Billiards

by William Broadfoot

8. How far the marker may assist either player; and, finally,

9. The push stroke.

In offering remarks and suggestions on these matters there is no desire to arrogate any superiority of judgment or any right to decide. It is fully understood that opinions will differ, and that those brought forward here may not commend themselves to the majority of experts; but they are the result of study and of consultation with persons well qualified to be heard on such matters, and, therefore, they are put forward as of sufficient importance to warrant their receiving due weight when action is taken in respect to the rules.

Dealing with the questions in their numerical order, let us examine:

1. The results of trying to discriminate between the act of aiming and the act of striking. Now, these two together constitute a stroke, the first being the preliminary, the second the final part; and it is not always easy to say where the one ends and the other begins. Here, therefore, there is an element of uncertainty which if possible should be eliminated, the more so because argument as to a fact of which no one but the striker can be really cognisant is avoided. The matter can be satisfactorily settled by simply ruling that if a player touches his ball his doing so shall be considered a stroke. In addition to removing a somewhat thorny subject of discussion, which in itself is sufficient recommendation, such a provision is very much sounder than any attempt to divide a stroke into its component parts and to treat each differently. Why should carelessness during the first part of a stroke be pardoned whilst during the last it is punished? It is not unusual for a striker who inadvertently touches his ball to remark that he was not in the act of striking, and to proceed to give a safe miss. This often happens when a difficult stroke is attempted and the safe miss is unquestionably his best game and the worst for his adversary, who, realising the fact and perceiving the opening for profitable generosity, begs the striker not to mind the little accident, but to replace his ball and play the stroke again. With a young player this disinterestedness is usually rewarded, but an older one will decline to take advantage of such good-nature and will adhere to the safety miss. Now, if the touch was held under the rules to be, as it is actually, a stroke, there would be no inducement for this little by-play, and the offender would not have the option of embarrassing his opponent and escaping from the effects of his blunder by playing for safety. A stroke is a stroke whether played hard or soft, whether intentional or accidental, and the rules should uphold this fact. If they did (and this is a further recommendation), several rules or provisions in the code of the Association might be expunged, and it would thereby gain in clearness and simplicity.

2. Playing a miss otherwise than with the point of the cue. The general rule is that all strokes must be played with the point of the cue, and that they are foul if otherwise made. This perhaps meets all cases sufficiently save that of giving a miss for safety. Some players, from carelessness or in order to assume a dégagé style which they consider to be attractive and indicating that they do not need to stand on much ceremony with their opponent, give the miss with the side of the cue, and if they have made the ball travel too fast they have no hesitation in stopping it. As matters stand, all that can be done in such a case is to insist on the person playing the stroke properly; but this is insufficient, and it is not absolutely clear whether he can be forced to do so. Distinct provision for this should be made and a sufficient penalty provided, so that this practice, which is discourteous to the adversary, and which, if the ball is stopped, involves two offences, may be prevented. It is a bad practice, too, for the man who indulges in it, for he may do it on some occasions when unpleasantness would result, and, moreover, indulgence in the habit is likely to lead to loss of power to give a miss in the proper way.

3. Playing with the wrong ball. Under the Association rules, if the striker plays with the wrong ball the opponent has the choice of three penalties and the option of claiming them. He cannot, however, enforce any unless the error be discovered and claimed before the next stroke. This rule seems objectionable in more ways than one. Unless there are very cogent reasons for ruling otherwise, one offence should have but one penalty, and the adversary, who is an interested party, should not be permitted to decide what measure and form of punishment are appropriate. Surely an adequate penalty could be devised the infliction of which would have no suspicion of vindictiveness. The limitation, too, is not very fortunate, and usually leads to discussion, for the offender often avers that he played with the ball which the non-striker did not use; this of course is really no argument, but it is often successful, for men generally prefer to avoid dispute.

4. Foul strokes. The Association Rule 30 is incomplete and badly worded. Presumably, all strokes which are not fair are foul, and if a list is given it should be as complete as possible. Were this attended to, and were the recommendations under 1 accepted, the result would be to decrease the number of rules and to simplify the code.

5. When player’s ball touches another ball. In old days, if under these circumstances a score was made, the stroke was held to be foul and the opponent broke the balls. This was apparently thought to bear too severely on delicate play, specially as the touch was often the result of imperfection in the balls or table; and the present rule was introduced, which provides that the red be placed on the spot, the non-striker’s ball on the centre spot, whilst the striker may play from baulk. This change enormously improves the value of close positions for cannon play, and one of its results is the fearless cultivation of nurseries; but whether that is a benefit to the game of billiards is another matter. The question how to deal with the case of balls which touch is really surrounded with difficulty. It has always appeared hard that if at the end of a stroke fairly made the striker’s ball should touch another ball, his next stroke should be foul. He has not offended, and why should he be punished for playing with exact strength? The only apparent reason for ruling the next stroke foul is that it is a certainty; the striker, if he can play into any pocket or on the third ball, must score, and he cannot give a miss. What is the objection to this? Is not the object of all work at billiards and the measure of success thereat to be able to leave a certainty to follow each stroke? In the case of close cannons the stroke is practically no more certain if the balls touch than if they are the conventional small distance apart. Other unknown considerations may affect the question and make the present or former ruling fair and advantageous for the game, but in their absence no sufficient case is made out against abolishing the rules respecting balls touching and permitting the striker to play on. Possibly the objections to this in nursery cannon play are so great as to make the arrangement undesirable, but it is open to question how far it would materially affect the length of the series. At any rate, whilst expressing no strong opinion, it is clear that the proposal merits consideration. A collateral advantage would be doing away with the need for a reference to the umpire or marker on a point often most difficult to decide, and one concerning which mistake is frequent.

6. Offences committed by persons other than the players. These are not easily dealt with, chiefly because of the difficulty of enforcing a penalty; and many of them, moreover, are rather the result of bad manners, want of observation of the etiquette of the room, and ignorance, than of intention to offend.