I tend to go with this. In my view, the shooter does not gain any unfair advantage in using the bridge like that. The other player has the same opportunity. Another factor is that in general the bridges provided by the management for pool tables are somewhere between pitiful and lousy. If the table had a proper spider, the novel use might not be necessary.... No harm, no foul!
Advantage is a big part of the consideration (which you point out - there is none), and the other part; "he can do it too" might be answered simply enough by 'intent'. Is there an intent to circumvent fair play or diverge from traditional expectations of fair conduct.Of course you could also use the "he can do it too" argument to allow shooting with the side of your cue stick.
Enabling one to reach a shot is the reason for the bridge. What's the question?
all in favor of the exploitation of an inventive mind and it is my personal opinion that if the ruling class vote it down then shame on them.
What I found our, working for the BCA and the ref program. Many of the refs/not all, are not very good players, but they tend to get in the/ego way because of their ref uniform. They never had enough ''game power'' to make a statement, but with the uniform on, they did.I think that some of the restrictive rules are put in just to show that the refs have the power. I know of one rule that seems to have been put in just because one particular "troublesome" player used a slightly unusual technique.
This term is very vague....Like the flat cut on a handle end, to use the bumper to hit the ball on a 10' table. Is there any rule saying which end of the cue MUST be used?WPA rule
1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment The equipment must meet existing WPA equipment specifications. In general, players are not permitted to introduce novel equipment into the game. The following uses, among others, are considered normal. If the player is uncertain about a particular use of equipment, he should discuss it with the tournament management prior to the start of play. The equipment must be used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended. (See 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.)
(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.
In WPA it carries a stronger offence of Unsportsmanlike Conduct, which it is directly addressed by h. using equipment inappropriately.
Question; when was the bcapl/csi date of this rule? It could go back to 2008 but generally there have not been any rule changes since 2012. Their current rules are 2016 and forward. I have not keep up to date in awhile, but no changes whatsoever after 2016 is my belief.
Unless there are detailed scenarios of the 'manner that the equipment was intended', I would stick with the explanation that the bridge is intended to enhance the bridge on shots where otherwise it would be inaccessible.The equipment must be used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended. (See 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.)
This one always bothered me and I thought was illegal. Now if the man had no fingers or was missing some digits I would be fine with the "prosthetic" but in Earl's case I think he gets the "Crazy Uncle" waiver from most of the guys. Just watch how SVB laughs when Earl goes Full Earl.When Earl at a recent pro event used ''finger extensions'', NO one, not even another pro said ''Anything''.