Billiards

by William Broadfoot

Perhaps the commonest and one of the most offensive errors a spectator can be guilty of is offering advice to a player. This is of course promptly resented if there is money on the game. That, however, is not enough; the mischief may be done, and no amount of penitence can then compensate. But the practice is equally reprehensible if there is no money at stake; the competitors should have a fair field and no favour.

Another offence is obstructing a player, and this expression covers accidentally coming against him, or being in his way when striking a ball, or doing any other act which interferes with his stroke—moving in his line of sight, scratching a match, or extinguishing it by waving it up and down in front of him, entering or leaving the room on the stroke, speaking to a player or conversing in a loud tone sufficient to distract his attention. Want of the certainty that these matters will receive consideration, and of all power to enforce them except at the risk of being considered unreasonable, is one of the reasons why really good amateurs abstain so largely from playing in clubs. It is worthy of consideration whether a spectator who sees the game wrongly marked should be allowed to state the fact. We think that he should not have this permission, on the principle that the struggle should be strictly confined to the players, and that they, and they only, should be allowed to question the score. The spectator is almost as likely to be wrong as right, and an interruption is caused which had better have been avoided. Lastly, it has been usual to provide that in case the marker or referee could not decide a point, the majority of spectators might be appealed to. As a rule, the majority of spectators know so little about such matters, and, not being so well placed as the marker or referee to judge of questions of fact, it would seem in every way preferable in case of doubt to produce a coin and leave the matter to the arbitrament of chance.

7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker. The intention of the rules whereby deliberate obstruction or wilful interference with the run of the balls shall be punished by the loss of the game is excellent, as also is the provision that the non-player shall leave the table and avoid the player’s line of sight; but the rules are not very definite. In the first place, what is deliberate obstruction? Clouds of tobacco smoke blown across the table interfere with sight, and pieces of tobacco and ashes obstruct the run of the balls; a remark which distracts the player’s attention is an obstruction as much and as deliberate as if the opponent laid his cue on the table, but it is less tangible and more difficult to deal with. What is desired is complete liberty and freedom for each player when in possession of the table; it matters comparatively little whether the offence is accidental or intentional, for the penalty should be sufficient to meet the graver case. If a seat is available for the non-striker, it is surely not much to ask that he should occupy it and remove himself to a fair distance from the table.

8. How far the marker may assist either player. Regarding this an opinion has already been plainly expressed that the struggle should be strictly confined to the players, neither of them being allowed to receive extraneous advice. It is no argument, or but a very poor one, to contend that the same advice is open to both players; and no such sophistry can make it right that the judgment and eyesight of the marker should be at the disposal of an adversary who is either too lazy or too blind to see for himself how far the cue-tip is from the ball. When two men are playing billiards, he who helps the one injures the other, and the more careless and lazy the performer, the more help will he receive, a result clearly injurious to the best interests of the game and unfair to the attentive man. The latter will seldom err as to which ball he should play with, whilst the former after almost every break will commence by inquiring which is his ball or play with the wrong one. Again, strokes with the half or long-butt are fruitful causes of failure. Is it right that a player should be permitted to ask the marker whether the cue-tip is within proper distance of the ball? Certainly not. If one of the players’ sight is better than the other’s, he should profit thereby, just as he may lawfully profit by any other advantage he is fortunate enough to possess. Believing, as we do, that it is most important to let the struggle lie absolutely between the two combatants and to preserve the strictest neutrality, and that advice or assistance of the nature indicated should, if asked for, be refused, it follows that the custom some markers have of offering the rest or the half-butt is at least equally objectionable. It is often done in perfect innocence, but it may have a most undesirable effect on the game, and the impulse to take the initiative should be restrained.

9. The push stroke. The vexed question whether this stroke is to be permitted or to be prohibited will, we think, have to be arbitrarily decided—decided, that is, not on its real merits, but on the consideration of expediency. It is always rather a pity when this is so, and with the view of laying before those interested matters concerning the stroke which might escape notice, we shall endeavour to collect them and to assign to each its due importance.

