Will the B.A.C.C. Consider Snooker Players?
On the green cloth.
RULES REVISION.
By “ANGLE.”
Players in the Birmingham district above all others, always have been and I believe always will be, devoted to the 22 ball game, originated, so tradition has it, by a gallant officer of the British Army, by name Colonel Snooker.
After Willie Smith had spoken from the Birmingham Broadcasting Centre a fortnight ago, he received more than one letter asking for a similar chat dealing with snooker. I am sure Smith will not mind my making it public property that he knows even less about the intricate rules of this game than an average club player. What is more, he informed me:
“I do not want to know them whilst they are compiled by individuals who probably play the game themselves very rarely indeed.”
The snooker rules are admitted by all authorities to be redundant. To say that they were badly revised some three years ago is to put the position mildly. Glaring omissions and unjust penalties can be discovered by any novice who takes the trouble to give a few moments to the rules as printed. Some of the anomalies would put the “schoolboy howlers” in the shade by a long way. I will mention but two. There are others however.
1. A player on a red ball misses such and hits a yellow ball only incurs a penalty of two points. Yet if a player on a red misses and hits no other ball the penalty is four points!
2. A player on a yellow ball misses and hits a red ball incurs a penalty of seven points!
This second point really does require digesting thoroughly, especially when read in conjunction with the first. Space forbids further illustrations of an unsatisfactory state of affairs. If any reader doubts the accuracy of the foregoing definitions, I shall be happy to supply the particular rulings from the B.A.C.C. authorities. The rules as written, however, are quite plain, and it only needs a little time and attention, and it will be readily seen that the statements above are correct in every detail.
It is over 12 months ago since the secretary of the B.A.C.C. informed me that he hoped the several cases about which complaints were made would be adjusted by the committee “very shortly.” From other sources also for quite a long time it has been rumoured that these vital matters were to receive attention. Why then is nothing done?
One cannot fail to hear strong criticisms of the authorities wherever snooker is talked, and the gentlemen of the council are not carrying out their obvious duties to the thousands of snooker players throughout the country unless the question is tackled straight away. Surely the first item on the agenda for the newly-constituted rules committee ought to be (and in very large letters, too), “Snooker rules revision.”
It may be too much to hope for, but the council could do a lot worse than invite six to 12 players from various parts who specialise on the 22 ball game, to a round table conference. Men like our local player, Albert Cope, could give practical advice which would be worth far more than all the theoretical knowledge of the “wise-heads.”
It is readily admitted that there are many pitfalls in catering lor a game wherein 22 balls are used, and so many unlikely things may happen.
I heard an interesting suggestion discussed during the week which, however, would be a revolutionary change and requires a great deal of consideration before an opinion can lie given as to its wisdom. It was to this effect. “The value of the coloured balls to be as now until the last red is potted. Afterwards, the values of the yellow, green, brown, blue, pink and black to be four points respectively.”
The idea, evidently, is to alleviate a position whereby one player can, by more skilful play, be a good few points in front, but by the inferior player happening to take the last three or four coloured balls, the latter can retrieve an otherwise almost lost position, and probably win the game.
At present I can see no objection to this proposal, but probably some reader will do so. The matter is so interesting that I feel sure the editor will welcome any views expressed in writing and sent to the Sunday Mercury and Sunday News offices.
What is by common consent going to be a great battle is at present proceeding in London, where Smith and Davis (receive 6,000) are straining every nerve to gain a victory. Smith is (from the Press reports) evidently carrying out his preconceived idea of playing the man besides his own game.
No finer tactician than Smith ever stepped into a billiard room, but his young opponent also is no dunce in these finer points of the game. Smith’s idea is to race along at top speed if the balls and luck happen to come his way. If the re verse position occurs, he simply takes his time and shuts his opponent out on every possible occasion.
Although there is very little in it on the handicap as these notes are written, I fully expect to see Smith named the winner on Saturday evening next. If this is the case, Smith will have proved himself to many minds an even greater exponent of the game than hitherto supposed. Giving Davis, of Chesterfield, a start of 6,000 in 18,000 and winning is a stupendous performance.
The friends of Freddie Lawrence (and he has many) were surprised at him being defeated by Tom Carpenter the Welsh champion, in the second division tournament heat in London. Lawrence was considered to be well handicapped when receiving 1,000 start, but he had never seen the cotton cloth with which the table was covered.
It is forecasted by those who saw the match that Lawrence will prove a great stumbling block to some of the other players, and remembering his great fighting qualities, it will not be surprising if he upsets the calculations of one or two of the other players, not excepting Arthur Peall, who, by the way, is greatly fancied to win the event.
Birmingham Weekly Mercury, Sunday 05 October 1924