Download the full version of the testbank or

solution manual at testbankbell.com

International Human Resource Management

Policies and Practices for Multinational
Enterprises 5th Tarique Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/international-
human-resource-management-policies-and-practices-
for-multinational-enterprises-5th-tarique-test-
bank/

Explore and download more testbank or solution manual

at https://testbankbell.com
 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

International Human Resource Management Policies and

Practices for Multinational Enterprises 5th Tarique
Solution Manual
http://testbankbell.com/product/international-human-resource-
management-policies-and-practices-for-multinational-enterprises-5th-
tarique-solution-manual/
testbankbell.com

Test Bank for International Human Resource Management 6th

Edition by Dowling

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-international-human-
resource-management-6th-edition-by-dowling/

testbankbell.com

Test Bank for International Human Resource Management, 7th

Edition, Peter Dowling

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-international-human-
resource-management-7th-edition-peter-dowling/

testbankbell.com

Auditing and Assurance Services A Systematic Approach

Messier 9th Edition Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/auditing-and-assurance-services-a-
systematic-approach-messier-9th-edition-test-bank/

testbankbell.com
International Macroeconomics 4th Edition Feenstra Test
Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/international-macroeconomics-4th-
edition-feenstra-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

General Chemistry Principles and Modern Applications

Petrucci 10th Edition Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/general-chemistry-principles-and-
modern-applications-petrucci-10th-edition-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Investigating Astronomy 2nd Edition Slater Test Bank

http://testbankbell.com/product/investigating-astronomy-2nd-edition-
slater-test-bank/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for Essentials of Business Analytics, 2nd

Edition, Jeffrey D. Camm, James J. Cochran, Michael J.
Fry, Jeffrey W. Ohlmann, David R. Anderson, Dennis J.
Sweeney Thomas A. Williams
http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-essentials-of-
business-analytics-2nd-edition-jeffrey-d-camm-james-j-cochran-michael-
j-fry-jeffrey-w-ohlmann-david-r-anderson-dennis-j-sweeney-thomas-a-
williams/
testbankbell.com

Test Bank for Seeley’s Anatomy Physiology 12th by VanPutte

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-seeleys-anatomy-
physiology-12th-by-vanputte/

testbankbell.com
Test Bank for Gardners Art through the Ages A Global
History, Volume II, 14th Edition

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-gardners-art-through-
the-ages-a-global-history-volume-ii-14th-edition/

testbankbell.com
 International Human Resource Management
Policies and Practices for Multinational Enter-
prises 5th Tarique Test Bank

Full download chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/interna-

tional-human-resource-management-policies-and-practices-for-multina-
tional-enterprises-5th-tarique-test-bank/

Chapter 2 Strategic International Human Resource Management

TRUE/FALSE

1. IHRM managers do not need to be involved in the global strategic management of the business in or-
der to make an effective contribution.

ANS: F REF: 36

2. Ideally, an organization conducting international business actively engages in strategic planning and
strategic management processes on a global basis.

ANS: T REF: 37

3. A strategy signals an organization’s commitment to specific markets, competitive approaches, and

ways of operating.

ANS: T REF: 38

4. Most organisations develop strategies pro-actively to deal with anticipated market forces and reac-
tively as a response to what is happening in the marketplace.

ANS: T REF: 38

5. HR issues are among the most critical issues for successfully competing in the international market-
place.

ANS: T REF: 39

6. Internationalization through export and import has relatively little impact on a firm and IHRM.

ANS: T REF: 42

7. As firms progress through the stages of becoming more internationalised and increase their
 international activities, their IHRM responsibilities become increasingly less complex to manage.

ANS: F REF: 42

8. Licensing the rights to manufacture or market a product or service in an option for internationalisation
that does not involve the setting up of directly owned subsidiaries.

ANS: T REF: 43

9. Subsidiaries can be developed in a number of ways, including involvement in greenfield or brownfield

projects.

ANS: T REF: 44

10. There has been a steady decline in the use of international joint ventures (where two or more firms cre-
ate a new business entity) as an internationalisation option.

ANS: F REF: 44

11. The terms off-shoring and outsourcing should not be used interchangeably.

ANS: T REF: 46

12. An MNEs business strategy is primarily guided by the extent of integration and/or local responsiveness
required by the firm to manage its worldwide operations.

ANS: T REF: 49

13. Adopting a multi-domestic business strategy typically means that a firm views each national market as
a specialized market for its particular subsidiaries’ products and services, and as such involves being
responsive to needs, values and demands of the local market.

ANS: T REF: 50

14. The tension between integration (centralisation) and differentiation (localization) is seldom a major
dilemma for global firms and their HR managers.

ANS: F REF: 53

15. The creation of regional operations is based on the assumption that countries within a region share
some common characteristics such as cultures or stage of economic development.

ANS: T REF: 51

16. A number of models have been developed in relation to strategic international HRM, however, re-
search evidence to support the essential components of international HR strategy is still in the early
stages of development.

ANS: T REF: 56

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1.Strategic IHRM is the part of IHRM that focuses on

 a developing budgets
.
b creating and implementing IHRM policies and practices to achieve international objec-
. tives
c networking with industry partners
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: B REF: 37

2. The two essential needs that compel senior executives to develop specific strategies for their organisations
are
a to react to changes in the environment and respond to new legislation
.
b to resolve issues in emerging markets and keep customers satisfied
.
c to actively shape how business will be conducted and to mold a coordinated approach
. across the company
d to actively downsize the business and meet shareholder needs
.
ANS: C REF: 38

3. As HR issues are among the most critical issues for successfully competing in the international market-
place, HR should be providing
a help with creating a mission and goal setting
.
b input to the international strategic decision making
.
c design of people specific strategies
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 39

4. An element of the strategic management process used to develop a global business strategy is
a environmental scanning
.
b downsizing
.
c outsourcing
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: A REF: 38

5. For a long time, ___________ has been the first step of internationalization for most firms while they were
still relatively small.
a importing
.
 b exporting
.
c franchising
.
d licensing
.
ANS: B REF: 42

6. McDonald’s is an example of firm that adopted a _______________ strategy to package the successful ele-
ments of their operations in their home market and offer this package to overseas investors, with per-
haps training and marketing support.
a sub-contracting
.
b exporting
.
c franchising
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: C REF: 43

7. The reason why some new enterprises operate almost immediately across the globe (“born global”) is
a the nature of their products
.
b the global networking of the engineers and scientists involved
.
c marketing through the internet
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 47

8. Off-shoring involves the relocation of one or more aspects of an organization’s business processes to a lo-
cation in another country for the purpose, at least initially of
a creating career paths
.
b developing networks and relationships
.
c lowering costs
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: C REF: 46

9. Market entry choices for an internationalizing firm are dictated by

a the firm’s own internationaliztion strategy.
.
b options available to the firm in particular countries.
.
 c timing of its entry in markets.
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 41

10. Methods of entry into international business include

a licensing and subcontracting
.
b outsourcing and offshoring
.
c mergers and acquisitions
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 43

11. Each stage of the process of internationalisation makes _______ demands on the HR department.
a similar
.
b unique
.
c no
.
ANS: B REF: 48

12. A greenfield project requires _______ development of facilities than does a brownfield project.
a less
.
b more
.
c about the same
.
ANS: B REF: 45

13. Reasons for entering into IJV agreements include

a to avoid host government requirements and insistence.
.
b to gain reduced economies of scale.
.
c to shift the risks to the IJV partners.
.
d none of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 46

14. Outsourcing success depends on all of the following factors except

a executive-level support in the client organization for its outsourcing mission
 .
b ample communication to affected employees
.
c the efforts of competing firms to manage contracts and agreements
.
d the firm’s ability to manage its service providers
.
ANS: C REF: 46

15. Issues that firms should consider when relocating services offshore are
a expertise in managing remote locations
.
b cost of labor
.
c language skills
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 46

