IM SICK AND TIRED OF CLAWING MY WAY BACK FROM BEING 30 POINTS TO CLEAR THEN HAVE THE RESPOTTED AND GIVEN TO THE OTHER PERSON IT AINT FAIR I WORKED HARD TO COME BACK THEN HE TAKES IT CAUSE OF THE RESPOT

EVERYONE WHO AGREES PLEASE SAY SO

I AGREEEEEEEEEEE

I defooo agree with this it does get very annoying as you work so hard for the comeback and you lose to a crappy black i understand and annoys me

what solution is there tho ??????

Yes, i agree too.But how will it be decided who has the first shot on the re spotted black?

im hoping admin can sort it so the respot should go to the person who last potted

wipe respotted black away ??????

no just let the person who potted the last shot get the respot first

i defo agree m8

that happens anyway. If u clear and make it a tie, it goes too other player. That is real snooker rules, this is arcade snooker tho so it is different

exactly it aint fair if it was real snooker i wouldn't mind but its arcade snooker

maybe have a lag?, thats how they decide who is going to break on american style pool, basically what it is for those who dont know, its where there is two white balls placed either side off the D, and you have to hit in to the other end of the table and back towards the D, the person who is closest to the cushion near the D wins, but you CANNOT touch the cushion if you do the other player will get first shot at black.

this may or may not work or be able to be coded i dont know, but to me this seems the simplest at fairest way to decide who gets first shot at the black.

please let me now what you think, and hopefully they are all good

sounds like a good idea but doubt it will happen m8

even if they can just do it during tournaments cause it aint fair that we work hard to pull back win and they get black on the respot

without a doubt this rule is BAD

Mercy has a very good point, I agree... (though hey would you complain if you're winning)? hehe!!

Good question who ever raised the point, how will the white ball be fairly awarded?

if im winning and the guy comes back i have no problems if he deserves it m8

In reply to Bon Jon, I think they toss a coin in Real rules snooker when it is tied.....!

no, im sure nick will understand nomercy, just ask nicely on the forums instead of saying it the way you did, maybe:

hey nick, i find that having faught back from 30+ points behind to draw level and have black re-spotted, to award the first shot to the opponent, can we have a better solution?, maybe let the player who has had to fight back carry on?, or make it fair and have a lagg?.

if you ask nicely like that im sure he will look into it in more detail.

i would like the lagg to be inplemented, because i find that this way, it is fair toi everyone, there can be no arguements ect.!

sorry i was just a little annoyed that it keeps doin that to me

and everyone agree's that its not fair clawing back and then losing because of the respot

mercy, can you try to not use caps in posts because it comes off to many users as yelling. and the bold kinda has the same affect, no big deals just a request for the future

On the face of it, the present rule does seem to be a little unfair, and could I see lead to feeling of frustrations such as nomercy demonstrated.

Looking at it from the other person's point of view, you build up a good lead, the other player comes all the way back and draws level. Then the black is re-spotted and - joy of unexpected joys - you get a reprieve and *you* are the one who is allowed to pot it and save the day.

Thus, the two most likely outcomes are

outcome 1) player one gives a big sigh of relief and manages to scrape the win, even though his opponent has very very nearly caught up with him again.

and... from being way behind, player two suddenly sees though sheer hard work and good play, that he now has a chance of grabbing the frame back; only to see, through no fault of his own, that this chance is snatched away from him by random 'flip of a coin'.

outcome 2) player one fights back, and through ditto hard work, manages to grab the frame, and is delighted.

and.. player two sees his big lead whittled away and finally loses, because the other player has manged to end up just in front. Disappointed, but grudgingly admitting that his opponent did a great comeback.

On the whole, outcome 2 leaves fewer people angry. Or at least, with less justification for being angry.

So my view is that it would be fairer to do one of two things.

a) give the re-spot to the last player to pot a ball; or
b) have some 'skill-based' method of deciding who gets it, not random.

However, if the real snooker rules say flip a coin, who am I to question if Nick implements it here in the same sort of random way?

R