“Snooker” Rules That Need Simplifying

DAVIS PROVIDES EVIDENCE

(By Willie Smith)

The rules of Snookers Pool are nothing more or less than a “Chinese puzzle” to the average player, so much so that in many clubs the members prefer to play under the rules in existence twenty years ago.

The Council have made various revisions from time to time, the latest one being only last summer, but, instead of the rule being simpler, they are more complicated. I should say without any fear of contradiction that there are more quarrels and ill-feeling caused through arguments over “snooker” than any other game. So far as I know, no professional has ever been asked to help or advise the amateurs of the Billiards Association and Control Council in their endeavours to put the rules of the game into such a state that the general public can understand them.

There has been quite a heated argument during the past few weeks between two gentlemen I know well, and rumour has it, that they helped to advise the Council in their revision of rules.

Relating to a Touching Ball.

Their argument relates to a touching balk Rule 4 states: —

An intentional miss shall not bo made. The player shall, to the best of his ability, endeavour to strike a ball that is on.

In rule 11 it says: —

The striker thus playing away from a ball on shall incur no penalty for a miss or for striking another ball.

It will be seen that it docs not say for a miss or intentional miss and to try and straighten matters out the Council made, the following addendum:—

A player cannot be held to have contravened rule 4 (an intentional miss shall not be made) by playing away from a ball which is on.

Then rule 5 says:—

The first, impact of the cue ball shall govern all strokes.

I his, again, makes the rules into a puzzle. We have

An intentional miss shall not be made:

The first impact of the cue ball shall govern all strokes;

The player shall to the best, of his ability, endeavour to strike a ball that is on.

Davis’s Evasion.

To show how ridiculous the rules are and what a state of chaos they are in. I give a diagram of a stroke Joe Davis played against me at Newcastle last week. He was touching the red, and his cue ball is marked x. He merely played down the table, putting the ball behind the brown to “snooker” me. I said this was a foul; but no, it is the rule. If this appertains to a red, it should also appertain if the striker is touching a colour. But the Council say not. Davis made no impact with the cue. and did rot endeavour to strike the ball that was on. He evaded what is a fundamental rule of the game.

“Snooker” and Pyramids.

The game of “Snooker” owes its birth to the game, of pyramids, so that it will be interesting to give the Council rule on the latter: —

If the striker’s ball touches another ball, he must play his ball away from the touching ball without moving it (or the stroke is foul), and must strike another (or the same ball off the cushion), and shall score any ball pocketed by such stroke. The striker thus playing away from a touching ball shall incur no penalty for a miss.

Why the Council should have a difference, in “snooker” and pyramids for a similar happening is best known to themselves.

I maintain the riding on pyramids is a sound one and should also operate in the game of “snooker.”

Joe Davis made a great fight against me in the game at Newcastle, but I won by a good margin in the end, thanks to a 690 break made on my first visit to the table in the final session. That practically settled the issue. There is no doubt that Davis is a fighter and is at his best when “collared.” But ho must got rid of this habit, and got along with the business early.

My total of breaks over 500 this season is now 46.

My Diagrams.

No. 1—A useful double-baulk cannon, one worth practising. Play with great speed, so as to give a chance of the cannon if getting behind the first ball instead of directly on it.

No. 2.—The stroke played by Davis in the game of “Snooker.”

Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Thursday 03 February 1927