So you are claiming that modifying a cue for the sole purpose of jumping and then switching to that cue for the sole purpose of performing a jump and then switching back to your regular playing cue for any and all other shots is within the "spirit" of rules of APA and is not trying to work a loophole in the rules?
Yes, if the modification results in a cue that could reasonably be used in normal play, to execute the majority of normal shots. Just because the owner chooses not to use it that way does not make it a specialty cue. Suppose I believe that a graphite shaft helps me execute jump shots, so I get one for one of my cues, and only use that cue for jumping. It's not a specialty cue.
Take the use of the cue by its owner out of the equation for a moment. If someone handed you a cue and asked if it was a jump or break cue, would you be able to answer them? Most likely you would, even though you have no idea how they use the cue.
If your answer is yes to that then explain:
- If their intent was to allow you to change cues and perform a jump, why would they even bother to "outlaw" sticks designed for that exact purpose?
Because the majority of players cannot execute a jump shot without a specialty cue, so outlawing the cues takes jumping (and the resulting damage that may occur) out of the equation. That section of the manual actually used to outlaw changing cues during your turn, but there are plenty of other reasons why someone would change cues and the rule book lawyers were having a field day with that.
- It is an amateur league that caters to low and mid level players. Why would they make those players perform the harder task of jumping with a full length stick period if their intent was to allow you to change to a "modified" playing stick that may make it slightly easier for them?
Same answer. Slightly easier for a good player, but still out of the equation for a beginner. Be careful here, though, when you speak of intent. The "slightly easier" part probably wasn't even discussed when the rule was implemented. The intent was to outlaw jump cues, and the rule (and related definitions) has been slightly modified multiple times because rule book lawyers want to keep arguing about what is or is not a jump cue.
- How does switching to a cue that you have for a specific shot (Jumping), not violate the Equipment rule of Jump cues? It simply says "a specialty cue designed for attempting jump shots". That rule does not say it is a short light jump cue as most of us think. Nor does it say that it has to be designed by a "cue maker". So if you really want to play semantics with the wording of the rules and try to create loopholes I will simply say that you "designed" a specialty cue when you put a harder tip on it and designated it as your break/jump/masse cue to only be used for those shots. I would also say you exempted that playing cue from the APA definition of "Regular Shooting Cues" when you decided that it should only be used for those specific shoots as it is no longer being used for a majority of shots in a game of pool. Thus you turned a regular playing cue stick into a specialty cue by APA definitions of Jump, Break and Regular Shooting Cues.
See my previous answer. We have plenty of rule book lawyers. No matter what definition or rule is in the book, they want to debate and find loopholes. We close loopholes with common sense. If APA inspects the cue and declares it a specialty cue then that's what it is. If not, then jump away. Yes, sometimes you have to resort to the old "because I said so" answer. :wink: