In a game so scientific and at the same time so popular as billiards, played, as it is occasionally, for important stakes, the rules evidently should be clear, precise, and sufficient. That those in force in 1895 fulfil these conditions will not be affirmed by any person of experience; indeed, more versions than one exist and are current, whilst the opinions of experts even do not coincide as to the provisions which should be included. Hence, it is evident that the problem cannot be satisfactorily solved until the various matters have been fully considered by a carefully selected body of men, in which the professional element is sufficiently but not predominantly represented, and which should contain persons capable, from habit and training, of recording the decisions arrived at lucidly and in good English. The work to be done is in many respects similar to that of drafting an Act, and similar qualifications are required for doing it well.

In this book, however, in dealing with rules, the main question is, What version at present existent has the best title to the obedience of players? This, we think, can only be answered in one way if we deal with things as they are, not necessarily as they should be, and that is by accepting as valid the rules prepared by the Billiard Association of Great Britain and Ireland. They were compiled by the chief professional players of the day, who do not appear to have had the advantages of educated amateur criticism or of the services of an expert to draw them up in a satisfactory manner. Under them, however, the principal games of recent years, both exhibition and those for genuine money, have been played, and therefore they have perhaps the best title to be considered as the laws of the game. Sold, too, by the Association at half a crown a copy, they form, it is believed, its main source of income. But both title and income are held on a precarious tenure, for there is little doubt, the present code being so imperfect, that if a committee of suitable persons were formed an improved set of rules might easily be framed which would supersede existing ones, and might be sold at a price more nearly approaching to their cost of production.

In an article written for the first number of the ‘Billiard Review,’ at the champion’s request the present writer thus summarised the needs or wants of the Association rules:—

Considered generally, the code requires rearrangement on a system. It should begin by defining the game and implements, by prescribing the positions of the spots, the baulk-line, the Ｄ, and so on, keeping such preliminary matters at the commencement, and not scattering them broadcast.... Then the code should proceed step by step, one leading to another; explanation or definition should precede, and not succeed, reference to terms.... Again, some of the rules seem superfluous or capable of being embodied in other rules, thus reducing the number and tending to their simplification.

In commenting on this, John Roberts remarked that it was high time that the rules were recast, and he has kindly offered to give any assistance in his power.

As a general guide to the preparation of a code it was stated in the article already quoted that the rules should be as few, as simple, and as clear as possible; of a nature general rather than particular; and that for one offence one penalty, ample, but never vindictive, should suffice. Inquiry was suggested how far accidental may be distinguished from intentional offence. Further, the principle that the struggle for victory ought to be strictly confined to the players, no one under any pretence soever being permitted to assist or advise either, must be recognised;

and provision should be made for offences, recollecting that very often the offenders are spectators, and that in dealing with them it may be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce a penalty. Again, ... knowing, as all do, how the custom of different rooms varies, and how habitually in certain places great laxity prevails, how far is it wise to make laws with the full knowledge that they will be broken with impunity and by common consent?

All will agree that unless such rules are plainly required in the interests of the game they should be cancelled; but when they are beneficial and necessary they must be supported or provided, and it would seem best that the option of enforcing them should be left to the non-striker. Each rule should have a brief marginal reference to its subject, and when explanation is difficult or doubtful it should be illustrated by examples. As these considerations may help the framers of the next set of rules, it seems right to include them in this chapter, in which, however, it is not proposed to discuss minor matters in detail, for that can be better done when the amendment of the code is undertaken; but there are certain questions connected with the rules so important to the game that their examination here is appropriate. These are:

1. The desirability or otherwise of attempting to discriminate between the act of aiming and the act of striking.

2. The necessity for a special penalty for playing a miss otherwise than with the point of the cue.

3. Playing with the wrong ball.

4. Foul strokes.

5. Procedure when player’s ball touches another ball.

6. Offences committed by persons other than the players.

7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker.

8. How far the marker may assist either player; and, finally,

9. The push stroke.

In offering remarks and suggestions on these matters there is no desire to arrogate any superiority of judgment or any right to decide. It is fully understood that opinions will differ, and that those brought forward here may not commend themselves to the majority of experts; but they are the result of study and of consultation with persons well qualified to be heard on such matters, and, therefore, they are put forward as of sufficient importance to warrant their receiving due weight when action is taken in respect to the rules.

Dealing with the questions in their numerical order, let us examine:

1. The results of trying to discriminate between the act of aiming and the act of striking. Now, these two together constitute a stroke, the first being the preliminary, the second the final part; and it is not always easy to say where the one ends and the other begins. Here, therefore, there is an element of uncertainty which if possible should be eliminated, the more so because argument as to a fact of which no one but the striker can be really cognisant is avoided. The matter can be satisfactorily settled by simply ruling that if a player touches his ball his doing so shall be considered a stroke. In addition to removing a somewhat thorny subject of discussion, which in itself is sufficient recommendation, such a provision is very much sounder than any attempt to divide a stroke into its component parts and to treat each differently. Why should carelessness during the first part of a stroke be pardoned whilst during the last it is punished? It is not unusual for a striker who inadvertently touches his ball to remark that he was not in the act of striking, and to proceed to give a safe miss. This often happens when a difficult stroke is attempted and the safe miss is unquestionably his best game and the worst for his adversary, who, realising the fact and perceiving the opening for profitable generosity, begs the striker not to mind the little accident, but to replace his ball and play the stroke again. With a young player this disinterestedness is usually rewarded, but an older one will decline to take advantage of such good-nature and will adhere to the safety miss. Now, if the touch was held under the rules to be, as it is actually, a stroke, there would be no inducement for this little by-play, and the offender would not have the option of embarrassing his opponent and escaping from the effects of his blunder by playing for safety. A stroke is a stroke whether played hard or soft, whether intentional or accidental, and the rules should uphold this fact. If they did (and this is a further recommendation), several rules or provisions in the code of the Association might be expunged, and it would thereby gain in clearness and simplicity.

2. Playing a miss otherwise than with the point of the cue. The general rule is that all strokes must be played with the point of the cue, and that they are foul if otherwise made. This perhaps meets all cases sufficiently save that of giving a miss for safety. Some players, from carelessness or in order to assume a dégagé style which they consider to be attractive and indicating that they do not need to stand on much ceremony with their opponent, give the miss with the side of the cue, and if they have made the ball travel too fast they have no hesitation in stopping it. As matters stand, all that can be done in such a case is to insist on the person playing the stroke properly; but this is insufficient, and it is not absolutely clear whether he can be forced to do so. Distinct provision for this should be made and a sufficient penalty provided, so that this practice, which is discourteous to the adversary, and which, if the ball is stopped, involves two offences, may be prevented. It is a bad practice, too, for the man who indulges in it, for he may do it on some occasions when unpleasantness would result, and, moreover, indulgence in the habit is likely to lead to loss of power to give a miss in the proper way.

3. Playing with the wrong ball. Under the Association rules, if the striker plays with the wrong ball the opponent has the choice of three penalties and the option of claiming them. He cannot, however, enforce any unless the error be discovered and claimed before the next stroke. This rule seems objectionable in more ways than one. Unless there are very cogent reasons for ruling otherwise, one offence should have but one penalty, and the adversary, who is an interested party, should not be permitted to decide what measure and form of punishment are appropriate. Surely an adequate penalty could be devised the infliction of which would have no suspicion of vindictiveness. The limitation, too, is not very fortunate, and usually leads to discussion, for the offender often avers that he played with the ball which the non-striker did not use; this of course is really no argument, but it is often successful, for men generally prefer to avoid dispute.

4. Foul strokes. The Association Rule 30 is incomplete and badly worded. Presumably, all strokes which are not fair are foul, and if a list is given it should be as complete as possible. Were this attended to, and were the recommendations under 1 accepted, the result would be to decrease the number of rules and to simplify the code.

