Lindrum would have been just beaten by Stevenson, if playing him in the recent match at Melbourne on level terms. This is not necessarily to say that he is as good an all-round player as Stevenson. Before such a thing could be asserted, or even suggested, one would need to know exactly how much use Lindrum made of the red ball stroke, even with its 75 limitation, as the obtaining of position for this stroke is one of the easiest things in billiards. It is enormously more easy, for example, than the resumption of close cannon work after the allotted number has been made, and only requires an intervening cannon or a loser off the white.
Apart, however, from such considerations as these, the Stevenson-Lindrum match is interesting as furnishing the first example in billiard history of the limitation of the red ball losing hazard. We understand the limitation at Melbourne to have been to twenty-five consecutive scores off the red, and that any incidental winning hazard was also counted in the sequence. Thus one of the suggestions made in The Billiard Monthly two months ago seems to be on the road towards maturing.
At present the limiting rules (B.C.C.) read thus:— If the red ball is pocketed twice in succession in one break from the spot, without the conjunction of another score, it shall be placed on the centre spot, or, if that is occupied, on the pyramid spot, and should both these spots be occupied the red shall be replaced on the spot. If again pocketed it shall be placed on the spot. Spot play may, if the players agree, be arranged for by suspending this proviso.
Consecutive ball-to-ball cannons are limited to 25. On the completion of this number the break shall only be continued by the intervention of a hazard or indirect cannon.
Much simpler, more just, and more consistent, to our mind, would be one short rule worded as follows: When 25 (a) consecutive cannons, or (b) winning or (c) losing hazards off one ball have been made the break shall only be continued by the intervention of (a) a hazard or indirect cannon, or (b and c) a cannon or different hazard.
On a basis such as this Gray or Lindrum might challenge for the championship, and people would go to see them play, for such a contest would be crowded with interest from the first stroke to the last. Even now, whenever Reece is seen gently nursing the three balls towards a top corner pocket the whisper circulates: "He is getting on the anchor stroke"; and if 25 consecutive winning or losing hazards were allowed and were the limit, there would be the double interest of witnessing a skilful player lead up to or recommence such a break.
As has been frequently pointed out in The Billiard Monthly, the virtual barring of consecutive winning hazards has done no good to billiards. As well might close cannons be barred altogether, or, for the matter of that, losing hazards—after which the cloth might very well be put on.
Every expert billiard player, professional or amateur, must in the nature of things be a specialist on all strokes that can be specialised upon. Just as Tom Brown, when at Rugby, pulled out in his famous fight a trick that he had learned when wrestling with the village lads at home, so a billiard player should have at hand, for those occasions, or days, or weeks, when he may be out of sorts, or hard pressed in one way or another, some stroke or strokes by means of which he can always "make a few" and send the scoring pegs along in his direction.
Billiard legislation has erred in the past. Let it now "for a great wrong do a little right," and put the limitation clauses of its rules into consistent and coherent form.