[EricH]

I'm making an ASSUMPTION to SIMPLIFY the PROBLEM. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying, if it wasn't there, then this is correct. If you've never ignored friction in a problem, I'd be shocked--but friction is in every problem that involves contact motion (even with air). Assuming [G14] didn't exist, my scenario is valid. If you could look past my saying that I'm assuming [G14] doesn't get called, then maybe you'd understand where I'm coming from. Seeing as you can't, then maybe I'll have to use simpler wording.

The whole "balanced with supports" doesn't feel right. It's not just the part about violating [G14]. "Balanced with supports" has another, better name. It's called "Leveled." As I noted earlier, they are NOT the same thing!

Edit: A couple of other things that I'd like to mention.
First, I have no problem with calling the bridge balanced if there's a ball under there that's free to roll but for some reason doesn't. That's understandable. I have a problem if the ball is jammed under the bridge and partially supporting it--that's a lot harder.

Second, I can think of a way to make an intentional placement of a ball under the bridge look like an accident. It takes finesse, but should be doable with a little bit of luck or skill. However, I have no intention of using it, or of publicizing it. This is because the refs' job is hard enough already.