"Shifty Bridge??"
- Thread starter Dunnn51
- Start date
So far as I know, no specific bridge has ever received official WPA approval.
If I were the TD, I would be fine with the Justabridge. I think it would take a very picky, officious TD to ban it.
In the thread on "interesting" equipment, someone mentioned Pat Fleming's little tubular weight that slips on the the shaft -- to about the middle of the shaft -- to act as a forward weight to keep the front of the stick down on awkward shot positions. I've heard of TDs banning that. I would have no trouble with it, but then I own one.
What is "common" and "obvious" to one TD is bizarre and unfair to another. But I think the allowed equipment problem is relatively rare.
Yes, some of the definitions are unclear. They assume quite a bit of experience and knowledge not contained in the rules. Of course the people writing the rules hopefully come at the job with some experience.
One way to judge the rules is by "the Martian standard". If a Martian got a copy of the rules and equipment specs -- and could read them -- would he be able to create a competition that looked just like what we do on Earth? I don't think any rule set is going to meet that standard, and some level of experience will always help understanding, but it is an ideal to keep in mind.
I suspect meeting the Martian standard would make the rules really verbose.
I kinda think this from the WPA defines what a standard bridge is.
Recommended Equipment Specifications - WPA Pool
(Effective November 2001 ) 1. Purpose 2. Table Bed Height 3. Design 4. Slates 5. Playing Surface 6. Rail and Cushion 7. Height of the Cushion 8. Cushion Rubber 9. Pocket Openings and Measurements 10. Pocket Liners 11. Ball Return and Drop Pockets 12. Cloth 13. Fastening of the Cloth (Guidelines)...
wpapool.com
I guess the question becomes, do you sacrifice clarity and consistency for brevity.
Compared to golf, pool is a relatively simple game that is played on a consistent, standardized playing surface under consistent conditions. There's no need to account for weather, different terrain, hazards, or even interference from outside agencies like animals.
The first step in getting consistently from people is giving them a set of rules that allows for that consistent play and does not allow for personal interpretation.
I kinda think this from the WPA defines what a standard bridge is.
Recommended Equipment Specifications - WPA Pool
(Effective November 2001 ) 1. Purpose 2. Table Bed Height 3. Design 4. Slates 5. Playing Surface 6. Rail and Cushion 7. Height of the Cushion 8. Cushion Rubber 9. Pocket Openings and Measurements 10. Pocket Liners 11. Ball Return and Drop Pockets 12. Cloth 13. Fastening of the Cloth (Guidelines)...
I think that explains what a bridge usually is, but doesn't necessarily define what it must be or cannot be.
There can be a difference.
And to be clear, I wasn't talking about only this particular item.
I'm really not trying to pick, but simply pointing out where I think there might be some opportunities to gain inconsistency.
Here’s the must.
They say it must meet specifications. Then in another document they provide those specifications. So per WPA wording, a mechanical bridge must be a stick with a bridge head mounted with notches or grooves that replace your bridge hand.
And if you take this rule too. It’s clear they expect bridges to be similar to standard bridges, which their equipment spec definition reinforces what that is.
Last edited:
BCAPL, again having in my opinion a better and more helpful effort at rule elaboration, would certainly allow this bridge as they’re explicit about allowing wheels and a retaining mechanism for a groove (which a tube-like slot for the cue to rest should certainly qualify as)
And again, nothing specifies what is "considered normal". What/who determines what is or isn't "similar"? Or what is or isn't "novel"?
Worse, the rule says "in general". Admitting that there will likely be differing individual interpretations.
There should not be.
If you read the rules of golf you'll get an idea exactly how specific the rules and definitions can be, even in the face of a vastly more complex game that's never played on an identical course under identical conditions. Ideally, people, whether 2 or 200 should be able to look at the same situation independently, apply the rules, and come up with the exact same answer/ruling without ambiguity.
not the same gadget as discussed here, that thing there is more for replacing the glove. i haven't tried it, but i see some merit to it as you get the "no glove" feel of the cloth and rails
No offense but i think players know what a conventional bridge consists of. I would hope the rules don't need ultra-fine details/minutia in describing common equipment. You go in any poolroom and look for/ask for a bridge/rake/crutch you pretty much know what it looks like.
I agree, but the problem lies with the situation where you are approaching the bounds of what most of us think that "conventional" is. Is it legal, is it not?
Was it a "stroke", or was he simply moving the cue ball with his tip with no intention whatsoever of playing a shot?
If there's room for individual interpretation and the chance that two people will come to different conclusions when confronted with the same situation, I'd argue that the rule is probably insufficient.
It's 2023 you are lucky it was just a gimmick bridge!
We're talking about a bridge, a physical piece of equipment. I don't see grey areas here as opposed to the stroke/no stroke issue. I get the literal stroke/no stroke deal but the way its used is totally chicken shit. What is/isn't a bridge is pretty clear. Lets keep lawyers/lawyer-speak out of pool.
It's not about lawyers or legal speak. It's about knowing how to play the game. I'd like to think that we've (mostly) progressed beyond the days of having to clarify every little detail about every little game in every little bar that we walked into because they all had different interpretations about how 8 Ball should be played. At least at the tournaments/serious level.
Is the shifty bridge a "bridge"? Is it a legal piece of equipment?
How about these...?
But again, even though this is an example we're using, it's not simply about one piece of equipment, but about clarification and consistency throughout.
There could be an easy solution to any odd mechanical thingies to keep them reasonable. "Any table or cue aid such as a bridge or extension may not have any moving parts that are free moving during use, with the exception of those players that are handicapped in some way of cueing normally such at those in wheelchairs or with arm/hand limitations". This wording prevents things that extend with a telescoping action or have grears that you may move before your shot but are locked in place during the shot.
What's next? Gonna have to 'define' what a table 'actually' is?? What is cloth, really?? Is chalk really chalk? How about balls? Put a bridge on each table and just say that's it, that's what we're using so deal with it. I've never seen any of this goofy shit in person so hopefully some level of sanity still exists in the game.
The rule
The specifications
So your first image aligns with this definition and would be allowed. The Super Shot and Shifty Bridge would not be allowed because it’s not a stick (similar in shape to a cue stick) with a bridge head mounted to it. By the the way the rules are written, it would only be allowed in wheelchair play.
I agree WPA Rules could have much better specificity. And I agree the “novel equipment” clause is vague. But they do specify with reasonable clarity what a mechanical bridge must be. Ironically, I think the BCAPL does a better a job being more specific and yet less strict on what it allows.