To the Editor, BILLIARD PLAYER:
As a mere spectator, having seen professional billiards played both under and previous to the inception of the line-shot rule, it strikes me very forcibly that the line-shot has definitely failed in its object. One reason for asserting this so strongly is that I saw quite as many runs of close-cannons when the line-shot was in operation as in the previous games, and the only noticeable effect was, that when it became necessary to cross the line, a beautiful positional sequence had to be deliberately jeopardised to conform with the rule.
There is no getting away from the fact that the line-shot was designed to limit runs of close-cannons, and there is also no denying the fact that this rule has not limited these runs of close-cannons, as can be instanced by the fact that the record run of close-cannons has been made, I believe, whilst play was governed by this rule. How, then, can it be defended by even its warmest advocates?
I have always understood that it is bad billiards to leave, intentionally, shots which need to be played against the nap of the cloth, and further, that shots involving a complete circuit of the table by the cue ball should usually be avoided, more especially when the correct positional sequence can be attained by moving the cue-ball a few inches only. How then, do its sponsors defend a rule which compels professionals to play in a more clumsy manner than even moderate amateurs do?
I should imagine the leading professionals will have much the same feelings on this matter as the world's best violinists would if they were compelled to play each two hundredth bar out of tune.
No! The line-shot has failed, and if close-cannons are to be eliminated, some more effective (and, I hope, more picturesque) limitation will need to be enforced.
(Mrs.) ELIZABETH COLES, 32, Cleveland Street, Colne, Lancashire.