Revised Snooker Rules.
The Billiard Player. May 15, 1921
A Reply to a Criticism.
By A. STANLEY THORN
(Secretary of the Billiards Association and Control Council).
Those readers of The Billiard Player who also read The Sporting Life will doubtless have noticed “Hazard’s” interesting, but somewhat unfavourable, criticism, which appeared on April 19, of the revised snooker rules. The editor of The Billiard Player has asked me to make some reply to this criticism in the current issue, and I have pleasure in taking the opportunity thus afforded of dealing with a matter which is of paramount importance amongst Snooker players at the present time.
In the first place, “Hazard” makes some severe strictures on the rule providing for the re-spotting of the balls, which strictures, I venture to suggest, are not justified by the facts of the case. The rule on this subject adopted by the Billiards Association and Control Council had already been invented and adopted by snooker players in the north of England, a long time before its inclusion in the revised code, as it was found that the “nearest unoccupied spot” rule, which “Hazard” so warmly advocates, led to numerous disputes, and occasionally caused considerable confusion.
The new rule is shorter and more definite, and dispenses with the special provision for the brown ball, which had to be made under the former rule. These points may not altogether appeal to a writer in the sporting press, but from a snooker player’s point of view it appears more desirable for a precise enactment to be made in the rules as to which spot a ball is to occupy in given circumstance than that a general direction to place it on “the nearest unoccupied spot” should be given.
“Hazard” then comments on the “great bone of contention amongst snooker players” relative to running in off a ball, and thereby snookering the next player, and is good enough to admit that ”the rules are clear on this point.” Notwithstanding this clarity, however, “Hazard,” judging from the example that he proceeds to quote, has signally failed to interpret the rules correctly, since he compels a player who is not snookered for all reds (as the result of a foul) and who has nominated and pocketed a pool ball, to revert to a red!
He is perfectly right in his contention that the rule with regard to snookering after a foul is not so clear as it should be. Two different sets of circumstances require to be legislated for in this rule, viz., when reds are still on the table, and when only pool balls are there. The procedure in the two cases is not quite the same, and it has now been decided by the Council that when reprinting the existing rules of snooker, this rule shall be amended to read as follows:—
“16. Snookering after a Foul.
“After a foul stroke, if the next player is found to be snookered with regard to all reds, or the pool ball ‘on,’ he is then ‘on’ any ball he may nominate. If such ball is lawfully pocketed, it shall be scored (or forfeit incurred) as if it was the ball the striker would be ‘on’ but for his being snookered, and he continues his turn (a red being still on the table) on a pool ball; otherwise (reds being off the table) on the pool ball with regard to which he had been snookered.”
” Hazard ” continues in the following manner:—”But supposing he snookers himself for the blue after taking the pink or the black in these circumstances, what happens? Some declare that he is entitled to repeat the process on the pink or black, until he can get a clear shot at the blue . . . but with this view I disagree, nor do I think that those responsible for the rules mean the effect of a snooker from a foul to be carried beyond one stroke.” It seems almost superfluous to point out that, in the above-mentioned example, as the striker was not snookered as the result of a foul, he is certainly not entitled to the privileges extended by the rules to the next player after a foul stroke.
I need only make a passing reference to the curious inversion of the correct penalties prescribed by the rules, for hitting a pool ball when ‘on’ a red, and vice versa, contained in “Hazard’s” article, since he has acknowledged in a subsequent article that this was the effect of a mere slip of the pen.
In conclusion, it may be stated that it has been the uniform endeavour of the Council, in framing the revised rules, to place the maker of an unlawful, or “foul” stroke, intentional or otherwise, in a worse position than he would have occupied had he made a stroke in accordance with the rules. It is impossible to consider “intention.” This is the answer to many of the conundrums proposed by “Hazard,” and probably no one knows better than he that such questions can be proposed in infinite number.