Some Thoughts on the “Experiment” Match.
On the green cloth.
Snooker problems.
By “ANGLE.”
Tuesday, 28 October, is an important date for Birmingham and District cueists. Upon this day entries close for the club championship, the winners of which receive the “Birmingham Gazette” Shield and Medals. Last year, in spite of ample warning, several clubs applied for admission to the competition too late, and it now behoves all club members to remind their secretaries to obtain particulars and entry form from the hon. secretary, Mr. V. H. Beck, c/o “Birmingham Gazette,” Corporation-street.
No financial liability is incurred by the clubs, and irrespective of playing strength, there can be no objection to any club participating. Even those who receive the “knock-out” in the first round of such a tournament must have, at least, one enjoyable evening and 61 clubs or more are required for this season’s competition.
At the request of most of the clubs, bonzoline balls will be used throughout, the rule whereby each player must comply with the amateur status of the B.A.C.C. will be strictly enforced, and all players must have been bona fide members of their respective clubs on 1 July last. This last-named rule is evidently to prevent the possibility of “importations” with a view to “pot-hunting.”
I travelled to London on Thursday with the special object of seeing the new idea for “Brighter Billiards” exploited by Tom Newman and Willie Smith. It is neither reasonable nor fair to believe all one reads or hears respecting a new scheme of this sort. In many cases, the views expressed are those of interested parties, and therefore biassed. From what I saw I should certainly not subscribe to the opinion that the new method makes the game a “farce.” A majority of the spectators would possibly agree with the following conclusions.
(1). Newman’s scheme might serve as an alternative to present scoring methods only once or twice during a season. The constant interruption of break-building comes as a welcome change after certain players have monopolised attention by their remarkable capabilities for so long.
(2). Under no circumstances must the new scheme be tolerated for championship events as originally suggested by the author. Whatever the merits or otherwise as an entertainment it simply is not billiards.
(3). There is a danger under the new regime of an even greater monotony than a succession of losing hazards or nursery cannons. The alternate, winner-cannon movement as cultivated in this game could easily be developed to an extent of making the game wearisome.
Whether or not the experiment will be repeated I cannot say. It can be safely stated that Smith is not in favour of any more new ideas, but probably one or two of the second-class players will endeavour, to test public feeling on the matter a little later on in the season.
The attendances fell far short of anticipations but discovering that for ticket holders 10s. was the cheapest priced seat one could not express surprise, even if the proceeds were devoted to charity. Ten shillings for admission to a billiards match is not a proposition which an ordinary individual can consider.
Fred Lawrence and Reg. Turner both Midlanders, were contesting their tournament heat at the same time as Newman and Smith were trying new ideas. Without approaching his best form Lawrence had the game won quite early in the week.
There is no doubt about Turner being capable of really good billiards, but so, far he has failed lamentably in practically his first season of professional play. Whenever I see Turner in a billiards room I cannot fail to liken the Coventry youth to Claude Falkiner regarding over anxiousness and other temperamental features. Falkiner tutored Turner prior to his great performance in the Amateur Championship two years ago, and the likeness pointed out is possibly all the more emphasised.
Space does not permit, foo detailed replies to the various snooker queries to hand. Again I repeat that the rules are fairly easily understood if players will only take the trouble of reading them carefully.
Query I.—If by the initial stroke of a game the striker misses the pyramid of reds, does the stroke count or is it played again?
Answer.—The stroke certainly does count and a penalty of four points incurred. The prevailing idea that the first stroke of a game must hit a red ball is wrong.
Query II.—The striker who is on a red bits the same but cannons on to the green ball and pockets it. What is the penalty?
Answer.—Three points only are for cited, because the ball “on” has been struck and the rule 19 (penalties) distinctly slates that for pocketing a ball which is not “on” the value of the ball pocketed only is forfeited.
Query III.—What is the rule about the white ball touching another ball?
Answer.—If the white ball is touching another bull which is “on,” the striker must play away from such ball, and no penalty is incurred if another ball is struck. If the white ball is touching another ball which is not “on,” the striker must play away from such ball and hit the ball “on” or pay the corresponding penalty.
Birmingham Weekly Mercury, Sunday 19 October 1924