16. The extent to which the subsidiaries and the headquarters of a firm develop a unified whole and therefore
achieve a range of competitive advantages (such as economies of scale) is defined as _______ .
a geocentric
.
b integration
.
c responsiveness
.
d decentralization
.
ANS: B REF: 49

17. A MNE business strategy that enables subsidiaries to respond to local differences and encourages
modification of products or services to meet local needs and increase local competition is called
___________ .
a ethnocentric
.
b integration
.
c local responsiveness
.
d reactionary
.
ANS: C REF: 49

18. Adopting a global business strategy means that an MNE implements the same unified approach in all
countries regardless of their differences so that there is a high degree of
a integration
.
 b decentralization
.
c proactivity
.
d regiocentric
.
ANS: A REF: 51

19. A MNE strategy that attempts to maximize both responsiveness and integration so that each subsidiary is
responsible for making adaptations to suit the local needs, while still being able to draw on the global
expertise and resources.
a ethnocentric
.
b multi-domestic
.
c global
.
d transnational
.
ANS: D REF: 51

20. Using a home country standard as a reference in managing international activities is indicative of
a(n) _______ orientation.
a geocentric
.
b regiocentric
.
c polycentric
.
d enthnocentric
.
ANS: D REF: 52

21. A firm has reached the level of a global orientation, a(n) ___________ mindset will develop and be
adopted.
a ethnocentric
.
b geocentric
.
c polycentric
.
d regiocentric
.
ANS: B REF: 52

22. IHRM strategy is the creation and implementation of international HR practices that help the firm to
achieve its international vision and business strategy as well as____________.
a relocating employees
.
 b creating business opportunities for employees
.
c reacting to resolve HR challenges
.
d strategically managing the HR function
.
ANS: D REF: 53

23. Designing a IHRM strategy that concentrates authority and decision making at the top of the firm (the
headquarters) is similar to the concept of integration, is considered as a decision to ____________.
a regionalize
.
b centralize
.
c decentralize
.
d localize
.
ANS: B REF: 53

10. An IHRM strategy’s effect on organizational effectiveness is _________ dependent on how well the
IHRM strategy fits with and supports a MNE’s business strategy.

a often
.
b rarely
.
c always
.
d sometimes
.
ANS: C REF: 54

11. A firm pursuing an active IHRM strategy is characterized by HR at corporate headquarters and
HR at the subsidiary trying to _____________ the control over HR decision making.
a avoid
.
b balance
.
c re-allocate
.
d decentralize
.
ANS: B REF: 56
10. 12.

12. The use of parent-company policies and procedures throughout a firm’s global operations is
known as
a convergence
.
 b divergence
.
c outsourcing
.
d restructuring
.
ANS: A REF: 53

13. An integrative framework for strategic international HRM in MNEs includes consideration of
a exogenous factors
.
b strategic MNE components
.
c endogenous factors
.
d all of the above
.
ANS: D REF: 57

SHORT ANSWER

1. Identify and explain the five stages of the internationalization process that most organizations expe-
rience as the begin to evolve their global operations.

ANS:
stage 1: portfolio investment, exporting
stage 2: sales subsidiary/local sales office - sending staff to the location initially
stage 3: [producing products directly in foreign countries in these next 3 stages] operations through li-
censing/franchising/contracting/sub-contracting
stage 4: operations through wholly owned subsidiaries
stage 5: operations through international alliances, partnerships, consortia or operations through inter-
national mergers & acquisitions, or operations through international joint ventures.

REF: 43

2. How does a greenfield project differ from a brownfield project?

ANS:
The development of a subsidiary through a greenfield project involves acquiring an open (green)
“field” in order to build the subsidiary facilities from scratch. A brownfield project involves the pur-
chase of existing facilities (buildings) and developing the subsidiary inside those facilities (sometimes
referred to as a turnkey operation).

REF: 44

3. MNE business strategies can be categorised based on the extent to which they manage the forces of
integration versus local responsiveness. Identify and explain the four types of business strategies in
terms of their focus on integration versus local responsiveness.