To begin with, those who assert roundly that all push strokes are foul because there are several impacts between cue-tip and ball are practically wrong. In very close pushes, such as those employed in nursery cannons, or in any stroke when balls 1 and 2 are nearly touching, if played by a person who has mastered the art, the vast majority are fair strokes—that is, they are made with the point of the cue, and ball 1 is not twice struck. In other words, it is possible to push a ball for some distance with the point of the cue without losing touch. It is dangerous to drive any argument to extremes, and for practical purposes it is well to bear in mind that de minimis non curat lex. Against the opinion just expressed that it is possible to push a ball for a short distance fairly, those who contend that such is not the case base their view on the fact that as soon as the ball begins to travel it also begins to rotate, and that when rotation is established continued impact is impossible. They contend that though it may appear to be continuous it really is not so, and that the stroke consists of a number of little blows, which might be represented by a dotted line, instead of absolutely steady impact, which would be represented by a line. It seems unprofitable to attempt to go into such minutiæ. If the touches are sufficiently close together the result is continued impact; in other words, if the dots are close enough together they cease to be dots and form the line. A man who allows these minute matters to obscure his judgment might equally well argue that a ball rotating quickly in the direction of its path was not in constant contact with the cloth. No doubt it is not, and but a small irregularity, an atom of dust, chalk, or tobacco, will if passed over cause the ball to jump perceptibly; contact with the cloth is visibly interrupted and again assumed, and the ball for an instant is off the table, yet no one would dream of inquiring whether the stroke was in consequence vitiated, or of raising the question as to whether the ball was knocked off the table. So much for those who base their opposition to the push stroke on the assumption that it is always foul and, following timid or incapable referees, rule it so invariably on appeal. Another so-called proof that the stroke is generally foul is arrived at by either chalking a cue heavily and pushing the red ball, when, it is argued, if contact is continuous, the ball will show a line of chalk on its surface, but if impact has been interrupted the line will be broken; or by pushing with a cue whose tip has been removed, when the fact of repeated impacts is conveyed to the player by the sense of feeling—in other words, he feels the friction between the ball and cue. Neither of these tests is conclusive; in the first it is manifest that sooner or later the expenditure of chalk on the tip must result in none being applied to the ball, or a slight variation in pressure or some other accident might account for the chalk not adhering to it; in the second, all that need be said is, when it is desired to play a fair push stroke do not select a cue without a tip. Were the tip made of cotton or wool or a similar fabric, it is evident that there would be no difficulty in keeping some part or other of it in contact with the ball even over a long course. But the fact is these far-fetched objections should carry no weight, and, as far as we can judge, a practical and impartial person who desires to consider the matter is justified in starting with the assumption that the push is not necessarily foul.

If, however, on theoretical grounds it were so ruled, it follows at once that many other strokes hitherto unsuspected or uncomplained of would for the same reason have to be prohibited. Of these the half-push (see p. [230]) is an example, and indeed it is not too much to say that in every stroke in which balls 1 and 2 are close, and which has to be played at all hard, whether a follow or a close screw, in both of which the cue-tip follows up ball 1, the probability is great that there have been at least two distinct impacts. Before going further it is reasonable to inquire why a ball should not be struck twice. There does not seem to be any special rule in the Association code prohibiting the practice, the only one under which it can be brought being Rule 30, wherein impeding or accelerating the progress of a ball is declared to make the stroke foul; and this is an excellent example of how badly those rules are drafted; for in every stroke played with follow the progress of the ball is accelerated, whilst in every drag stroke it is impeded, and yet both are fair strokes. However, as there is no other rule on the subject, this must be accepted, it being conceded, for the sake of argument, that subsequent impacts of the cue make the ball travel faster. Now, it seems on consideration that the reason for prohibiting a second impact is that a player is entitled to one stroke only at a time; he must not, once he has set ball 1 in motion, take a second stroke to correct deficiencies. These deficiencies are likely to be of two kinds—either ball 1 is struck too gently, in which case there is temptation to help it with a second blow; or it is sent in a wrong direction, when there is inducement to correct the error by an application of the cue. To condemn the push stroke as contravening this rule seems somewhat far-fetched.

But, granting all this, there are most serious objections to the stroke, of which perhaps the strongest is the great difficulty of discriminating between a fair and a foul push. In many instances it requires a man who has mastered the stroke to judge, and in others markers and referees are apt most unwarrantably to make up their minds that, if the push is allowed, any stroke so made, however palpably foul, must be passed; whilst others take precisely the opposite view, and on appeal rule every push to be foul. The difficulty of judging is their only excuse, but to rule any stroke as foul unless they distinctly saw and can name the act which made it so is to prove themselves unfitted for the post of referee. A vast proportion of amateurs cannot make the stroke, which requires much determination and steadiness, as well as a good deal of practice; they are most suspicious of those who can do it, and resent a ruling that their clumsy endeavour is foul, whilst another smoothly made by an expert is fair. Being ignorant of the difference, they feel injured, and express their feelings more or less eloquently to the marker, who to avoid such scenes rules all push strokes to be foul.

Another important objection to the push is that it induces a slovenly style of cannon play, and that, so far as we know, it is not permitted by any other billiard-playing nation. This is a drawback when our players compete with foreigners, not merely because the difficulties of arranging the game are enhanced, but because our representatives are wanting in the skill which is required to surmount obstacles usually overcome by the push.

The case for and against the push stroke was thus condensed in the ‘Times’ of December 17, 1894:—