It it legal to leave cue and bridge on table?

[Floppage]

Last night in league I was setting up a shot with the mechanical bridge when I decided I wanted to take one more look at the angle so I set the bridge and my cue down on the table without disturbing any balls.

I checked the shot, liked my angle and proceeded to pocket the ball.

Meanwhile, without my knowing it, my opponent asked the league director it was legal for me to do that. She wasn't specifically aware of a rule against it so my opponent let it go but she told me later that she wasn't completely sure and would check.

Is there any rule about leaving the cue or bridge resting on the table/playing surface and walking around to see the shot from another angle?

Keep in mind that I wasn't trying to pass the ball through a gap so it wasn't being used to gauge the size of the gap. I also wasn't kicking or banking so it wasn't being used to estimate the angle. Not sure if that matters.

 

[ctyhntr]

Do you know which rule set your league uses? BCA, APA or house?

 

[Floppage]

Do you know which rule set your league uses? BCA, APA or house?

BCA for the most part. I think there are a couple of Texas Express additions but nothing major.

 

[tatcat2000]

You would think there would be a simple answer, but it can take a little effort to piece together.

In BCAPL play the entire situation is united in Rule 1-3-1-f. I can speak a little to the intent of the rule, so here goes...

Concerning the bridge, there is no requirement at all that it be held in the hand, so if the hand is removed from the bridge there is no issue as long as the bridge is not being used to align a shot.

Concerning the cue, in BCAPL play it is not illegal to remove your hand from the cue, even if using the cue to align a shot or figure out an angle.

So to answer the OP situation specifically under BCAPL rules, the question becomes: what is the intention of the player concerning the placement of the bridge? As long as there is no intent to use the bridge to align the shot or figure out an angle there is no foul, regardless of the hand being on or off of the cue.

That having been said, in any given situation you are at the mercy of the referee's judgment. If the referee is of the opinion that the bridge is in a position that will help align the shot, it is possible that a foul could be called. Better for the shooter to remove all doubt, and remove the bridge from the area while taking a second look.

In WSR, it's a little different. WSR 6.12 specifies that the hand may not be removed from the cue while it is being used to align a shot. WSR 6.16h specifies that it is UC to use equipment inappropriately. Though the use of the bridge to align a shot is not addressed elsewhere, using a bridge to align the shot may be called UC under 6.16h.

However, even in WSR it still comes down to intent. If a player lays the cue on the table and removes the hand, there still has to be intent to align a shot before a foul can be called. Again, it comes down to the judgment of the referee. Unfortunately, I have seen far too many "referees" who don't seem to know or care about the intent principle, and will call a foul even in the bridge is in a different area code from the shot.

Better to do yourself a favor and avoid the controversy altogether. Under WSR, if you take your hand off the cue a smart opponent will immediately call a referee to look at the position of the stick. Even if you never had an intent to align a shot with the cue on the table, it might appear that way to the referee based on the layout, and you may end up with a foul.

Intent is everything!

Buddy

 

[Floppage]

Great answer. Thank you.

 

[hang-the-9]

In "real" non-league rules, you are not allowed to release the cue fully while looking over a shot. It's one of those suble rules that people look at you funny when you tell them, like the fact that you can't have a "practice" lag when you are both lining up to lag.

 

[Donny Lutz]

bridge

In "real" non-league rules, you are not allowed to release the cue fully while looking over a shot. It's one of those suble rules that people look at you funny when you tell them, like the fact that you can't have a "practice" lag when you are both lining up to lag.

But does this apply to the bridge? I wouldn't think so.

The other night while practicing with friends, I put the bridge on the table and then realized I could reach the shot without it. So being lazy, I just moved the bridge out of the way and shot the shot without it (no chance of the cue ball striking the bridge). I wouldn't have done this in competition, but what if someone did...the bridge on the table off to one side having no influence on the shot? How would this qualify as a foul?

 

[hang-the-9]

But does this apply to the bridge? I wouldn't think so.

The other night while practicing with friends, I put the bridge on the table and then realized I could reach the shot without it. So being lazy, I just moved the bridge out of the way and shot the shot without it (no chance of the cue ball striking the bridge). I wouldn't have done this in competition, but what if someone did...the bridge on the table off to one side having no influence on the shot? How would this qualify as a foul?

I've seen someone do that before, and possibly in a pro match. I don't think the no hand on cue applies the bridge. I actually do that sometimes, setup the bridge then walk around to check the angle again while holding the cue but not the bridge.

 

[GB Basher]

I believe this is a rule that states that equipment can only be used for its intended purpose....If you were having to bridge over a ball to strike the cue ball, would you be allowed to lay the bridge across the table a put your fingers on top to get your hand higher to make the cueing/shot easier?
No its a foul.
To use the bridge for any other purpose than what it is intended is a foul whether you are touching it or not.