Illegal use of bridge?

MattPoland said:

I think 1-3-1-e is what explicitly prohibits you from using the bridge to elevate your bridge hand. I’m not sure (d) says anything applicable to the scenario.

Click to expand...

Sorry - misread the scenario. You are correct. 1-3-1-e covers half the OP scenrio.

It may be worth noting that the intent of the rule when written would have covered the sliding of the cue on the bridge shaft as prohibited. We were specifically thinking of bridge on bridge when writing it - we did not consider sliding a cue shaft on a rail-crossing bridge.

I can assure you that if we had, it would have been prohibited. The specific requirement of supporting the second bridge ONLY in the head of a first bridge is relevant, and is a good indication of the general intent. It is a loophole that should be closed.

Buddy

Bob Jewett said:

I think when pool tournaments start providing usable bridges (think snooker), you could reasonably start restricting how the bridges are used. Sadly, most tournaments provide bridges (if any) that are lousy if not actually damaging to the cue stick.

Click to expand...

God forbid pool adopt the niceties of snooker. The remaining popularity of the game might not survive!

Our original intent when writing the CSI cross-rail bridge rule was also a nod to the WSR "intended use" concept, which has been noted above. Unfortunately, that term, as so much else in WSR, is only defined in the eyes of the beholder (AKA TD).

tatcat2000 said:

Sorry - misread the scenario. You are correct. 1-3-1-e covers half the OP scenrio.

It may be worth noting that the intent of the rule when written would have covered the sliding of the cue on the bridge shaft as prohibited. We were specifically thinking of bridge on bridge when writing it - we did not consider sliding a cue shaft on a rail-crossing bridge.

I can assure you that if we had, it would have been prohibited. The specific requirement of supporting the second bridge ONLY in the head of a first bridge is relevant, and is a good indication of the general intent. It is a loophole that should be closed.

Buddy

Click to expand...

It might be moot. I’m struggling to picture a scenario where sliding a cue stick on a rail-crossing rest without the aid of your bridge hand would be beneficial over using a bridge (or double bridge) normally. It’d be like shooting one handed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hits 'em Hard said:

So years ago when I played out of a safety by using a bridge normally, but had it mostly on the rail surface. It was a unique situation where cueing behind my back was extremely awkward, and I couldn’t bridge opposite handed stable enough for how high I had to bridge. But you would call it a foul for having a bridge on the rail?

Click to expand...

As long as part of the bridge head was on the table, that would be acceptable in my book. Of course, I don't make the rules, and the people that do are constantly changing them. Not always for the better imo.
I am guilty of creating my own set of rules for tournaments that I produced and would do so again. I never had a problem with a player not wanting to use these rules and deciding not to play.

By the way, there are as many sets of rules as there are pool leagues/associations and organizations.

Bob Jewett said:

The detail is whether the bridge handle is supporting your cue stick or your bridge hand. You could put your stick on the bridge and then form a normal rail bridge over the stick. Then the stick would be supported by the bridge. If you formed a bridge on the mechanical bridge, the mechanical bridge would be supporting your hand which would be supporting your cue.



I prefer the "let them just play" policy for this.

Click to expand...

I get that detail. The OP phrased the post with an either/or so I tried to cover both scenarios:

QUOTE FROM OP:
“From there, the player could either rest his cue on the bridge stick for a reach shot or rest his bridge hand on the bridge stick for an elevated shot.”

MY BCA INTERPRETATION:
My take is that BCA would forbid any manner of which the bridge hand is being elevated through equipment of any kind (1-3-1-e). Without the bridge hand, BCA has no explicitly written rules requiring you to use the bridge head vs. handle. As I said, without the support of a bridge hand I don’t see why you’d want to try to just free slide the cue stick on the rest handle.

MY WPA INTERPRETATION:
My take is WPA would forbid it as an unintentional use of the equipment but it takes a little digging to arrive at that conclusion. It’s not addressed in the main rule book but the equipment specifications document seems to specify intended use of the mechanical bridge:

QUOTE FROM WPA:
https://wpapool.com/equipment-specifications/#Mechanical-Bridge

“18. MECHANICAL BRIDGE
The mechanical bridge, also called rake, crutch or rest, is an accessory of the billiard sports table and consists of a stick with a bridge head mounted at its end to support the shaft of the cue stick replacing the hand bridge during shots difficult to reach. The stick or handle of the mechanical bridge is very similar in shape to the cue stick. The bridge
head has notches or grooves, usually at various heights, in which the cue shaft can rest. The contour of the bridge head should be smooth in order not to mar the cue shaft or rip the threads of the table-cloth when being used.”

MY WPA INTERPRETATION CONTINUED...
It seems clearly stated the intent of the equipment is to replace (not supplement) the hand bridge. Now whether the shaft must rest in the grooves of the bridge head is not clear. It seems to say the cue can rest in the grooves which reads to me like “can, but not necessarily”.

PARTING COMMENTS:
Overall I like your “just let them play” mentality. But if I was in the World Pool Masters and played a tree-top safety, I might expect the rule enforced if it is going to read that way.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.
A different way to use the bridge..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHffyitzQfA

I think Jay has seen this before...

.

Bob Jewett said:

I'm pretty sure Jay has, but does he remember it? :grin-square:

So, should that be allowed?

Click to expand...

I barely remember the match, but I do remember this shot. It took me totally by surprise when he placed the bridge stick over his shoulder. I had never seen anything like it before. My co-commentator on this show was Anthony Suntay, one of the top sports broadcasters in the Philippines.

Totally legal use of the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

Saturated Fats said:

Is it legal to set a mechanical bridge/rest across the table with one end on a long rail and the other end on the other long rail?

From there, the player could either rest his cue on the bridge stick for a reach shot or rest his bridge hand on the bridge stick for an elevated shot.

Click to expand...

No you can't do that. The bridge is a substitute for your bringing hand to rest the cue on and stroke with, on the head of the bridge. You can't put your hand or arm in this way across the table, so using the bride that way is not legal. The key to the rules are "you can't use equipment in ways it was not meant to be used". So you can't use chalk to mark shots on the rail, you can't use chalk to raise a bridge hand, you can't use a ball to raise you hand up, you can't use a bridge to strike the cueball, etc..

They should make it a rule that the bridge head has to rest on the bed of the table for the shot, fully or partially (as in angled on the side resting against the cushion, and nothing can be resting on anything outside of the bridge head. So second bridge across the first bridge head is good, cue or other bridge across the handle, no. Pretty simple rule and will take out any ambiguity. So you can't use it on the rail at all and you can't place anything on the handle.