these may mot be the best...
Pretty good play-by-play there.
I got in a bit late (at the mercy of the trains) and missed the Robles 'circle-combo' opening show-stopper shot; but I did hear a lot about it!
I agree the runs were fairly small, but both players were running over 50 at times. I think Mike had the high run of 83 or so? (please correct me as I was not taking notes).
The safe battles were great. That is what 14.1 is about- really good safes. Mike got flustered at one point, as he lost his turn due to a scratch (that 11 ball scratch I think) and was sitting. He came to the table on a Robles foul, and when he touched the ball (thinking he had one) he was reminded he was on two. He was not happy at that point- I'd go so far as to say he was rattled by that.
But other than that (and the falling on the floor dead trick) it was a pretty good game. No one was getting any 'great' rolls, and a lot of difficult shots had to be pulled out, that rerally should not have been needed on a more 'friendly' table.
I'm glad I went, and look forward to hearing about future matches like this. It's a nice room.
Anyway- here are some pictures. I have 135 to weed through so these may mot be the best...
Attachments
Last edited:
what was the high run?
High run was over 80- 83 I think.
What was not mentioned was there was an aditional $500 aded for the player wo ran 150 and out too. Mike said afterward that they were both playing for that...
I did not gert a chance to speak with Robles after the match. He was pretty well covered by his fan base! :thumbup:
What was not mentioned was there was an aditional $500 aded for the player wo ran 150 and out too. Mike said afterward that they were both playing for that...
I did not gert a chance to speak with Robles after the match. He was pretty well covered by his fan base! :thumbup:
Anyone want to comment on the legality of this?
Chris,
I've never seen this done before either. Having a second person hold a second bridge must violate, if not the letter of the rules, then the spirit. I know two bridges are legal. Irving Crane showed me how to double them thirty plus years ago. As long as neither touches a ball, there is no problem.
Lyn
Definitely not legal to have someone else hold a bridge for you. As to resting the bridge across the table there are arguments that can be made that it isn't legal either. I would love to have a definitive answer on it.
Sigel had raised the question of whether it's legal and Tony said it was since it's part of the equipment but just because it's part of the equipment doesn't necessarily mean you can use it however you want. Using a bridge where it isn't on the bed of the table could raise issues as to whether it is the intended use of the bridge. There is certainly no problem with using 2 bridges.
Sigel had raised the question of whether it's legal and Tony said it was since it's part of the equipment but just because it's part of the equipment doesn't necessarily mean you can use it however you want. Using a bridge where it isn't on the bed of the table could raise issues as to whether it is the intended use of the bridge. There is certainly no problem with using 2 bridges.
For those interested Tony didn't actually use the bridges in this situation since he still couldn't reach the shot.
I concur.
Two bridges is fine-the assistant holding the bridge is not.
Mike pointed this out as well.
In the end, he did not take that shot; I believe he ended up playing safe from here right...
Yes, I think he touched the cue ball and took a foul.
Mike was then going to shoot the one (he is left handed and could try it with less equipment) but he elected to return with another foul...
Two bridges is fine-the assistant holding the bridge is not.
Mike pointed this out as well.
In the end, he did not take that shot; I believe he ended up playing safe from here right...
Yes, I think he touched the cue ball and took a foul.Mike was then going to shoot the one (he is left handed and could try it with less equipment) but he elected to return with another foul...
Attachments
Here's a couple things that might be relevant...
6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
6.12 Cue Stick on the Table
If the shooter uses his cue stick in order to align a shot by placing it on the table without having a hand on the stick, it is a foul.
Basically, the first case the shooter is not responsible for the equipment, the ref (in this case) is.
In the second instance, he does not have a hand on the stick- however it is not a cue stick, it is a bridge stick. Does that matter? Not sure. Tpo the letter of this rule, he is not using a cue stick outside his control, and he does have a hand on his cue stick at the time, so...
From here: http://www.cueguru.com/game_rules/
Maybe someone else can find more relevant rulings on this...
6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
6.12 Cue Stick on the Table
If the shooter uses his cue stick in order to align a shot by placing it on the table without having a hand on the stick, it is a foul.
Basically, the first case the shooter is not responsible for the equipment, the ref (in this case) is.
In the second instance, he does not have a hand on the stick- however it is not a cue stick, it is a bridge stick. Does that matter? Not sure. Tpo the letter of this rule, he is not using a cue stick outside his control, and he does have a hand on his cue stick at the time, so...
From here: http://www.cueguru.com/game_rules/
Maybe someone else can find more relevant rulings on this...
The old BCA rules specifically define "Mechanical Bridge" as a grooved device usually mounted on a handle which provides support for the shaft of the cue stick. They proceed to say under "Use of Equipment" that "You may not use more than two mechanical bridges at any one time. A bridge may only be used to support the cue stick or another bridge." This would clearly make the shot not legal.
Under current WPA rules, this situation is not clearly addressed. It states "The equipment must be used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended." and goes on to say
As a player, I would assume the ruling would be the same under old BCA rules and WPA rules since this is not the intended manner of a bridge handle. I would love to see the response of an official referee, though.
On a related shot, I watched Santos lay the bridge across the table supported by the the side cushions (similar to Tony's bottom bridge across the width of the table) and then proceeded to bridge regularly (with a raised open V-bridge hand) on top of the bridge handle. Nobody said a word as he executed the shot and continued on.
Fred
Yes, I've seen it done too. In fact, I've ONLY seen it done in the past five years or so. I believe either the WPA rules permit it OR the WPA rules create enough ambiguity that players don't know to challenge it.
Why not just go to IPT rules and have grown men crawling on the table? That would solve a lot of problems and also be funny.
Hi Jude!
Actually wouldn't the rules prove that it IS legal..."A bridge may only be used to support the cue stick or another bridge."
He's using the one bridge to support the other bridge ... just not in the way we are all accustomed to, on top of each other.
Tony actually used this same strategy against Thorsten in the NJ 14.1 Championships in 2007. Thorsten concurred that it was legal.
I was so excited to see him use it for the crowd again...well at least attempt to use it so that people could learn a new trick...
What's definitely NOT legal was the ref holding the bridge. He was not asked to and had the shot been performed, he would not have.
Last edited:
Actually, it doesn't. In Tony's shot, he is using the bridge handle to support another bridge. The definitions section of the BCA rules clearly defines the bridge and bridge handle as different. Also, you say "not in a way that is customary". That would also give weight to the "manner of intent" argument.
Like I said, as a player, I would assume I can't do this. I've seen it done. I've never tried it. I would really like to see a response from a BCA referee.
hmmmm ..any BCA refs out there??
you could ask John tomorrow