On our Questions and Answers Page we give a decision, with regard to which, however, we are not perfectly sure, and in also communicating our reply privately to the sender of the question we stated that we should be glad to have further correspondence on the point.
Our correspondent has since written to us as follows:— "I do not think that the Rule you quote meets the case —it can hardly be said that the ball was disturbed otherwise than by the player, nor can it be called a foul stroke—there was also so much way on the red ball that it would have been impossible to decide within a foot at least the spot at which it would have stopped if it had not gone into the pocket. If I were called upon to decide the question I should allow the score, on the ground that there is no Rule under which the stroke could be disqualified."
We should like the opinions of some of our experienced readers on this somewhat interesting point, and should be specially glad to know whether there has ever been a responsible ruling upon it. In a sense, of course, the red ball was moved by the agency of the player, and yet there is a sense in which it was not so moved. To us it seems to be immaterial whether it was the player's cue tip, or, say, the player's chalk that fell accidentally upon the table, as it would be only his involuntary agency in either case. Here, too, the concluding clause in Rule 14, not quoted by us on our Questions and Answers page, may help, as it says:— "This rule covers the case in which a non-striker or non-player causes the striker to touch or move a ball." If this means anything it seems to us to mean that when a ball is moved in a manner quite apart from any responsible act on the part of the striker it has to be placed where it most likely would have gone.
Our correspondent says that there was so much way on the red ball that it would have been impossible to decide within a foot at least the spot at which it would have stopped if it had not gone into the pocket, but this hardly appeals to us as an objection. Something approximate would have to be officially or mutually agreed upon in such a case, which would be not dissimilar from the well-known expedient in golf in which a ball is dropped over the shoulder to the rear with only—as must be admitted—approximately exact results.
Then, again, if it is right to score from such diverted course of the red ball, it would logically follow that if the ball failed to enter a pocket it would be left where it came to rest. But here the opponent might have something to say, as the result of the accident might be to leave him a particularly bad position to go on with, whilst from the same point of view to allow the score might affect him even more disastrously. Suppose, for example, that the players were Inman and Stevenson and that the incident occurred towards the end of a serious encounter and with few points separating the two scores. Stevenson's tip comes off.
diverts the red into a pocket, and from this score Stevenson tuns to game. How would Inman be likely to view the matter under Rule 14?
However, as we have said, the point is both novel and interesting and we should be glad to receive experiences and opinions in relation thereto.
Stevenson will be in England next season, at the end of which he will sail for Australia, thence to New Zealand, and back via America and Canada.
Mr. G. B. Shailer (New South Wales) has been awarded the silver medal of the Billiard Association for his 264 off the red with composition balls, and Mr. A. W. T. Good for his 174 off the red with ivory balls.