Novel use of bridge or rules violation?

[Saturated Fats]

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"?

 

[terryhanna]

saw Oscar do this in a event not sure if it's a legal shot ?

 

[Fenwick]

I would just say you can't do that. You can stack two bridges on top on each other but no. Can't do that

 

[Saturated Fats]

I think it is apparent from Oscar's picture that it is more effective than stacking bridges.

 

[Maniac]

I think the rule should be only one bridge per table...no exceptions. Why do we find a way to let people out of jams whether it be from their opponents (safety) or themselves (bad leave)? Hell, the jump cue was bad enough, now this (I realize that the two bridge thing is nothing new)?

A good safety should be rewarded and leaving oneself with a bad leave should be punishing.

JMHO.

Maniac

 

[slide13]

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"?

Interesting. My initial reaction was definitely illegal.....but.....that “or” really does make things complicated. “And” would definitely make it illegal I’d say, but the “or” makes it read a little ambiguous.

“In the manner the equipment was intended” is a definite no here. But “purpose”. What is the purpose of a bridge? Is its purpose to allow one to make an otherwise difficult shot by providing assistance or is it designed to replace the hand in supporting the cue shaft? The latter interpretation would preclude the use of stacked bridges, which seems to be regarded as perfectly legal from everything I know. That being the case, it makes me think the former interpretation is the most accurate which would then make such a use of a bridge, as in the original post, legal.

Not sure how I feel about that....

 

[hang-the-9]

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"?

Not legal. There are a few posts about this on the site already if you do a search with reasons/rules. A bridge is used as a replacement for your hand, it is not there to support it.

 

[Saturated Fats]

A bridge is used as a replacement for your hand, it is not there to support it.

Hmmm, I haven't been able to find anything like that in the WPA/BCA rules.

 

[TRWpool]

This method of using the bridge has been around for many years. The first time i saw it was at the US Open One Pocket Championships in Portland, ME. That was in early 2000. Santos Sambijon used it playing me. Though it was unorthodox it was considered by the tournament director as a legal use of the bridge. Technically speaking, he was using it as a bridge and nothing else. I thought it was great, even though he was using it against me! I love learning something new. This was new to me and I had been playing pool for nearly forty years by that time. Since then this method of using the bridge has been used in many tournaments.

Come on now! Why not? :thumbup:

Tom

 

[jimmyco]

Since you are citing WPA rules:

Mechanical Bridges – The player may use up to two mechanical bridges to support the cue stick during the shot. The configuration of the bridges is up to the player. He may use his own bridge if it is similar to standard bridges.

Interpret as you will, but IMO, the mechanical bridge use in the OP is supporting the bridge hand, not the cue stick.

(bold font added for this discussion)

 

[Bob Jewett]

Since you are citing WPA rules:

Mechanical Bridges – The player may use up to two mechanical bridges to support the cue stick during the shot. The configuration of the bridges is up to the player. He may use his own bridge if it is similar to standard bridges.

Interpret as you will, but IMO, the mechanical bridge use in the OP is supporting the bridge hand, not the cue stick.

(bold font added for this discussion)

So it would be OK if he rested his cue on the bridge handle and put his fingers over the cue to hold it in place left/right like a rail bridge?

Personally, I like the technique. I think I first saw it in the 1970s. It is particularly useful at one pocket and 14.1.

 

[jimmyco]

So it would be OK if he rested his cue on the bridge handle and put his fingers over the cue to hold it in place left/right like a rail bridge?

Personally, I like the technique. I think I first saw it in the 1970s. It is particularly useful at one pocket and 14.1.

I would agree to that.

The rules could reduce the amount of ambiguity by adding the word "head" after "bridge". But if this usage has been around 40 years or longer, it must not be that significant an issue.

 

[marek]

Sorry guys but that is not legal use of the bridge. I asked that exact question to EPBF about 1 year back and such use of bridge would be considered unsportmanlike conduct.
That situation actually touches several rules, I will put an extract from the rules so it is clear what is happening here:

1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment
"The equipment must be
used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended."
(c) Mechanical Bridges – The player may use up to two mechanical bridges to support the cue stick during the shot.

6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
(h) using equipment inappropriately

The problem is that the only permitted use of bridge is to support the cue, not your hand, that is the key for judging this situation, you are breaching rule 1.3c. And all goes downhill from there - because by supporting your hand instead of cue you are breaching rule 1.3 because you are not using it for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended. Therefore it is a breach of rule 6.17.
Hope this helps
Oh and we are talking WPA rules here

 

[GB Basher]

Marek has it spot on.
Using a bridge like this is not allowed.

 

[TRWpool]

Sorry guys but that is not legal use of the bridge. I asked that exact question to EPBF about 1 year back and such use of bridge would be considered unsportmanlike conduct.
That situation actually touches several rules, I will put an extract from the rules so it is clear what is happening here:

1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment
"The equipment must be
used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended."
(c) Mechanical Bridges – The player may use up to two mechanical bridges to support the cue stick during the shot.

