this may seem big headed , but i think re-spotted blacks are unmissable , most will probably agree , i have lost crucial games due to the other person automatically getting the advantage of the first shot. Could there be a white ball shootout , where each player hit the white up the table and back , nearest to baulk cusion wins the decision of the black re-spot?? anyone backing this idea?

i agree with carper on this as i have lost sum crucuial games aswell,i also agree that they are virtually unmissable so i think carpers idea is a good suggestion.
i also think that in a normal game that wen the black is left on it shud be end of game unless other person can win, coz to many people try and get fouls from it and it just wastes tym

another good point added on by wrighty!

This has been brought up on a number of occasions, and the majority think that the re-spot should be scrapped and I'm one of them! I think Nick will sort this out in the next 3-4 months. Always good to bring up a well talked about subject.

Good points carper_29_4 and wrighty_mufc. According to the official rules of snooker ( http://www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm )

Section 3, Part 4 (End of frame) states:

"4. End of Frame, Game or Match
(a) When only the Black is left, the first score or foul ends the frame excepting only if the following conditions both apply:
(i) the scores are then equal, and
(ii) aggregate scores are not relevant.
(b) When both conditions in (a) above apply
(i) the Black is spotted,
(ii) the players draw lots for choice of playing
(iii) the next player plays from in-hand, and
(iv) the next score or foul ends the frame.
(c) When aggregate scores determine the winner of a game or match, and the aggregate scores are equal at the end of the last frame, the players in that frame shall follow the procedure for a re-spotted Black set out in (b) above."

'Draw lots' could either be covered by a white ball shootout or just a random determination (equivalent to flipping a coin) for the right to choose.

Scrapping the re-spot isn't an option I don't think, because a) its just not snooker and b) I'm sure it would cause problems due to the posibility of drawn games (especially in tournaments).

Edited at 02:34 Tue 2/12/08 (GMT)

i agree in the fact the draws arent a possibility as well as the black re-spot being scrapped as it is a known part of snooker, i just thing something should be done about it. thanks for the replies!

End of day., if you get re-spot you win if they get re-spot they win dont worry about it and to be honest its not exactly like it happens to you each day!

i agree in a way , but for e.g your 49 behind with 49 on , knowing fully well that if you happen to get those 49 points back your going to loose anyway because the other person automatically gets the white then its all a waste of your time coming back.

which is basically also forcing you to play snookers if you want to win . sry bout double post

When i said scrap the re-spot i meant scrap the one currently in place at the moment, the lag option has been mentioned a couple of times and that to me sounds more suitable.

I think that it should choose someone at random, and insted of re-spotting the black, put it on the bottom cushion next to its spot, to make it harder to be potted, and it can easily be hit safe if you think hard enough about it.

I think the best, fairest and most realistic solution is to let the game decide randomly who will get the shot.

Any other solution for choosing randomly the player is acceptable though. I'm thinking for example of an interactive heads or tails, but this would require much more work to program, for a not-so-big difference.

And I think that in any case, the black should be replaced on its spot.

Random doesn't cut it for me, I can see threads now, "why does the game never choose me" I for one wouldn't be happy if I was on the wrong end of a "random" decision. The lagg is the best way, it isn't random, it relies on skill, which afterall, is what snooker is a game based around. Sure it might not be a snooker rule as such, and this is a snooker site, but that doesn't stop games like "killer snooker" appearing on the game.

Edit: Also, I am no expert on computer programming (far far from it) but surely there is no such thing as random for a computer programme/software? It must surely have a presupposed knowledge of who will take the respot should it be needed. Baically what i'm trying to say is, surely a "random" computer programme where a coin is thrown, can't be as random as a real coin throw? Hope that makes sense and am probs wrong

Edited at 20:58 Tue 2/12/08 (GMT)

As for a computer implementing random processes, technically you are true, there's no complete randomness that can be implemented by a computer. Computers use pseudorandom sequences of numbers instead, which look like random, while being not.

However, the randomness is very well simulated, and it's completely safe to assume the numbers are random, unless you have to use it in a domain where security is critical (especially in cryptography).

In any case there's no need for any "presupposed knowledge", what you really do is simply asking the computer to give you a random number, and he simply gives a pseudorandom number, which you have to accept as random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom

Long things short, it's completely OK to use a computer as a randomness generator for an on-line game needing some sort of heads or tails at some time.


Because in real snooker they decide by heads or tails who will take the first shot after a respotted black, I really think a similar approach should be used here, i.e. picking randomly a player.

A re-spotted black is the rule if the game is tied once all balls are potted you shouldn't scrap it

Ive been on the respoted black sitsuation only couple of times, and I dont remember wich player gets to shoot first. Is it random or what? I believe the fairest thing would be that the player who potted last gets to shoot first. Then the break would kind of continue.

Edited at 15:30 Sat 6/12/08 (GMT)

No it aint random, and it is exactly the opposite to how you think it should be, the player who levels it is second to have a go at the black on the respot, but whoever is second hs basically lost.

I think the respot should stay as it is.

The player who got the score first is rewarded by having first go at potting the black off the spot. If the other guy doesn't want to take the risk of the other player missing off the spot then the onus is on him to get a snooker.

Perfect the way it is!

But then why can't the person who cleared to tie get the respot?

Just happened to me and he potted the black straight in. Needs sorting.

(was on 982 rank aswell to rub it in)

i agree with damee , it should be the person who clears up who gets the re-spot , or if people dont agree with this , ( is it called a lagg??) that should sort it out.