IS THIS LEGAL

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
15,931
cincy commented on corey's use of the bridge in the corey shannon link
corey used the bridge to get a better hand position
he got away with it but was /is it legal??
would you allow your opponent to do it gambling?

corey using the bridge.png
 

Bob Jewett

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
328
Some rule sets do not specify how the bridge is to be used. This general sort of use is uncommon but I've seen it several times and done it myself.

Often when you are on the back of a nearly full rack and have to shoot towards the foot rail, you can get there by putting the bridge head up on a rail and the handle over the rack. Personally, I think there is no reason to forbid using the bridge to support your hand like that. It is available to everyone. You still have to shoot the ball.

I've also seen it in a major snooker tournament, and there was no peep out of the referee. As I recall, it was with the spider which stands very high.
 

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
3,787
I think it's got to be allowed. There is no mention of the bridge in our rules and that's probably for the best. If we made a rule about it, we would have to enumerate all the ways it could be used. I could think of several others. Ban the bridge or leave the kid alone. Being imaginative is good in one pocket.
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,429
The rake is included with the table for match play. No different than seeing cue handles with a flat end cut to utilize the bumper, to make a ball that's outta reach.
 

cincy_kid

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
5,267
I personally thought it was a brilliant idea when I saw him do it but wasn't sure if it was allowed since I have never seen it come up in play gambling or tourney play...good to know though as I may have to pull it out sometime! :)
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
15,931
fwiw
grady said he thought was illegal in some tournaments but he had never had to call it
he asked johnny ervolino his cocommentator for the match if he thought it was illegal and johnny said no
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,685
This topic has been discussed on this forum in the past. At that time there were mixed opinions. Some went as far as to bring up the specific rules for using the mechanical bridge, concluding it was illegal. Personally, Due to the vague wording I personally found that to be a stretch. Others were of the opinion that because the rules were not specific enough to rules it out, it therefore should be okay. ( I guess those making the rules at the time hadn't even considered the possibility. This seems to often be the case with the "powers that be" until confronted with a fertile mind.) And still others were not so sure.

I first saw it used back in 2000 at the US Open One Pocket Championships in Portland Maine. It was being used against me by Santos Sambajon. Never having seen the bridge used in this manner before, I found it to be extremely inventive. I never gave it a thought that it may be against the rules to use it this way. I still don't.
I won't get into whether the bridge can be used legally this way or not. I"m no expert on the subject. I will only say that I am 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.

Tom
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
2,178
OFFICIAL RULES OF CUESPORTS INTERNATIONAL 9 10. Mechanical Bridges The primary consideration for determining whether a mechanical bridge is legal is that it supports the cue, as opposed to elevating the bridge hand above the bed of the table or significantly enhancing the stability of the hand holding the bridge. The particular construction of the bridge is not relevant as long as it does no more than support the cue, and does not damage the table or other equipment. Items that are not considered disqualifying include, but are not limited to:  The overall size, or the height of grooves above the bed of the table;  whether there is a handle, sliding extensions, wheels, or accommodations to straddle balls;  the shape of grooves;  whether the grooves have linings or mechanisms to retain the cue in the groove. If the above information is not sufficient to determine to whether a particular bridge design is considered legal, please contact the CSI National office, and include a picture of the bridge in use on a table with your communication. (AR p. 73)

APPLIED RULINGS: EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS Mechanical Bridges (also 1-3, Use of Equipment) The design of a prosthetic device used by a physically challenged player falls under the same guidelines as those provided for mechanical bridges. It is also permissible to have a device that is adjustable to various heights or permutations. However, the use of such a device is governed by Rule 1-3-e, and the device may not be elevated or supported by any other device or equipment.

1.3 Use of Equipment
e. You may not shoot while using any item to support or elevate your bridge hand. You may hold chalk in your bridge hand while bridging, but the chalk may not be used to elevate your hand off the table. Penalty for (d-e): foul upon execution of the shot. If no shot is executed then there is no foul.

Therefore an important tournament for many of our members, DCC, it would be deemed illegal, plus any other tournament governed by bcapl/csi. Whitey
 
Last edited:

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,429
CSI rules are most likely different than the WPA rules.
Allot of CSI rules were put into play to control league players.
Like BIH anywhere on the table on an 8 ball scratch....tho now I don't know if it's still in place.
They changed allot of rules, for the better, especially too speed up play and to minimize arguments during play.
When you have 240 bar tables, all playing 8 ball matches at the same time, scheduling USED to be a nightmare with the Old rules.
Here's the WPA bridge rule....

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.

Nothing is said about hand bridge on the rake shaft.
I've seen Strickland use finger extenders during play.

I've even seen a wheelchair player used a hand made rake head with a heavy metal base, with a leather strap on the top, to pick up the bridge pad and move it into position, no one ever complained or ruled against it.
 
Last edited:

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,685
Whitey, Do you know the date this rule was implemented? These ruling bodies seem determined to demonstrate a greater and greater restrictive nature. As I said, shame on them. They should encourage new ideas not tie the hands of those who have the minds to move the game forward. After all, allowing alternative ways to use a bridge would be open to everyone. No harm, no foul!

Tom
 

Bob Jewett

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
328
... No harm, no foul!
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.

Is it OK to hold the mechanical bridge nearer the head than usual? Can you rest the bridge handle on your shoulder because there is no clear place to rest it on the table? How much do you want to specify?

Of course you could also use the "he can do it too" argument to allow shooting with the side of your cue stick.
 

Bob Jewett

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
328
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.
 

sorackem

Well-Known-Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
699
Of course you could also use the "he can do it too" argument to allow shooting with the side of your cue stick.
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.

In the case of using the bridge this way: I think Tom and Bill said it very well:
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.
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,429
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.
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.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
2,178
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 6.17 - 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.

By WPA rule then we as OP.org players can not use the bridge as a hand support in our MOT.
Sorry to be the carrier of what appears to be bad news. I really do not care one way or the other, I am quite understandingly burnt out on rules.
Take Care Guys! Whitey
 
Last edited:

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,429
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?

I worked for the BCA in the early 2000's, and matters change/changed to fit amateur play.

Inappropriate, depends on you, culture and Many other factors.
If the ref was from your country, watching an opponent from another country, and the match was hill/hill. Who do you think Might benefit the most from a Vague ruling?
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,429
When Earl at a recent pro event used ''finger extensions'', NO one, not even another pro said ''Anything''.
 

sorackem

Well-Known-Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
699
The equipment must be used only for the purpose or in the manner that the equipment was intended. (See 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.)
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.
And again, the virtue of intent should be in play; there is no intent to take unfair advantage or otherwise engage the shot in a non traditional way.
 

Nick B

Verified Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
650
When Earl at a recent pro event used ''finger extensions'', NO one, not even another pro said ''Anything''.
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.

Back to Corey's thing I was always under the impression that you had to use the bridge as intended (as a substitute bridge-hand)...though I give Corey style points for Outside the Box thinking.
 
Top