| No. 8 Vol. 1 : November, 1911 |  |
Price 2/6 per annum (Post Free) : Single Copies 2d (2½d Post Free). |
NOTES BY THE WAY
More About Billiard Legislation
In the last number of "Billiard Times" we stated that "We do not advocate any immediate change in the rules for this purpose ('red-ball' play), and for two reasons: (1) Championship games are always played with ivory balls, and so far no player has shown that 'red-ball' play will greatly predominate in matches played with these balls. (2) In our opinion exhibition games require no special rules." And we do not see that any good object will be served by altering the rules at all at the present moment.
Notwithstanding this, there is an advantage to be gained in discussing the possibility of a change. In the past, Billiards has sometimes suffered by an alteration in the rules, which has been decided upon more or less hastily. This is not likely to happen in future. At the same time, while there is no cause for hurry, a comparison of views in various Billiard circles can do no harm, and may, on the contrary, reveal points which might otherwise escape attention, when any alteration has to be decided upon. The effect of a change is usually more far-reaching than it is at first thought to be, and the change may upset the relative importance of different parts of the game.
If George Gray ever wins the Championship with ivory balls, and wins with ease on account of the sequences of losing hazards off the red ball, the demand for some change will probably be insistent, and it may be thought desirable to revise one or two of the rules.
We propose to deal with this hypothetical situation, and shall assume that George Gray and his imitators—if any—shall have been given sufficient time to be crowned with any laurels they may have merited. It is, however, with some diffidence that we put forward our suggestion as to what change should be made under these circumstances. The more so because quite a number of methods of limiting the red-ball game have been suggested by others, and a few have occurred to us, which, after careful thought, we have discarded as unfair or impracticable.
We have had a number of discussions with expert players on the subject, and the rule we suggest as a basis for consideration is the following: —
"If ten losing hazard strokes off the red ball, the object white ball, or both, are played from hand in succession and in the same break without the conjunction of another score, the striker's ball shall after such tenth stroke be placed on the centre spot of the 'D' If the striker shall then make a losing hazard his ball shall again be placed on the centre spot of the 'D' and shall continue to be so placed until he shall have made a score in some other manner."
This may appear to some as far too drastic, but it is open to question whether it is really drastic enough. For the "red-ball" player would speedily learn to get a position that would make a certainty of a cannon played from the middle spot of the "D," or more easily still, before approaching the limit, he could pot the red in one of the middle pockets, and make the positional run through to leave the familiar half ball loser off the "spotted" red.
Being so impressed with the ability of a player like George Gray to achieve these connecting strokes with a regularity that might possibly make little difference to his power of scoring, viz., losing hazard sequences, our first conclusion was that two losing hazards only should be allowed.
No doubt Gray would still make fairly large breaks with this very severe restriction, but would it be fair to one player to restrict the use of his particular and praiseworthy skill to any great extent when no other player (with the probable exception of Lindrum) has shown himself capable of scoring one half the number with which Gray can credit himself in this region of the game. It should not be overlooked that there were quite a number of players who could make enormous breaks with the spot stroke. Peall was by no means alone, Dawson and Mitchell were almost his equal, in fact were averages taken it would probably be seen that there was very little difference between any of them.
Other players, too, could make 1000 breaks with the "spot in." There was therefore little or no injustice to any particular player in limiting the "spot" stroke. But if any law is passed which for all practical purposes annihilates the "red-ball" play, it may be open to the criticism that it was the result of partisanship or of unfair discrimination.
In our view the only ground for even a mild restriction is that it will be the means of maintaining the charm of Billiards, which is its great variety. It will encourage first-class players, and especially professional players, to train their skill to excel at every variety of stroke allowed by the rules. We ourselves welcome a certain amount of specialising, because it brings out the possibilities of the game. This is one of our reasons for advocating that no restrictions should be made for any games, except Championship matches.
But Championship games should be a test of all-round ability, and this brings us back to our proposition that ten consecutive losing hazards should be allowed instead of two (which we at first believed to be sufficient).
George Gray, Lindrum, and perhaps other players may make large breaks with ten losing hazards allowed, but it is morally certain that their breaks will be much smaller than if no limit had been placed on the stroke, otherwise they would play a cannon or a winning hazard almost every ten strokes under existing rules. It must be a comparative rest to make a different stroke occasionally, and players know that spectators would appreciate the variety. It may be said that they would soon be as skilful with the forced variation. But is this at all likely, especially as regards the cannon.
Assuming, then, that large breaks will still be made with "red-ball," after a rule making a ten stroke limit had been passed, would these breaks exceed in size those made by the "top of the table" game; and if they did would it not be due to superior skill. Further, with the enforced introduction of other strokes, would these breaks be more monotonous than the "top of the table" play.
It must be remembered, too, that in the case of the "red-ball" play, four pockets would be forbidden, and in the spot stroke only two.
Again, what would be the result of a stricter limit to players other than Gray and Lindrum. Consider the advantage that Stevenson would have over Inman, and Harverson, and to a smaller extent over Diggle and Reece, if they were severely restricted in making losing hazards.
Every player who aspired for championship honours would be bound to develop the "top of the table" in preference to other parts of the game. We imagine there are few who think this would be an improvement. It strikes us as being distinctly harmful.
It is, in our opinion, because Stevenson's opponents do not play the "top of the table" game to the same extent as he, that his matches are always attractive. It is one style of play against another. The all-round game of Inman and Harverson, which often includes fairly long sequences of losing hazards, would be done away with. And, after all, the varied game is the best of Billiards in the long run, and the most interesting to watch.
It has been suggested that the number of losing hazards be limited without any proviso as to what should take place at the end of the limit. But obviously there must be some penalty for a continuance of the forbidden stroke. A player may forget at the moment of striking, or he may fluke. What, then, is to happen? Is the striker to be allowed to proceed, if so, on what conditions, or are the balls to be "spotted" and his opponent to play. The latter punishment would be far too severe. Placing the striker's ball on the centre spot of the "D" after ten losing hazard strokes has an analogy in principle in the placing of the red ball on the centre spot after two "spot strokes." In each case the probability of a continuation of similar strokes is greatly lessened, and in both instances the ball is taken out of a pocket and not lifted from the table.
To conclude, we think it is good for Billiards if many minds are brought to bear upon any proposed change in the rules. The more players there are who take an interest in all that pertains to its welfare, the better it will be for the game. But so far as decisive action is concerned, we repeat that we think it would be unwise to make any alterations at the present time.