I agree with the rule but let’s just say black is over the pocket I need it to draw he needs it to win he gets for a simple tap in and boom nudges whit ball with tip the table has now turned and gave me a sure victory with same tap in!, but as you after the opponents first nudge on white ball all advantage has been lost and the black is spotted just seems odd to me but rules are rules I guess !
What happens if black ball remains and I need it to draw but I foul does it still require a respot ??
If you are truly new to the forum Pat then you may not know yet, but I tend to be a long poster. Probably most often say much more than is required for a circumstance. So it's a Friday afternoon now, I have a few minutes to spare so I will make another attempt at an "explanation". It won't be a true explanation of course, as what follows is just my own opinion, nothing more.
In order to know the "why" of this particular Rule, it would be necessary to build a time machine and go back to the very early days, perhaps 120, 130 years or more when this Rule was likely first implemented. Only the person or persons responsible at that time can give you their rationale behind the rule.
But I will say this. In order for a rule to be a "good" rule, it will need to have two characteristics. Maybe more, but this is all that is in my head at the moment; maybe Andre can add something. 1) The rule must be easy to understand for everyone involved: referees, players, spectators. In many games/sports, there are contentious rules that often fail to meet this criteria as well as they should. Snooker also has a couple problematic rules in my opinion. 2) The Rules should be equitable to both players/sides. In a manner of speaking, the punishment should fit the crime. Or "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".
I suspect when the original Rules of Snooker were being postulated and formalized, then the question probably arose among the committee, "I say, a player may wish to concede a frame at some point, but if he does not, well then, when is the frame actually finished?" (No intent to be sexist in this modern PC world, but back in those days, ladies playing the game was unheard of.) And chances are the answer was, "Well, obviously.....when there are no balls left on the baize with which to score!" (Speech was much more formal then, and you should hear these words in your head in a haughty dialect.)
Quite quickly, the problem would have been realized that if a player losing by more than seven points decides to play on hoping for fouls when only the Black ball was left, the frame may never be completed. With careful safety play and the futile hope that the leading player might just foul eventually, a frame could continue indefinitely. It would make no sense to allow this to continue. Therefore, it would be necessary to DEFINE the end of the frame so that no one could argue with that precise point in time that WAS the end of the frame.
I suspect they may have tried a few iterations before settling on what we now know to be the End of Frame, that is, when the Black is the only object ball remaining on the table, the very next instance of a Pot or a Foul means that this frame has indeed, without doubt come to its final end and finish.
Except of course, sometimes it doesn't. Such as your case, Pat. But really, in the rare case that the final foul or pot results in the scores being level, it doesn't matter, the frame is indeed over exactly as it is defined in the Rules. The only problem is that a winner of the frame has not yet been determined. But the frame is still over. The definition of the Rule that defines the end of the frame is very easy to understand, it satisfies the first characteristic. It is a very specific nanosecond point in time at which the End of the Frame occurred. No argument.
Now it is time to talk about that second characteristic of a "good" rule. I like to use analogies. Resetting the Black ball to finish a drawn frame is nothing more than what is often called "overtime" in other games. So imagine a basketball game where a buzzer beater shot in the last second levels the score. Basketball cannot end in a tie (at least not as far as I know), so this situation must be resolved. How should it be done? Well, how about free throws? Let the home team take the first free throw....if it goes in, they win the game. Does that sound "equitable" to you?
Obviously not. the resolution of a "tie" must be one in which neither player or side has a discernible advantage to win the game or frame. It should be extended over a long enough period with chances given to both teams to display their skills to demonstrate that they are deserving to be the victor in this endeavour today.
And you don't do that by potting a Black ball that is perched in the jaws of a pocket in the overtime period. To win a frame of snooker that way would be no different than the home team sinking a simple free throw to win the basketball game.
As for your last question, I trust you already know the answer to your own question. The frame ended the INSTANT the Black was fouled. Was the winner determined by a difference in score at that instant? Or are the scores level?