ANS:
1. international: limited local responsiveness, limited integration
2. multi-domestic: high local responsiveness, low integration
3. global: high degree of integration, low local responsiveness
4. transnational: high local responsiveness and high integration

REF: 49

4. How does a transnational business strategy differ from a global business strategy?

ANS:
The transnational firm differs from the global firm in that, rather than developing global products, ser-
vices, brands, and standardized processes and policies and procedures, the transnational organization
works hard to localize, to be seen, not only as a global firm, but as a local firm as well, albeit one that
draws upon global expertise, technology, and resources. In a transnational firm, the focus is simultane-
ously on global integration, local responsiveness, and knowledge sharing among the different parts of
the organization.

REF: 51

5. Explain the central trade-offs involved in making a decision about whether to centralize or decen-
tralize IHRM decisions.

ANS:

Centralization (similar to integration) concentrates authority and decision making in HQs (towards the
top of the firm), whereas decentralisation (as local responsiveness) allows for dispersion of authority
and decision making to operating units throughout the organization. The tension between these is a
growing dilemma for IHRM and large global firms. Firms must become highly differentiated and more
integrated all at the same time. Locals want to run the business and in some cases local laws require
deployment of particular HR practices that are managed differently in other countries.

REF: 53

ESSAY QUESTIONS

1. Identify and explain the five stages of the internationalization process that most organizations expe-
rience as they begin to evolve their global operations.

ANS:
stage 1: portfolio investment, exporting
stage 2: sales subsidiary/local sales office - sending staff to the location initially
stage 3: [producing products directly in foreign countries in these next 3 stages] operations through li-
censing/franchising/contracting/sub-contracting
stage 4: operations through wholly owned subsidiaries
stage 5: operations through international alliances, partnerships, consortia or operations through inter-
national mergers & acquisitions, or operations through international joint ventures.

REF: 43

2. Based on the model presented in this chapter of the role of IHRM in MNEs, identify and describe
the criteria that can be used to assess the extent that the IHRM practices and policies have enhanced
Visit https://testbankbell.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
the overall performance of the MNE .

ANS:
1. global competitiveness – how can the IHRM policies and practices provide competitive advantage?
2. efficiency – how much can IHRM help make the MNE more efficient?
3. local responsiveness – how much can IHRM help the MNE be locally responsive and globally com-
petitive at the same time?
4. flexibility – how much can IHRM help the MNE be more flexible in adapting to changing condi-
tions?
5. organizational and transfer of learning – how much can IHRM facilitate learning and transfer of this
learning across geographically dispersed units?

REF: 59
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
exhibition matches; for, though caviare to those who have really
made a study of the game, the scoring is not rapid enough to satisfy
the palate of the majority of the public, whose great idea is to witness
something big in the way of figures, and who would prefer to see a
break of several hundreds amassed by the repetition of one
particular stroke to an all-round break of various strokes from
different positions, however masterly the execution, which might not
even reach three figures. Still, in spite of this hankering after
sensational scoring, if we compare the number of spectators at the
fifteen matches for the championship played from 1870 to 1885
inclusive with the attendances at the ordinary spot-barred
exhibitions of to-day, and at the same time take into consideration
the enormous extent to which the game of billiards has developed
during the last decade (I speak only from personal observation), the
balance would probably be in favour of the former period.
It must not, however, be forgotten, on the other hand, that there is
a great difference in interest to the spectators between a bona-fide
match for a stake and an ordinary exhibition game, where there is no
other incentive than the glory of winning. Who does not remember
with delight the wonderful strengths and neat execution of W. Cook,
and the losing hazard striking of Joseph Bennett, and the keen
rivalry which prevailed between these players and the present
champion in their contests? Roberts declares that he attributes the
height of excellence he has reached to be mainly owing to those years
of play on the championship table; and though not himself an
advocate for it as far as ordinary exhibition matches are concerned,
yet, if called upon to defend his title, he considers that the table
which has always been used according to the championship rules
should still be adhered to, an opinion in which he is supported by
other well-known players of the past and present.
We have some reason to hope that before very long we may
perhaps see a challenge issued to the champion, so great are the
strides that the younger generation are making at the game; and
though to those who watch John Roberts play it seems almost
impossible that they will ever see his equal, it must not be forgotten
that in one remarkable week when giving Diggle more than one-third
of the game, viz., 9,000 out of 24,000, the latter absolutely scored
more points in the first six days’ play than the champion. There can
be no doubt that, within reasonable limits, in all games the greater
the difficulties presented the greater is the satisfaction in overcoming
them, and the higher is the standard of excellence attained; and it is
much to be hoped that we may again see such interesting and
scientific matches between our leading players as we used to have
from 1870 to 1885.
One word more: is it not high time that the push stroke should be
abolished once and for all? It is not allowed by any other billiard-
playing nation, and is equally unfair with the so-called quill or
feather stroke, which was tabooed years and years ago.

