If you can only use the bridge to do what the hand can do, you wouldn't need a bridge.
Bridge Use....Is This Legal ?
- Thread starter stevekur1
- Start date
If you can only use the bridge to do what the hand can do, you wouldn't need a bridge.
You're ignoring the part that says "for shots that are difficult to reach." In hang-the-9's example, the player can clearly reach the shot if he can put his hand on the shaft of the bridge stick and use it (his hand) to form a bridge.
If someone was 6'6" or taller, sure, much of the time we would not.
It extends your arm, not adds some extra ability to it. Like using a stick to poke something you can't reach vs adding a exoskeleton to your arm to lift 500lbs.
If your arm was longer, it would be able to be placed in the same spot as the bridge, but no matter how long your arms are, you can't lay one across the table and rest your other hand on it for support and still be able to shoot.
Replying to you since you said you thought that laying a bridge across the table then resting another bridge on it would be legal, unless I misread the scenario. I don't think it would be allowed.
EDIT... I read Bob's post wrong, seems he was saying to lay the back of the bridge on the rail and the head on the bed, I thought it was laying the bridge across the rails.
With that new info, I think it's legal to use the rail to support the bridge on one side the way Bob described it. And it may even be legal to lay the bridge fully on the rail, as long as you did not use it to support your bridge hand to elevate it. So if you had to shoot a far shot against the rail but needed to elevate due to a blocking ball, you can put the bridge on the rail fully, but one rail.
Last edited:
I think we're on the same page overall but, to be clear, the OP's scenario (the one I was originally saying was legal but borderline) had the opponent wedging the butt of the cue under a rail and lifting the bridge head up.
Legal ?
This may have been the picture from the other thread I mentioned. In my opinion, it's not legal. If he can't get his bridge hand close enough to the obstructing ball, then he needs to use the bridge as it was intended i.e., the cue is supported by the bridge head. There's nothing wrong with resting the butt of the bridge on the rail, except he might get some comments about being too short.
Great picture to illustrate! Not legal.
Suppose he is in a situation (like shooting over the whole rack I mentioned before) where he needs to stack two bridges but the bridge heads are of the lousy, unstackable sort. Would it be OK to give him a little slack because the proper equipment has not been provided with the table?
Maybe it should be.
How about to look at it that way:
WPA WSR 1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment
(c) 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.
There are two crucial issues here:
1. When we say mechanical bridge we really mean the “bridge head” with some kind of a stick (be it extendable or not) attached to it (if a player has his own bridge he would normally attach it to his break cue)
2. The rule clearly defines (allows only and specifically) that the bridge (bridge head) can be used to support the cue only (read: not the hand) unless (logically) it is used to support another bridge, for it to support the cue only.
This is a completely different case, not applicable here; it comes from the Equipment Specification Section and it has nothing to do with the way Rules define the use of such.
WPA WSR 1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment
(c) 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.
There are two crucial issues here:
1. When we say mechanical bridge we really mean the “bridge head” with some kind of a stick (be it extendable or not) attached to it (if a player has his own bridge he would normally attach it to his break cue)
2. The rule clearly defines (allows only and specifically) that the bridge (bridge head) can be used to support the cue only (read: not the hand) unless (logically) it is used to support another bridge, for it to support the cue only.
This is a completely different case, not applicable here; it comes from the Equipment Specification Section and it has nothing to do with the way Rules define the use of such.
Last edited:
It looks to me like those that wrote the rules never anticipated the unusual uses mentioned here (and why would they?) and we're left with differing opinions rather than clear rules on unusual circumstances.
Lacking clear rules on the subject, I'd say the unusual uses are legal until the rules are amended to outlaw them.
Lacking clear rules on the subject, I'd say the unusual uses are legal until the rules are amended to outlaw them.