It is an odd thing that there are still people who persist in their views about potting the white despite seeing professionals and top amateurs playing the pot white and double-baulk whenever it is to their advantage. Perhaps those people consider the shot to be justified only if the match is important. The mistake is in not thinking that their own league tussles are every bit as important in their own way as is a major championship for a top player.
Only in the friendliest of friendlies should a player ever risk a multi-cushion cannon or a spectacular pot at the expense of a simple pot white and double-baulk. There is really nothing unsporting at all about potting the white. It is not only a legitimate stroke but quite often a sound tactic. There is also something unsavoury about refusing the easy pot, this being that it is very like an insult to one's opponent. It's rather like the player saying to himself, "here's a few easy points, however I'm good enough to win without such play, and in any case I can impress people by taking on the more difficult shot." How many players have eased up in such a situation only to have victory snatched from them.
If I were a losing player who was let off in this way, I would not only take full advantage of the initiative, I would also pot his white - if the chance came - victory would be so much the more sweet. The true sportsman will fight every inch of the way taking the strokes as they come, and he will maintain the pressure by judicious use of the double-baulk even when well in front and even after making a big break; the top class player will sometimes take the safety option deliberately terminating his break if position has been badly lost. But potting the white does not necessarily mean an immediate double-baulk. Sometimes position can be gained for a series of red losers, and even if the hazard limit is not reached the red may be left in baulk and the cue-ball played safe. Other plays after potting the white may be:-
When the white is right over a pocket, the red can be used to pot it leaving the red over the pocket for at least a couple of easy hazards.
Following the white in with the cue-ball, the player then has the advantage of playing from hand - a big advantage whether the next shot is attacking or defensive.
Quite often the object white will be over a pocket preventing a simple half-ball in-off the red. Instead of attempting a far-from-certain seven shot, the player should simply pot the white leaving the cross-loser and - hopefully - some useful red-ball play.
Good potters can use this play to get into position for potting the red, if the red is perhaps tight on a cushion then it may be possible to combine the pot white with a cannon to bring the red into a better position.
All of the above are simple enough examples of scoring useful points and where the pot white should not be refused. And don't forget that it is possible to pot the white at your first visit to the table and still make a hundred break! If there is anyone who cannot work this one out then contact me and I will explain.
Thanks Chris. It is difficult to understand the antipathy that still exists towards potting the white and I have never seen anywhere any rational explanation for this. In these days of the short-format professional tournament there is never any hesitation about putting the white down, one error can mean losing a game without getting another visit to the table. There are those who find that this is not what they call, "Billiards," but I think the complaint is more at the forced necessity of the tactic rather than at the tactic itself. However, I don't think that there would have been very much hesitation in the old days when a slip-up might have meant letting the other chap in for a thousand break.
I remember very well seeing an Amateur Championship match many years ago at The Peoples Hall, Nottingham. The game was between Herbert Beetham and one of the Wright brothers, I forget which one. Beetham made a break getting on for 200 which was about the biggest break I had seen at the time. He made a bad positional stroke and hesitated for only a second or two - I suppose to see if there was any scoring stroke available - before downing the white and leaving the double-baulk. I was astounded. Not that he had played the baulk but that he had not played some sort of shot, any sort of shot, just to keep the break going. When I came out of the hall it was very foggy, the busses had stopped running and I had to walk the eight or nine miles home. And all the way I thought of nothing but that should I ever I should be so lucky as to be near a double century, nay, even a single century, I would die in the attempt to score and carry on rather than voluntarily end the break. I quite forgot that Beetham had won easily and that he might not have done so had he not prevented his opponent from scoring when he had no reasonable scoring stroke himself. Oh the stupidity and ignorance of youth.