R. D. W.

Regarding play on a championship table, little need be said; the

practice prescribed for an ordinary one for the most part holds good,
and diagrams of strokes, such as accompany Chapters IV., V., VII,
and the figures of nursery cannons in Chapter X., are applicable with
but little alteration. As regards cannons generally, it is of course
evident that the stroke is the same on both tables, and as to hazards
the only real difference is that with easier pockets there is a larger
margin for error. Hence a few words of caution as to the execution of
strokes and the policy of play are alone required. For making easy
losing hazards, certainty is most readily assured by striking ball 1 a
gentle strength rather under the centre; this has the effect of slightly
diminishing the natural development of rotation and of decreasing
the rebound due to elasticity after impact. A ball thus struck seems to
travel on straight rather than on curved lines, and the stroke is
specially useful for short jennies. Similarly for long losing hazards
drag with strength rather under No. 2 will be found very useful: but
hazards should be subordinated to cannon play; they should be
chiefly used as a means of getting cannon breaks. When, however,
they have to be played and are not certainties, it is better to strike
with freedom than to attempt to secure success by extreme
gentleness and caution; for accuracy is more probable when the
stroke is played with customary strength than when great softness
necessitates placing the ball at a strange angle. In case of failure also
the freer stroke is less likely to leave an easy opening for the
adversary, whilst at the same time it may be usefully kept in mind
that if somewhat more caution in attempting a hazard is necessary,
less apprehension need be felt as to leaving balls near pockets. It is a
matter of common knowledge that on an ordinary table the better
the stroke for a hazard, that is, the nearer it is to success (so long as
that is not obtained), the greater is the penalty for failure. Realising
this, many persons play with more strength than is necessary, in the
hope of bringing the ball away from the pocket in case of a miss,
which often results in consequence of the precaution. When pockets
are difficult this consideration may to a great extent be neglected,
and attention may be concentrated on making the hazard. Another
point which should be noticed is that amateurs are more nearly
equalised on a championship than on an ordinary table. A man who
on the latter could give his adversary thirty points in a hundred,
would probably find that on the former he could not give more than
twenty points. The usual fault is that persons accustomed to the 3⅝
inch pockets are afraid of the smaller ones, and try a great deal too
much for absolute accuracy, a procedure which is simply fatal to
success. Hence strength approaching to that generally used by each
person will be found best. Should the stroke be missed the balls will
come reasonably away, whereas if it should be made, the player has
presumably some idea of the position to be left, and a fair chance of
continuing the break. By following that policy and by determinedly
playing for cannon breaks, specially nurseries, success may
reasonably be expected. Do not break your heart over difficult
hazards, leave that to the adversary; but hold tenaciously to every
chance of cannons. Play, in fact, as Ives did with Roberts. The latter
could very possibly give the former half the game in one of the usual
spot-barred exhibitions, but when the pockets were reduced in size
and larger balls were brought into play, the American had the best of
the deal and won accordingly.
From the preceding remarks it will be gathered that whilst for
practice the manual prescribed for an ordinary table may be
followed, in a game the player must pursue a different policy.
Hazards which require strength greater than No. 2 should be
avoided, and the ordinary idea of bringing the object ball back to the
middle of the table after a middle-pocket hazard, half-ball or finer,
should be superseded by playing with reduced strength, and, when
the object ball is the red, being contented with leaving it in play, that
is, between the lines PM, QN, laid down on many of the diagrams.
When ball 2 happens to be the opponent’s ball endeavour should be
made to leave it in the neighbourhood of the spot. With these
qualifications the advanced player (and we think no other should use
three-inch pockets) will find the directions for making breaks in
Chapter X. useful, specially those which refer to play at the top of the
table and at cushion nurseries; practice will soon result in a very
considerable modification of the ordinary game, but the changes will
vary with the personal qualities of the player, who will soon adopt
those which suit him best. As scoring on a tight-pocket table is
decidedly slower than on an ordinary one, it follows that safety and
cautious play have more effect in the former game. Hence potting the
opponent’s ball and leaving a double baulk, and similar tactics, are
more likely to be rewarded with ultimate success than when that
style of game is followed on a table with 3⅝-inch pockets. Whether
that is or is not an advantage is a question for the reader to decide for
himself; one good result with which it may be credited is to
encourage the practice of strokes for the purpose of scoring from, or
at any rate of disturbing, a double baulk.
It is, we think, unnecessary to say more at present respecting play
on a championship table; in time, perhaps, improvement in amateur
form may be so great and so universal as to make the more difficult
supersede the easier game; but that day is distant, and speculation as
to its requirements is under existing circumstances unprofitable.
 Billiard Championship Matches

