I am open to the possibility of changing random shot to an automatic foul.

The only real clause is it must be the same for every game (on this site and snooker).

First we can discuss it here, and if it's close we could do a vote on a new thread (ha!).

Snooker link: http://www.funkysnooker.com/viewTopic.do?topicid=5566

Sounds good to me.

No reason why a timed out shot should ever possibly have a positive result or mash open a pack or similar issues.

Are you planning to make the random shot takers redundant? Hopefully they'd get a big pay-off.

Personally I would like to see the random shot stay, for times when it is unavoidable to time out on a shot (computer problem, real life gets in the way, etc.). I don't mind the occasional spectacular shot, as it doesn't happen nearly as often as some people might claim; most of the time it results in a foul. However, I believe the random shot gives players the benefit of the doubt as to why they didn't take their shot in time.

Now wait for everyone else that posts to say they want to scrap the random shot...

You should never be disadvantaged from being on the receiving end of a random shot being played on behalf of your opponent.

Seeing as i cant see a way around that issue (unless randoms are 'randomed' in such a way that they dont ever give such an advantage which i guess means that they then are no longer random ), on that basis alone they ought to be scrapped.

No doubt necessary, you deserve a foul no matter why you didn't make the shot

IMnotatallHO

if the player doesnt play the shot in time it should be an automatic foul, sounds good

The random shot is one of the clever and advanced features that sets funkypool/snooker aside from many of the other sites online and I'm strongly in favour of keeping the it as it is.

After all, the player hasn't broken any game rules so why should the opposing player receive any benefit?

The chances of a random shot matching the exact shot a player would have taken are extremely slim so that is "punishment" enough.

All for it being an automatic foul. There is nothing worse than watching the random shot and seeing 1 of their balls being potted - it can be a little frustrating to say the least.

Especially in killer

As has been often stated "Why fix something which aint broke?"

It is from what i have seen 85% foul anyway, roughly 10-12% leaving advantage in the other player which means the odd couple which pot the ball or leave it in an awkward position but hey its only a game not a matter of life and death.

To me in circumstances that do go against the player who is active just adds to the fun. If you lose so be it just go beat them get the points back

Of course they have broken game rules when they have failed to perform a legal shot by the time the shot clock expires.

^^ Not at all.

That is not mentioned anywhere in the game rules for any game type.

http://www.funkypool.com/help/8ballus



I've never been aware of such a rule at the pub either. Ususally someone else just takes your shot if you're gone too long. Thats the logical thing after all

Remember there are many reasons entirely out of users control for them not performing the shot within the timescale.

It would be a shame for such an excellent and fair system to change, but if it had to, at the very most it would have to be to pass the turn to the other player (while giving them the option to return play).

^^^^^

thats actually quite a good compromise - presumably play passes even if the random fluked a pot?

Not what i meant, but thats and interesting compromise.

Random shot as-is now, but with play always swapping to the opponent.

After all, the objectors to the random shot always cite how its to their disadvantage, not so with that proposal!

(My suggestion, similar to a few on snooker, was for play to swap before any shot was played..)

i think its difficult to come up with a single solution that applies well to both snooker and pool.

i think the random shot with the option to put the opponent back into play as it lies could work quite well in pool - a middle ground between the two extremes of 1) being at a disadvantage from the random fluking a pot, or leaving you in a really difficult situation, and 2) an advantage of ball in hand anywhere on the table.

Edited at 00:14 Thu 14/05/09 (BST)

I have always been an advocate of an automatic foul - like on Yahoo Pool.

To many times I have seen people disadvantaged after their opponent can not make a shot, and a random shot does not punish, but rather rewards not being there.

Yahoo pool just pases the ball to the opponent after the foul. Maybe another idea is that if a "time foul" is committed, insted of a random shot, the cue ball must be placed behind the line like on a break?

Quite ironic you should say that, since it is was a primary reason I initally disowned yahoo pool to come here almost 6 years ago!

I fouled on the black with a random shot not long ago

Strongly in favour of automatic foul........also changing straight so if opponent fouls its ball in hand, the way it is now, you get punished for them fouling sometimes as you have nothing to do but leave them on next time

What if, if your opponent runs out of time, you had the option of either accepting the table as it lies or going for a random shot as always?

i think that may cause confusion, especially to new players.

Maybe if we had a trail with this on straight pool and see how it goes - and have a "funkypool referendum" - give people a chance to vote; they get one vote each and nick can go on the voting result?

now THAT is a democracy!