5. When player’s ball touches another ball. In old days, if under these circumstances a score was made, the stroke was held to be foul and the opponent broke the balls. This was apparently thought to bear too severely on delicate play, specially as the touch was often the result of imperfection in the balls or table; and the present rule was introduced, which provides that the red be placed on the spot, the non-striker’s ball on the centre spot, whilst the striker may play from baulk. This change enormously improves the value of close positions for cannon play, and one of its results is the fearless cultivation of nurseries; but whether that is a benefit to the game of billiards is another matter. The question how to deal with the case of balls which touch is really surrounded with difficulty. It has always appeared hard that if at the end of a stroke fairly made the striker’s ball should touch another ball, his next stroke should be foul. He has not offended, and why should he be punished for playing with exact strength? The only apparent reason for ruling the next stroke foul is that it is a certainty; the striker, if he can play into any pocket or on the third ball, must score, and he cannot give a miss. What is the objection to this? Is not the object of all work at billiards and the measure of success thereat to be able to leave a certainty to follow each stroke? In the case of close cannons the stroke is practically no more certain if the balls touch than if they are the conventional small distance apart. Other unknown considerations may affect the question and make the present or former ruling fair and advantageous for the game, but in their absence no sufficient case is made out against abolishing the rules respecting balls touching and permitting the striker to play on. Possibly the objections to this in nursery cannon play are so great as to make the arrangement undesirable, but it is open to question how far it would materially affect the length of the series. At any rate, whilst expressing no strong opinion, it is clear that the proposal merits consideration. A collateral advantage would be doing away with the need for a reference to the umpire or marker on a point often most difficult to decide, and one concerning which mistake is frequent.

6. Offences committed by persons other than the players. These are not easily dealt with, chiefly because of the difficulty of enforcing a penalty; and many of them, moreover, are rather the result of bad manners, want of observation of the etiquette of the room, and ignorance, than of intention to offend.

Perhaps the commonest and one of the most offensive errors a spectator can be guilty of is offering advice to a player. This is of course promptly resented if there is money on the game. That, however, is not enough; the mischief may be done, and no amount of penitence can then compensate. But the practice is equally reprehensible if there is no money at stake; the competitors should have a fair field and no favour.

Another offence is obstructing a player, and this expression covers accidentally coming against him, or being in his way when striking a ball, or doing any other act which interferes with his stroke—moving in his line of sight, scratching a match, or extinguishing it by waving it up and down in front of him, entering or leaving the room on the stroke, speaking to a player or conversing in a loud tone sufficient to distract his attention. Want of the certainty that these matters will receive consideration, and of all power to enforce them except at the risk of being considered unreasonable, is one of the reasons why really good amateurs abstain so largely from playing in clubs. It is worthy of consideration whether a spectator who sees the game wrongly marked should be allowed to state the fact. We think that he should not have this permission, on the principle that the struggle should be strictly confined to the players, and that they, and they only, should be allowed to question the score. The spectator is almost as likely to be wrong as right, and an interruption is caused which had better have been avoided. Lastly, it has been usual to provide that in case the marker or referee could not decide a point, the majority of spectators might be appealed to. As a rule, the majority of spectators know so little about such matters, and, not being so well placed as the marker or referee to judge of questions of fact, it would seem in every way preferable in case of doubt to produce a coin and leave the matter to the arbitrament of chance.

7. Obstruction of the striker by the non-striker. The intention of the rules whereby deliberate obstruction or wilful interference with the run of the balls shall be punished by the loss of the game is excellent, as also is the provision that the non-player shall leave the table and avoid the player’s line of sight; but the rules are not very definite. In the first place, what is deliberate obstruction? Clouds of tobacco smoke blown across the table interfere with sight, and pieces of tobacco and ashes obstruct the run of the balls; a remark which distracts the player’s attention is an obstruction as much and as deliberate as if the opponent laid his cue on the table, but it is less tangible and more difficult to deal with. What is desired is complete liberty and freedom for each player when in possession of the table; it matters comparatively little whether the offence is accidental or intentional, for the penalty should be sufficient to meet the graver case. If a seat is available for the non-striker, it is surely not much to ask that he should occupy it and remove himself to a fair distance from the table.

