I'm thinking that if the opponent runs out of time then the random shot takes place. If the random is a foul then its as it is now. The opponent has ball in hand anywhere (all US games) or two shots (UK8). If the random is a valid shot in any way (including a valid pot) then the opponent has a choice of playing from where the balls finish or making the opponent play from where they finish. This would be similar to the 'push out' controls in 9 ball.

This is admittedly slightly alien to the natural game but would I believe be fair in most instances unless anyone can come up with situations where it wouldnt be.

It seems to strike a balance between the person missing their shot gaining a fluked advantage they dont deserve and the opponent getting an advantage they dont necessarily deserve due to time out misfortunes etc.

As for straight Adam - I totally agree with what you say. Again the option to put the opponent back into play following a foul might be a good compromise rather than ball in hand?

I'm all in for the automatic foul!

same here.

In fact I disagree.

The rules state what constitutes a legal shot. In order to meet any of those criteria, you clearly need to make your shot in the first place. Not doing so negates the entire possibility of a legal shot - which is why Nick's suggestion is 100% in order here.

And you can't compare with pub games which are more casual and in general in no need of any time limits.

In competition games though, where you have a referee, you get warned and ultimately DQed if taking too long.


Another idea:

If we implemented a chess clock system, we could in fact skip the shot clock all together and play on total time only. If someone spends 5 minutes on a single shot, that would be just fine - he would then proceed to lose on his overall time instead.

Edited at 13:48 Thu 14/05/09 (BST)

If you want to pity players who miss their clocks involuntarily, the random shot is a hopeless system in that regard too.

1. Missed shots are MOST of the time the player's own fault

2. Random shots MOST of the time leads to a foul or a bad shot

Conclusion: Random shots MOST of the time gives the player they deserve. The problem is that in the cases where the random shot turns out positive, most of that time the luck is rewarding a player who don't deserve it.

So the percentage of random shots that are actually positive AND happens to a player deserving it is a tiny, tiny part, far less than 1%. In a lot larger part of the time, the positive shot rewards a player not deserving it.

Not quite true jan since currently the random shot takes the shot on your behalf which may or may not turn out to be a legal one. There's no difference there between that and someone grabbing the mouse or touchpad whilst you are away doing something else and playing the shot instead of you.

The issue is clearly to have a random shot or automatic foul. I certainly prefer the automatic foul option to how it is now.

Good idea, but takes too much time.

Personally, I prefer my latest idea: Chess clock for overall time, add overall time to ALL matches (selectable, much like the current shot clock is, and remove shot clock completely.

I'm sure that was Keith's (horse10000) idea which I first posted on his behalf almost two years ago

But yes I still think that would solve a lot of the timing/dq issues generally on here.

Oh I know chess clocks have been suggested and discussed many times, but never seen the side-spin of letting this allow the removal of a shot clock entirely. If that's the case, kudos to whomever thought of it first

I'm not sure people would support removing the shot clock entirely (for each and every game type) - surely you could end up sitting around for a long time waiting for something to happen?

What would equal the automatic dq of 3 fouls now? Presumably that would still have to have a time limit?

Yes you could - I fail to see the problem with that tho - it only hurts the active player who is wasting his own time, heading toward a DQ at warp speed.

This system (without a shot clock) would most definitely require an audible sound whenever it's your turn though.

I personally wouldnt want to sit waiting, say 5 minutes or more, till someone's clock runs down just to get a win. If i am playing a game I want to play - winning isnt that important.

On the other hand, if you were to get booted from the game after maybe one period of 60 seconds or so of inactivity then that might not be so bad. Although I still think it wouldnt be popular to a lot of people if applied to all games with the shock clock removed permanently.

Better as an option I would suggest but probably the default for tournament games.

The problem with that is that if you are lucky enough to be involved in a good safety game, both players would be forced to take action to break it up or risk being DQ'd for effectively no reason.

I think the best compromise, if there has to be one, is to offer the opponent the next shot if the timer runs out, with a random shot penalty as it is now if they don't accept.

That way nobody can complain about the random shot "going against them", since they actively chose that option.

My problem with the foul idea is that no POOL rule has been broken, and the random shot penatly is already punishment for breaking the site rule of not being able to take your shot in the time allocated.

We currently have a fair and advanced system in place, it seems a real shame when the rest of the site is moving forwards, to make a step back.

This effect is, imo, a good thing. Both players are facing their own respective match time and that's all they have to worry about. If you start getting short of time, then yes you have a problem, and yes, that's the entire idea of having a time limitation at all

At least in this system the slower player gets DQed instead of both, like we do now.

Although I said that i would prefer to keep the random shot, that was only when compared to automatic fouls. I think that there must be a better way forward than either of those methods.

To build on the chess clock idea (which has been around for a while), how about also having a generous shot clock (e.g. 1 minute), to prevent waiting for your opponent's shot for 5-10 minutes? The main issue would still be: how long to allow on a player's clock for a frame?

Are we gradually moving towards something that people would agree with or is there still a better idea out there? Hopefully, with enough discussion, we'll find it (can't make a post without a smiley)

Main problem with keeping a longer shot clock is that we're stuck with the same problem all over again: What do we do when that time runs out without the player having taken his shot?

As for the total frame clock, that would have to be a bit of trial and error I guess, but could also largely be based on statistical data of our average game durations.

A few people have said that sometimes 'real life' and connection problems will get in the way of your game and this is not the players fault, which is very true, but its certainly not your opponants fault either! I support the idea of an automatic foul, makes complete sense to me.

The same as if the total clock expires, hence why it is generous. Not playing a shot withing 1 minute or not ending the game before your total clock finishes could both lose you the frame. I don't see how people could complain about that. As you say, the length of the total timer would need careful consideration.

The overall clock needs to be whatever the current frame time is, divided by two as far as I'm concerned.

Any player not finishing their game within that time deserves a DQ.

Nobody gets DQ'd at the moment, games can go on for hours, just like the real game, and just like any billiards game should do.

There is a massive difference between shot time and match time, in effect this would be creating a completely new game type, and one which certainly doesnt appeal to me.

On snooker, we would be eliminating traditional snooker and forcing everyone to play a premier league style.

Ugh.



The current frmae time is whatever time it takes the players to play thier shots multiplied by the number of shots played.

How you plan to calculate that prior to the game starting, I look forward to hearing...

Edited at 23:30 Fri 15/05/09 (BST)