THE RULES OF BILLIARDS

WE published in our last issue the rules of pool, as well as some remarks on the general principles upon which all rules should be framed. We intend shortly to publish a complete set of rules for the game of billiards, which will differ in many respects from those that have hitherto been issued, and which are to be found in various forms, but still all having a strong family likeness, in the different billiard rooms throughout the country.

These old rules of billiards differ slightly in matters of detail, and also in the fact of having various billiard-table manufacturers' names affixed to them; but they agree in principles, and we have no hesitation in saying that in more than one instance these principles are wrong.

In calling attention last week to the rules of pool, we laid down the general maxim that no code of rules could be considered perfect that admitted of a player profiting by an irregularity. Fortunately, billiard players in the present day are almost invariably a straightforward class of men, who would scorn to take advantage of the various flaws that occur in the printed rules of the game. We will illustrate what we mean by a simple case. Suppose two good players, A and B, are playing a game of 100 up for a large sum of money, and the score stands 99 all. It is A's turn to play, and he is angled, say, in one of the bottom pockets, so that he cannot play at either of the other balls direct. There is also, say, an easy losing hazard with his opponent's ball into a pocket off the red. If A is an honourable player, and has no wish to take advantage of the want of caution with which the rules have been drawn up, he will of course play to strike the balls, and, if possible, score by hitting a cushion first. Suppose, however, A is not an honourable player, or suppose the extremely improbable case of A absolutely getting confused, and that he plays with the wrong ball, and makes a losing hazard with B's ball off the red into a pocket, what is the penalty? The old rule on this point is clear. The stroke does not count, but the balls are broken and the opponent plays on. Or, in other words, the rules of the game allow A, by a gross irregularity—which bear in mind, constantly really occurs—accidentally to, in all probability, win the game, when, had he not committed this irregularity, the odds were at least 10 to 1 against him. B, should the balls be broken, would be forced to play at the red from baulk, as the score stood 99 all, with his opponent in hand and all billiard players know what a poor chance of winning the game there would be for him under these circumstances.

Now it seems to us obvious that, whenever the penalty of breaking the balls occurs, it should be at the option of the player who has not committed the irregularity, either to break the balls himself or to require his opponent to break them. In the case we have mentioned, however, the simple penalty of claiming a foul stroke and making the player who made the foul break the balls would not be sufficient, for it must be borne in mind A was angled, and a miss would have lost him the game, a score being next door to impossible. Should, however, A play from baulk at the red, if he is a good player he has, at any rate, a chance of screwing in off the red ball, or may play for what is generally termed "a double baulk."

Now no penalty, in our opinion, is sufficiently strong that does not prevent A from gaining any possible advantage from his irregular play. The rule, therefore, for playing with a wrong ball should be that the opponent may have the balls replaced, and make the player play his stroke, or, should a score be made, he can either break the balls himself or force his opponent to break them; or, in the case of no score being made, in addition, as we have said, to having the balls replaced and making the player play the stroke, he ought to be allowed, as the rule already stands, to play with either ball. Now the choice of these penalties may seem somewhat severe, still we do not see that they are one whit too severe. Nothing short of these full penalties would prevent the possibility of a player, under gome circumstances, being an absor lute gainer by an act of carelessness, and surely if any hardship does occur in a game it ought to be suffered by the guilty and not the innocent. Of course the case of a ball being angled is an extreme case, but then, in discussing these questions of rule, extreme cases must be taken into account, for what is the use of rules if they fail to meet them?

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in drawing up any fresh code of rules is that there exists no body of men who can lay down the law for billiards in the same way that the Jockey Club can for the Turf. Nor could such a body be easily selected. There are so many jealousies and conflicting interests, that any practical result being obtained is as impossible as in an English Church Congress, where each and every individual is firmly resolved to submit to no authority whatever, so long as it does not effect his own interests.

One of the most difficult points to decide is the question of a foul stroke made while drawing the cue backwards and forwards. The professional players seem unanimously agreed in allowing the offender to replace his ball to the satisfaction of his adversary, and to continue playing. For our own part, while feeling the greatest respect for the experience of such great players, we feel we should be lacking in our duty were we to refrain from giving our opinion on this much-disputed point. We believe that until some law is made general which insists on such strokes being declared foul, we shall constantly witness disputes, which too often are carried on in a manner that does more harm to billiards as a profession than the point in dispute is worth. Professional players argue that, were touching the ball in taking aim, made a foul stroke, the effect would be to destroy all these large breaks. For our part, we believe that the practical result of passing such a law would simply be to make careless players more careful. There have been several matches for the championship at pyramids lately, but we do not remember a single instance in which a foul stroke has been made by a player touching his ball with the point of his cue in taking aim.

Replacing the ball to the satisfaction of the adversary too often places him in an exceedingly disagreeable predicament. In playing the spot stroke, all good players know how valuable is even one-sixteenth of an inch. Now, to touch and move the ball, and then replace it oneself in this delicate position, exposes both players to a temptation against which a good rule ought to guard them. Loose rules favour unscrupulous players, and it is for this reason we should like to see them made as stringent as possible.