Points Date Players Won

by
1,200 Feb. 11, 1870 Cook b. Roberts, senr. 170
1,000 April 14, 1870 Roberts, jun., b. Cook 478
1,000 May 30, 1870 Roberts, jun., b. Bowles 246
1,000 Nov. 28, 1870 Jos. Bennett b. Roberts, 95
jun.
1,000 Jan. 30, 1871 Roberts, jun., b. Bennett 363
1,000 May 25, 1871 Cook b. Roberts, jun. 15
1,000 Nov. 21, 1871 Cook b. Jos. Bennett 58
1,000 Mar. 4, 1872 Cook b. Roberts, jun. 201
1,000 Feb. 4, 1874 Cook b. Roberts, jun. 216
1,000 May 24, 1875 Roberts, jun., b. Cook 163
1,000 Dec. 20, 1875 Roberts, jun., b. Cook 135
1,000 May 28, 1877 Roberts, jun., b. Cook 223
1,000 Nov. 8, 1880 Jos. Bennett b. Cook 51
1,000 Jan. 12 13, 1881 Jos. Bennett b. Taylor 90
3,000 Mar. 30 and 31, and April 1, Roberts, jun., b. Cook 92
1885
3,000 June 1, 2, 3, 4, 1885 Roberts, jun., b. Jos. 1,640
Bennett
 CHAPTER XII
THE RULES OF THE GAME OF BILLIARDS

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.

Are They Touching?

