"Shifty Bridge??"

Dunnn51

Dunnn51

Drones? What Drones??
Silver Member
While waiting for my match opp, I played a few games with a very nice young lady. We played on a 9ft. table and she was of Petite stature so I stuck her with a long shot down table. Expecting her to reach under for the table bridge, she goes and whips out this thing and attaches it to her cue. I never seen one before. Is this common? Do you or someone you know use it??
Curious to know,....
Shifty Bridge
 
I would assume it’s mot legal in WPA but would be legal in BCAPL provided you operate it without the presence of a hand bridge.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Is a Justabrige legal? Is it considered "similar" to standard bridges?
 
7stud said:
Is a Justabrige legal? Is it considered "similar" to standard bridges?
Click to expand...

WPA does a horrible job with the rules.

Without defining what a "standard bridge" is, they leave it open to individual interpretation. That's not the only place where they make similar errors of omission either…

They could take a page (literally) from the USGA when it comes to drafting rules. The rules of golf begin with a very extensive set of definitions that are applied/referred to throughout the rules themselves.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Can you be more specific? Are there some particular rules that bother you? Are there some that really need to be fixed?
Click to expand...
What determines whether a bridge is a "standard bridge" or not? What does "similar" mean? Same color? Same length? Head must fit within a 6" x 4" rectangle?
 
Last edited:
7stud said:
What determines whether a bridge is a "standard bridge" or not? What does "similar" mean? Same color? Same length? Head must fit within a 6" x 4" rectangle?
Click to expand...
If you bring something new and bizarre to the table, it is currently up to the tournament management to decide whether you can use it.

An alternative to that would be for the WPA to establish an equipment certification program and require certification for any piece of equipment used by the player.

Another way is to say that a bridge must have a head of x inches and a length between y and z inches, and four notches and may have no moving parts. I think that way is too restrictive. There are lots of different bridges (rests) used at snooker and I think they are all fine. Wheels are a stretch.

Which path would you prefer to see? Maybe some other?

I think golf requires some equipment to be tested and certified, but I'm not sure.

But I agree that "proper use of proper equipment" needs to be clarified.
 
Last edited:
I've seen similar ones used in APA. Tho I don't recall seeing them at the high level tourneys I've been at, tho that doesn't mean they haven't been used, I could just have missed it.

I would imagine in other leagues and tourneys, they likely wouldn't be allowed.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Can you be more specific? Are there some particular rules that bother you? Are there some that really need to be fixed?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, saying that they do a "horrible job with the rules" was a bit much. I just think there's an opportunity to improve/clarify for more consistency. The rules don't exist to either help or hurt. They just exist to tell us how to play the game, and everybody should be able to approach an identical situation and come to an identical conclusion as to what should happen by applying the rules.

So having said that, pretty much what I mentioned. They do a bad job with definitions and then refer back to things that have not been defined.

Like "standard bridge". Or even the definition of a "stroke".

As an example, in golf a "stroke" is defined as "the forward movement of the golf club with the intent of striking the ball".

With a definition like that, we wouldn't have to have the question raised as to whether or not it's a foul to push the cue ball into position with the tip of the cue.

Note I'm not saying that it should be a foul or should not be a foul, just that with one good definition to apply, the ambiguity is removed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top