6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
(h) using equipment inappropriately

The problem is that the only permitted use of bridge is to support the cue, not your hand, that is the key for judging this situation, you are breaching rule 1.3c. And all goes downhill from there - because by supporting your hand instead of cue you are breaching rule 1.3 because you are not using it for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended. Therefore it is a breach of rule 6.17.
Hope this helps
Oh and we are talking WPA rules here

The EPBF? Looks like you had to go a long way to find a governing body to support your conclusion. Unsportsmanlike conduct? Really? Please explain how the use of a bridge in this manner is inappropriate? Is it not being use as a crutch to allow a player to reach the cue ball so as to address a shot? Sounds appropriate to me, it's just different than what we are used to. I also remember seeing a player placing the bridge head on the table and grasping it in his hand and forming a bridge. Would that too be "inappropriate"? That was done at the US Open some 40 years ago.

It could be argued that the bridge used in this manner IS being used to support the cue stick. The whole purpose of any bridge is to "support the cue stick". The cue stick in this case is without doubt being used to assist the player in forming a bridge. So I would argue that the wording within the rule you are citing is antiquated and at the time of writing simply lacked imagination.

Again, you can find this usage legal in many parts of the United States. As a matter of fact, I believe it was used at the DCC. I've used it myself without any controversy. It was, as I stated earlier, also used at the US Open in ME. 17 years ago and was an acceptable usage then.

Bottom line imho, looks like this. The rules from Org. to Org., tournament to tournament, room to room, game to game, varies depending where you happen to be at the time. Be prepared to conform to the rules of the day.

There was a time when jump shots where not used and a jump cue would have, in some pool governing body, been deemed "unsportsmanlike conduct".
We must leave room for imaginative thought to help our game to grow.

Tom

 

[Pacecar]

OFFICIAL RULES OF CUESPORTS INTERNATIONAL

10. Mechanical Bridges
The primary consideration for determining whether a mechanical bridge is legal is that it supports the cue, as opposed to elevating the bridge hand above the bed of the table or significantly enhancing the stability of the hand holding the bridge.
The particular construction of the bridge is not relevant as long as it does no more than support the cue, and does not damage the table or other equipment.

 

[marek]

The EPBF? Looks like you had to go a long way to find a governing body to support your conclusion. Unsportsmanlike conduct? Really? Please explain how the use of a bridge in this manner is inappropriate? Is it not being use as a crutch to allow a player to reach the cue ball so as to address a shot? Sounds appropriate to me, it's just different than what we are used to. I also remember seeing a player placing the bridge head on the table and grasping it in his hand and forming a bridge. Would that too be "inappropriate"? That was done at the US Open some 40 years ago.

It could be argued that the bridge used in this manner IS being used to support the cue stick. The whole purpose of any bridge is to "support the cue stick". The cue stick in this case is without doubt being used to assist the player in forming a bridge. So I would argue that the wording within the rule you are citing is antiquated and at the time of writing simply lacked imagination.

Again, you can find this usage legal in many parts of the United States. As a matter of fact, I believe it was used at the DCC. I've used it myself without any controversy. It was, as I stated earlier, also used at the US Open in ME. 17 years ago and was an acceptable usage then.

Bottom line imho, looks like this. The rules from Org. to Org., tournament to tournament, room to room, game to game, varies depending where you happen to be at the time. Be prepared to conform to the rules of the day.

There was a time when jump shots where not used and a jump cue would have, in some pool governing body, been deemed "unsportsmanlike conduct".
We must leave room for imaginative thought to help our game to grow.

Tom

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..

 

[Fenwick]

Well I guess I was wrong again. I did learn something. If it's been seen before and was ruled legal then I guess it is. Just never saw it, the bridge used that way before?

 

[hang-the-9]

The EPBF? Looks like you had to go a long way to find a governing body to support your conclusion. Unsportsmanlike conduct? Really? Please explain how the use of a bridge in this manner is inappropriate? Is it not being use as a crutch to allow a player to reach the cue ball so as to address a shot? Sounds appropriate to me, it's just different than what we are used to. I also remember seeing a player placing the bridge head on the table and grasping it in his hand and forming a bridge. Would that too be "inappropriate"? That was done at the US Open some 40 years ago.

It could be argued that the bridge used in this manner IS being used to support the cue stick. The whole purpose of any bridge is to "support the cue stick". The cue stick in this case is without doubt being used to assist the player in forming a bridge. So I would argue that the wording within the rule you are citing is antiquated and at the time of writing simply lacked imagination.

Again, you can find this usage legal in many parts of the United States. As a matter of fact, I believe it was used at the DCC. I've used it myself without any controversy. It was, as I stated earlier, also used at the US Open in ME. 17 years ago and was an acceptable usage then.

Bottom line imho, looks like this. The rules from Org. to Org., tournament to tournament, room to room, game to game, varies depending where you happen to be at the time. Be prepared to conform to the rules of the day.

There was a time when jump shots where not used and a jump cue would have, in some pool governing body, been deemed "unsportsmanlike conduct".
We must leave room for imaginative thought to help our game to grow.

Tom

Every official rule book does not allow this use. If you go to a local tournament where they don't know what the rule should be, then someone may allow it. If someone used it at the 14.1 US Open, whoever used it and whoever allowed it to be used did not know the rules. An example when someone was wrong, is not a good example or precedent for use.

That tip lift thing to avoid a double-hit that people have done before, also illegal but people have seen it done. Creative, but illegal.

If someone wants to make up local rules, that is up to them.

 

[lfigueroa]

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