8. How far the marker may assist either player. Regarding this an opinion has already been plainly expressed that the struggle should be strictly confined to the players, neither of them being allowed to receive extraneous advice. It is no argument, or but a very poor one, to contend that the same advice is open to both players; and no such sophistry can make it right that the judgment and eyesight of the marker should be at the disposal of an adversary who is either too lazy or too blind to see for himself how far the cue-tip is from the ball. When two men are playing billiards, he who helps the one injures the other, and the more careless and lazy the performer, the more help will he receive, a result clearly injurious to the best interests of the game and unfair to the attentive man. The latter will seldom err as to which ball he should play with, whilst the former after almost every break will commence by inquiring which is his ball or play with the wrong one. Again, strokes with the half or long-butt are fruitful causes of failure. Is it right that a player should be permitted to ask the marker whether the cue-tip is within proper distance of the ball? Certainly not. If one of the players’ sight is better than the other’s, he should profit thereby, just as he may lawfully profit by any other advantage he is fortunate enough to possess. Believing, as we do, that it is most important to let the struggle lie absolutely between the two combatants and to preserve the strictest neutrality, and that advice or assistance of the nature indicated should, if asked for, be refused, it follows that the custom some markers have of offering the rest or the half-butt is at least equally objectionable. It is often done in perfect innocence, but it may have a most undesirable effect on the game, and the impulse to take the initiative should be restrained.

9. The push stroke. The vexed question whether this stroke is to be permitted or to be prohibited will, we think, have to be arbitrarily decided—decided, that is, not on its real merits, but on the consideration of expediency. It is always rather a pity when this is so, and with the view of laying before those interested matters concerning the stroke which might escape notice, we shall endeavour to collect them and to assign to each its due importance.

To begin with, those who assert roundly that all push strokes are foul because there are several impacts between cue-tip and ball are practically wrong. In very close pushes, such as those employed in nursery cannons, or in any stroke when balls 1 and 2 are nearly touching, if played by a person who has mastered the art, the vast majority are fair strokes—that is, they are made with the point of the cue, and ball 1 is not twice struck. In other words, it is possible to push a ball for some distance with the point of the cue without losing touch. It is dangerous to drive any argument to extremes, and for practical purposes it is well to bear in mind that de minimis non curat lex. Against the opinion just expressed that it is possible to push a ball for a short distance fairly, those who contend that such is not the case base their view on the fact that as soon as the ball begins to travel it also begins to rotate, and that when rotation is established continued impact is impossible. They contend that though it may appear to be continuous it really is not so, and that the stroke consists of a number of little blows, which might be represented by a dotted line, instead of absolutely steady impact, which would be represented by a line. It seems unprofitable to attempt to go into such minutiæ. If the touches are sufficiently close together the result is continued impact; in other words, if the dots are close enough together they cease to be dots and form the line. A man who allows these minute matters to obscure his judgment might equally well argue that a ball rotating quickly in the direction of its path was not in constant contact with the cloth. No doubt it is not, and but a small irregularity, an atom of dust, chalk, or tobacco, will if passed over cause the ball to jump perceptibly; contact with the cloth is visibly interrupted and again assumed, and the ball for an instant is off the table, yet no one would dream of inquiring whether the stroke was in consequence vitiated, or of raising the question as to whether the ball was knocked off the table. So much for those who base their opposition to the push stroke on the assumption that it is always foul and, following timid or incapable referees, rule it so invariably on appeal. Another so-called proof that the stroke is generally foul is arrived at by either chalking a cue heavily and pushing the red ball, when, it is argued, if contact is continuous, the ball will show a line of chalk on its surface, but if impact has been interrupted the line will be broken; or by pushing with a cue whose tip has been removed, when the fact of repeated impacts is conveyed to the player by the sense of feeling—in other words, he feels the friction between the ball and cue. Neither of these tests is conclusive; in the first it is manifest that sooner or later the expenditure of chalk on the tip must result in none being applied to the ball, or a slight variation in pressure or some other accident might account for the chalk not adhering to it; in the second, all that need be said is, when it is desired to play a fair push stroke do not select a cue without a tip. Were the tip made of cotton or wool or a similar fabric, it is evident that there would be no difficulty in keeping some part or other of it in contact with the ball even over a long course. But the fact is these far-fetched objections should carry no weight, and, as far as we can judge, a practical and impartial person who desires to consider the matter is justified in starting with the assumption that the push is not necessarily foul.

