An incident that occurred in the recent Licensed Victuallers' Championship has led to what I regard as a remarkable decision on the part of the Billiards Association and Control Council. In the heat between Messrs. W. A. Jones and F. Martin, Mr. Jones gave a miss, Mr. Martin potted his opponent's ball, and then left a double baulk. Mr. Jones then appealed to the referee as to whether he could give another miss. The referee intimated that he could, and the player promptly placed his ball under the side cushion, leaving Mr. Martin with a hopeless chance of scoring.
I happened to be present when the incident occurred, and after the game was over I tackled the referee (our good old friend Jack Ayres), pointing out that by answering the question he had to all intents and purposes told the player what to do, whereas Rule 21 says that the referee "shall not give advice nor express opinion on points affecting play."
It is quite conceivable that in the absence of an answer to his query Mr. Jones might have tried to hit a ball either by playing across the table or up and down it, whereas those who know the rules are well aware that, following a double baulk, he could give a second miss.
The point was one affecting the play, and the referee was assisting Mr. Jones to the detriment of his opponent. Ayres, however, maintained that his decision was correct, basing it on the other paragraph of Rule 21, which says:— "He (the referee) shall (at any time) on appeal by a player, decide any question of fact connected with the play."
The upshot of the little argument between Ayres and myself was a small wager and the referring of the point at issue to the Billiards Association and Control Council. To my surprise the Council ruled that Ayres was correct in his decision, and that he would have been wrong if he had declined to give a decision when appealed to. I have, of course, lost my little bet, but not, I hope, the right to challenge the ruling of the Council, which cuts at the root of the competitive phase of billiards and opens up a vista of extraordinary possible happenings in the course of a game. In principle it means that a player may ask questions and receive advice about every intended stroke.
If this is not "giving advice on points of play" I must confess my inability to comprehend the English language. It seems to me that the Council has erred in interpreting a "fact" connected with the play before it has become a fact, and I venture to suggest that its ruling is contrary to precedent, that it is inimical to the fundamental principles of a competitive game, and that the Council should explain and justify its ruling, or, in the alternative, recast the two clauses of Rule 21 that I have quoted.
The matter would seem to resolve itself into: "What are 'questions of fact' and what are 'points of play'?"
The examples given in Rule 21 of "questions of fact." (which the referee may, on appeal by the player, decide) are: Ball in or out of baulk; cue ball touching or not touching another ball; cue ball within the D; and proper spotting. The examples as to "points affecting play" (as to which the referee may not give advice) are: Whether there will be room for the red to be spotted if pocketed, and whether a ball being played from hand is outside the D. How closely allied are "questions of fact" and "points affecting play" may be judged from the circumstance that cue ball placing in the D is a "question of fact" if the referee is appealed to, but a "point of play" if he is not. Is enlightenment as to the rules on appeal in the course of a match a question of fact or a point of play?— Ed., B.P.]]