its fine how it is IMO.

If there is only enough points to tie. then try and get a snooker. its easy enough to get a snooker.

If there s the possibility of a half century on. then you have to make the decision whether to play for the half cent or play for the win.

Simple

I maintain my opinion that the only 100% fair and realistic solution is to let the game decide randomly who will take the shot.

It's simply unfair to favour any of the players. Yes the current solution is unfair, but switching the roles wouldn't take out any unfairness to the game.

I never said it should be the one who clears, as that doesn't solve the problem either. i said it to answer the person before.

Random or lag is the best solution, prefer lag.

I really don't think it should be changed. The position is quite clear. If your behind in the game and can only tie by clearing up then you know what to do. Either try and lay a snooker or take a chance on the other player missing the black of the spot - it does happen, normally by me!

A random choice of who gets the shot on the black leaves nothing clear IMO.

But like ive said, then why can't the person who cleared up get the shot? Its unfair either way you do it but you give me some reasons why the person who cleared can't get the shot?

That's why lag is the fairest options as it is in your own hands if you lose the lag or not.

yeh, because the person who has cleared has done well to get themselves back into it by clearing and techincally they have not missed so they should get the re-spot

Noooo, they shouldn't because on the other hand the other player got the lead in the first place.

That's never going to be solved.

suppose beacause the person who is in the lead deserves to win

My opinion (and it's only that!) is that the onus should be on the person behind to get a snooker rather than clear up and have a go at the black off the spot.

Don't forget that it used to be that the person who was in the lead had the choice of either playing or passing. At least now they are obliged to take the shot on and therefore their control is limited.

I don't agree with the idea of a random allocation - consistency and certainty is the best way for the game to operate which means everyone knows what to expect.

But using the lag is the fairest way to decide.

In your opinion.

lag isnt a snooker rule... so it wudnt be snooker

opponent goin first isn't a snooker rule either...

Have to disagree, sorry, because a Lag shot is a 'Skill' shot. The fairest way, in my opinion, is the way it is done for real with a random determination (flipping a coin) for the right to choose who takes the first shot.

I appreciate that this solution requires far more work than any of the other solutions.

Edited at 17:58 Tue 16/12/08 (GMT)

sorry buddytobud i have to disagree with your last comment because everyone on this game has the same chance to be 'skillful' if your last reason for the lag not being fair is true surely 900s wouldnt be allowed to play games against 600s because they are more skilful?

The point is that real snooker rule are designed so that the player is chosen at random. The people who designed the rules somehow decided to make so, instead of choosing a skill-based method.

The real question is: why would we willingly implement here a rule that is different from snooker? The only reason to do so is playability and complexity to implement, and this rule doesn't fall in any of the 2 categories. The rule is easy, understandable, playable, fair... what do we need?

Or how about you aint allowed to pot on the first shot? You can play a simple safety by either rolling up or doing the pro's way and hit it onto the side cushions, this makes it more fair as you ca either get it right or wrong.

I would personally like this, as I love the tactical and safety part of the game.

However, besides my personal opinion, I wouldn't recommend to include a new feature that is different than the real rules. We shouldn't forget that it has already happened that professional players tried to pot the black directly; even it's a hard shot, it's possible, and they have the right to do it.

Preventing funkyplayers from playing shots that would otherwise be legal might not be the way funkysnooker should follow.

True although its possible to introduce spin off rules here it would be advisable to keep the snooker as close to standard snooker as possible.

I reckon random is really the only way to go. No dispute then.

The game now randomly decides the next taker. Please let me know if there is a problem.