 CHAPTER XIII
PYRAMIDS, POOL, AND COUNTRY-HOUSE
GAMES

By W. J. Ford

When and under what circumstances winning hazard games were

invented, billiard history does not record. Every player, however,
must have met men with little aptitude for the more scientific game
of billiards, who, being blessed with good sight and sound nerve, play
well at pyramids and pool. For their benefit these games were
doubtless produced, demanding as they do considerable skill and
knowledge, and lending themselves especially to being played for
money. It is an established fact that persons will play billiards for
nothing who would never dream of playing pyramids, &c. for love;
and also that many who would think twice before risking a shilling or
half a crown on a hundred game at billiards would lightly and
cheerfully take part in a game of pyramids or pool for stakes at which
a far greater sum can readily be lost or won.
One thing the beginner must remember—that he will have to pay
for his experience. He may be a fair hazard striker, with a moderate
power of cue and sound ideas about strength and position, but until
he has played a good many games of pool and pyramids, with the
money up, and has overcome the nervousness incidental to playing
in public for a stake, he will never master the game. All must go
through the fiery ordeal of the public room, where every shot is fired
in earnest and there are no blank cartridges. The price to be paid
must depend on the beginner’s nerve and his aptitude for such
games, but he will find that practice and observation work wonders,
and that when he has watched fine players and played with them, his
losses will begin to dwindle, and gradually transform themselves into
winnings.
A few general hints may not be out of place before discussing the
different games in detail. It is really important to use the same cue as
far as possible; it is as essential as one’s own gun, bat, or racquet, and
as jointed cues can now be procured, which are easily carried in the
hand or packed in a portmanteau, it is prudent to get one. Some
players fancy a heavy cue, with a broad top, for winning hazards; but
this is a matter of taste, and it is generally wise always to use the
same weapon. It should be remembered, in playing pool or pyramids
after billiards, that the balls are usually smaller, lighter, and less
true. Another essential point is a strict adherence to rules. It is an
unfortunate thing for billiards that this principle is not observed with
rigid strictness, that fouls are often not claimed, that players are
allowed to get on the table, and so forth; but the curious thing is that,
lax as many men are on these points over a game of billiards played
for nothing, they are very strict when they are playing for money; so
as long as billiards is played, it is perhaps well that there should be a
small stake on the game, if only to induce every one to make Sarah
Battle’s whist the model of what his billiards should be. Her
celebrated wish was ‘the rigour of the game. She took and gave no
concessions. She hated favours. She never made a revoke, nor ever
passed it over in her adversary without exacting the utmost
forfeiture;’ and where she emphatically asserted that cards were
cards, I repeat that billiards is billiards. Again, the etiquette of the
room should be most carefully observed, though it is frequently
neglected. It is the duty of the man who has played his stroke to
retire ‘to a reasonable distance and keep out of the line of sight’—the
rules require this; but there are many people, unfortunately, who
think this a good time to light a pipe, talk in a loud tone of voice to a
bystander, give stentorian orders to the waiter, and so forth,
forgetting that a game is in progress which is making every demand
on the striker’s nerve and self-possession. Such offenders are
numerous, they are public nuisances in the room, and it is small
consolation to the persons disturbed to be assured that their
delinquencies were unintentional. Any game that is worth playing at
all is worth playing seriously and strenuously, and the cultivation of
habits of silence, decorum, and self-restraint is a duty we owe to our
friend the enemy and have a right to expect from him in return.
 PYRAMIDS
This game is played with one white and fifteen red balls, the latter
being set up in the form of a triangle or pyramid, with the apex-ball
nearest to the baulk-line and on the pyramid spot. As a rule, only two
players take part in a game, and the order of playing is decided by
lot. The first stroke is played from the Ｄ , as are all subsequent
strokes if the white ball has gone into a pocket or has been forced off
the table. The object of the game is to hole the red balls with the
white, each ball so holed counting as one; but, should the striker
make a losing hazard (notwithstanding that he holes a red ball with
the same stroke), or force a red ball or his own off the table, or miss
altogether, he loses a ball—i.e. one is deducted from his score and a
ball put up on the table. Any ball or balls he may have taken by such
a stroke are put up as well. If the striker’s score is love, and he incurs
this penalty, he is said to owe one (or more, as the case may be), and
no ball can be put up till he has made a winning hazard; if he owes
more than one, a ball is restored for each hazard he makes, until he
has paid off his debts. After a miss the next player plays from where
the white ball stops; but if the latter is pocketed or forced off the
table he plays from the Ｄ at any ball he chooses, whether in baulk or
not. When only two balls—the white and one red—are left on the
table, the game becomes single pool; after white has played on red,
red plays on white, and so on till one of the two is holed.
These are the salient points of the game; other details may be
gleaned from the printed rules which should be in every billiard-
room. Points are scored (see Rules 4 and 5)[20] by giving balls or
owing balls, or both. When a player gives one or more balls, they are
scored to his opponent before the game begins, and are removed
from the table. If he owes one or more, the first time a winning
hazard is made the ball is put up on the table, and nothing is added
to the striker’s score till all the balls he owes have been put up. When
the odds are combined, each ball given is removed, and no hazard
counts till all debts are paid; e.g. if he gives one and owes two, one
ball is removed (see Rule 4), his opponent scores one, and the giver