If, however, on theoretical grounds it were so ruled, it follows at once that many other strokes hitherto unsuspected or uncomplained of would for the same reason have to be prohibited. Of these the half-push (see p. 230) is an example, and indeed it is not too much to say that in every stroke in which balls 1 and 2 are close, and which has to be played at all hard, whether a follow or a close screw, in both of which the cue-tip follows up ball 1, the probability is great that there have been at least two distinct impacts. Before going further it is reasonable to inquire why a ball should not be struck twice. There does not seem to be any special rule in the Association code prohibiting the practice, the only one under which it can be brought being Rule 30, wherein impeding or accelerating the progress of a ball is declared to make the stroke foul; and this is an excellent example of how badly those rules are drafted; for in every stroke played with follow the progress of the ball is accelerated, whilst in every drag stroke it is impeded, and yet both are fair strokes. However, as there is no other rule on the subject, this must be accepted, it being conceded, for the sake of argument, that subsequent impacts of the cue make the ball travel faster. Now, it seems on consideration that the reason for prohibiting a second impact is that a player is entitled to one stroke only at a time; he must not, once he has set ball 1 in motion, take a second stroke to correct deficiencies. These deficiencies are likely to be of two kinds—either ball 1 is struck too gently, in which case there is temptation to help it with a second blow; or it is sent in a wrong direction, when there is inducement to correct the error by an application of the cue. To condemn the push stroke as contravening this rule seems somewhat far-fetched.

But, granting all this, there are most serious objections to the stroke, of which perhaps the strongest is the great difficulty of discriminating between a fair and a foul push. In many instances it requires a man who has mastered the stroke to judge, and in others markers and referees are apt most unwarrantably to make up their minds that, if the push is allowed, any stroke so made, however palpably foul, must be passed; whilst others take precisely the opposite view, and on appeal rule every push to be foul. The difficulty of judging is their only excuse, but to rule any stroke as foul unless they distinctly saw and can name the act which made it so is to prove themselves unfitted for the post of referee. A vast proportion of amateurs cannot make the stroke, which requires much determination and steadiness, as well as a good deal of practice; they are most suspicious of those who can do it, and resent a ruling that their clumsy endeavour is foul, whilst another smoothly made by an expert is fair. Being ignorant of the difference, they feel injured, and express their feelings more or less eloquently to the marker, who to avoid such scenes rules all push strokes to be foul.

Another important objection to the push is that it induces a slovenly style of cannon play, and that, so far as we know, it is not permitted by any other billiard-playing nation. This is a drawback when our players compete with foreigners, not merely because the difficulties of arranging the game are enhanced, but because our representatives are wanting in the skill which is required to surmount obstacles usually overcome by the push.

The case for and against the push stroke was thus condensed in the ‘Times’ of December 17, 1894:—

Opinions will vary, for there are many arguments on both sides. Those opposed to it maintain, in the first place, that it is always foul, because cue-tip and ball come in contact more than once; that it is a slovenly mode of evading difficulties which should be conquered by fair means; and that, therefore, its use is detrimental to the game, players not being encouraged to acquire the skill possessed by foreign exponents. On the other hand, those in favour of it will deny the separate contacts or affirm contact to be so nearly continuous that the difference between a push and an ordinary stroke is merely one of duration; they will truly say that it is a stroke requiring much skill, and greatly extending the possibilities of the English game, in which massé can never play the part it does in the French game; and, lastly, that to abolish it would lengthen play, which is undesirable.

We do not know that much more remains to be said; as far as can be judged, the balance of opinion, professional and amateur, is in 1895 perhaps in favour of its retention, and Roberts’s remark that he does not think the time has arrived when it should be prohibited is doubtless sound from the point of view of gate-money, which naturally influences professional opinion, and is, moreover, a test of popularity which deserves some consideration; but it is by no means conclusive as to what is best in the interests of the game. And signs are not wanting that the days of the push stroke are numbered.