THE LATE MATCH BETWEEN BENNETT AND TAYLOR

THERE are, perhaps, few of us who do not recollect in early life the feeling of disappointment with which, just at the end of an exciting match at cricket between two evenly-balanced sides, the game was brought to a sudden close by the school-bell, and we were obliged nolens volens to draw the stumps. Who can forget the weighty arguments adduced on either side to prove, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that if the game had gone on "we must have won"? As we grew older, however, and went to a public school, these affairs were better managed. The Eton and Harrow match, though a contest in reality between schoolboys, is divested of absurdity. None of the eleven would probably brook the indignity of the schoolmaster coming in and blowing out the candle with the remark that it was time little boys went to bed. We are, however, informed, on the highest authority, that "the law is our schoolmaster." Certainly, the law acted as such on Friday night, when, at the hour of 12.30, when only twenty-four points were required to complete the game, the players, spectators, marker, referee, &c., were left in comparative darkness at the Guildhall Tavern. That the proprietor of the establishment was perfectly right in what he did there cannot be a shadow of doubt; but who is to blame for such an absurd termination of an exceedingly interesting match is a question worth inquiring into in order that such terminations may not happen again. To make matters worse, an exactly similar case occurred not long back. A match between Stanley and Fred Bennett ended as the one did between the latter player's brother and Taylor, and, strange to say, the stakeholder is the same in both cases.

Now, we would ask, what possible good was there in the two players meeting, drawing up and signing articles, when, apparently, either the terms of the articles were not understood, or there was no intention of carrying out those terms? "Articles" are supposed to be a sort of legal document which binds down the players so that neither one can take any unfair advantage of the other. What was the result of the match? However, both players, for the honour of billiards be it said, had a high sense of honour, neither one wished for a moment to take any advantage of the other, and a mutual understanding was come to, Taylor giving a fair and just compensation. The articles were, however, simply waste paper. Now, one clear condition in these articles was, that should the match not be finished on Friday night, it was to be played out on the following day. Another agreement, however, had been entered into with the management of the Guildhall Tavern-viz., that the table was to be removed by an early hour on Saturday morning. Consequently, the only way of carrying out the terms of the articles was to accept the offer of Mr. Burroughes, who, on Friday evening, immediately the gas was turned out, told the players that he would give directions for the table to be put up at any place they might think fit. The duty of the referee was clearly to order the men to meet and finish the game, as the articles distinctly directed, on the following day; and in the event of their not being able to agree upon a room, he ought to have named the place himself, and the hour, and declared that if either of the players did not arrive at the time specified he would forfeit the match. The referee on the occasion was a gentleman of considerable experience on all sporting matters, and it may, perhaps, be thought strange that this course was not taken. The referee was, however, in no way to blame, for the following simple reason-he had never seen the articles. We called attention before, in the case of F. Bennett and Stanley, to the importance of the stakeholder and referee being, so to speak, one. It will be remembered that on that occasion the referee, with perfect justice, declared Stanley the winner of the match. The stakeholder, however, refused to pay over the stakes.

Fortunately, again, the sense of honour of the players ultimately triumphed, and probably a costly lawsuit was avoided; but here, again, stakeholder, articles, and referee were simply useless.

Again, too, suppose a dispute arises with regard to the rules of the game, who is to decide what are those rules?

For our own part, we should refuse to act as referee in any match unless the players would consent beforehand to be bound by our decision, whether in accordance with any written code of rules or not. For instance, we would ask any good billiard-player supposed to know the rules of the game what they would have done in the late match between Hunt and Kilkenny had Hunt acted as follows.

It will be remembered that Kilkenny gave a miss for safety, which made Hunt 999. Hunt had no score left, but he was obliged to strike out, as Kilkenny had an easy winning hazard off the red ball.

Now suppose Hunt had played with Kilkenny's ball and put in the red. The rules of billiards distinctly state that if any player plays with the wrong ball and scores, the score does not count, but his opponent breaks the balls. This would of course have been tantamount to Kilkenny losing the game, as Hunt was 999 and Kilkenny could not have given a miss. It should be borne in mind, too, that it is quite possible for a player in the excitement of the moment to really play with the wrong ball by accident. Had we been referee in a case of this kind we should have decided as follows. The balls must be replaced as near as possible. The striker must play with his right ball, but if he scored, the stroke would be a foul stroke. Now there is no published rule that we know of that orders this, but such a decision, we feel confident, would be more in accordance with both common sense and justice than a strict adhesion to the old rules of the "winning and losing carambole game."

We intend before long publishing a new set of rules for billiards on trial-i.e., open to correction, and we trust they will be severely criticised. "We believe it to be impossible to frame any set of rules that would meet every case, still it cannot be denied that the present ones are very far from perfect. Unfortunately it is as hopeless to get players, press, and manufacturers, to agree to any set of rules for billiards as it would be to get a Pan-Anglican Synod to agree on any point whatever-except that of receiving their salaries.