Watch me lol. One is allowed, the other isn't.

I know what you're trying to say; seen from the server side, there's is no technical difference. This is correct, but it is also irrelevant. Since we CAN distinguish whether a human has taken the shot vs. the client software, we should. In one case you have fulfilled the requirement to take your shot before the time expires - in the other you have not, and deserve a foul.

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree. We've both said all there is to say about this by now I think, so lets let others have their say as well

Full marks for trying to get the final word ..

....but actually I think you will find they are both allowed

I'm sure anyone else that wants to post will do lol

thats what diversity means - equality and fairness to all

Well that's precisely what Nick is questioning by this thread.

Not at the moment, as we are playing to normal pool rules.

Lets not forget the random shot is already a penalty. How often do you think the random shot is EXACTLY, in every way, the same shot the player would have played had they taken the shot?

Even in the very rare circumstance when the random shot *appears* to have gone in someones favour, the chances are it has destroyed thier gameplan and has negative effects for the rest of the frame.



This is far from a wild suggestion, it is absolutely perfect and removes all possible frustrations for those who feel hard done by.

The problem is that a random shot *can* benefit the timeout player at the expense of the opponent(s). There is nothing that could ever defend that.

The only way to ensure a timed out player never gets the upper hand as a consequence is to grant an automatic foul.



This would change absolutely nothing, since there will be no doubt what so ever about which are random shots and which are not, even if they aren't announced. I already rarely look down to check if it's a random or not as it is - it's simply not necessary in order to know.


We are starting to repeat ourselves anyway, we've always disagreed on the principles behind this type of debate, you have in general a much more amiable and casual view on this game than I do so lets just agree to disagree

Edited at 20:07 Sun 17/05/09 (BST)

The random shots are very annoying, especially when it makes an amazing shots.

Grrr they are annoying.

Post removed by forum moderator

Replacing the random shot generator?

What will happen to Steve and Jim?

Spinner, I know what your saying however;



If that event is true (we can only take robbean's word) that should never happen. Where's that disavantage to the offending player

Problem is that some seem to think running out of time isn't a fault on the part of that player at all...

But certainly it is even less so a fault on the part of the other player, right? The only remotely fair solution is to give the other player ball-in-hand and be done with it.

You could obviously have simply let the ball stay and hand over the table, but that would been exploited to the moon and back.

The disadvantage to the other player is that they didnt get to take the shot themselves, therefore the chances of it turning out to be a win or to their advantage at all are very slim.

Saying a random shot should never have a positive outcome is like saying flukes should never happen

I can't see any possible problem with handing the table over and letting the ball stay. After all, if the opposing player doesnt want to play from there, they simply return the favour. If the initial player still doesn't respond, they will forfiet the game on the 3rd timeout.

However, that would all be very clinical and boring, and the random shot is quick and fun!

No contest there IMO

Lets not forget - the "random shot grump" occurs usually in about 3-4 monthly timescales, and thats only one player moaning about one shot out of the hundreds playing thousands of games consisting of hundreds of thousands of shots!

Everyone else seems happy enough

Also note that many who support the idea are looking for a way of gaining an advantage, rather than suggesting a fair alterative...

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

True enough, since the one starting it will be the one timing out first. That is an absolute requirement for that not to be a problem though.

But back on track... Dave, you do a whole lot to defend the random shot and counter any arguments regarding its flaws... So a simple question: Why!?

I can agree that all the problems associated with random shots are wildly exaggerated and virtually irrelevant, but to turn this around: Random shot holds no advantages worth keeping either... It's in no way faster than an automatic foul, and it's not guaranteed to favor the player who deserves it.

So in short, instead of defending why random shots aren't so bad, lets turn it around and have you elaborate why they are a better solution than an automatic foul (or handing over the table) instead...

Edited at 16:50 Sat 23/05/09 (BST)

Perhaps spinner read that above and thinks whats the point!!

Because in all the years and all the threads about it I have yet to see a fairer or more logical solution suggested.

Yes, I have lent my support for alternatives, like a couple suggested here, but they would all be a step back.

I really do think the ultimate solution is the simple removal of the announcement. In that way, no matter how much you may suspect due to timings etc, you can never conclusively "blame the random shot" for anything.

Trying to ask again:

What is good about the random shot?

Is this a matter of choosing the lesser evil, or do you actually think random shots are fair? In the latter case, I would very much like to try to understand why...

Good points :

Fair
Innovative
Logical
Entertaining

Bad Points :

Once in a blue moon cause a forum rant from someone who doesn't realise the irony of complaining about being beaten by a random shot.. (actually, that can be a good point too depending how entertaining the thread is)

Innovative and entertaining I can easily understand and agree on.


Fair on the other hand.... that one requires some elaboration I'm afraid. Same goes for the logic bit

Rules or not, making a (manual) shot within the time limit IS the sole responsibility of the active player. I really hope you don't disagree on that one. We don't need to call it a foul, we don't need to talk about rules at all, but it's still their responsibility. It certainly can't be anyone else's! Therefore, the consequences should always be in the favor of the other players - at the expense of the player who failed to make his shot in time (regardless of reason)

To use a similar setup for table handover with ball in hand:

Good points:
100% Fair - always and without exception
Fast (not big deal when compared to random shots, but still a bonus)
Logical (far more so than the random nature of the current system)

Bad points:
None that I can see. It never ever fails to place the consequences where they belong, and never ever fails to move the game along in a smooth way.

It also never impacts game build-up and strategy - whereas the random shot often helps a newbie without them even realizing (not just potting, but other shots they should have chosen too, like breaking open a pack at the right time, potting an opponent ball blocking a corner you need early rather than late, etc etc. There's a lot more ways a random shot may reward the slow player in than simply potting their own balls)

I will letting the pc play the shot on your behalf is as valid an option if you cant do it yourself as getting someone else to play the shot on your behalf.

Twice in straight league games now I have played whilst 'on call' fielding phone calls. I have risked letting the random play the shot on my behalf on the off chance it might play one in my favour (as it happens it didnt) but having A chance was better than having NO chance!

The point is I had the option of letting the random play the shot - and options are always good.

As far as the opponent is concerned what possible complaint can they have with me exercising that option - its likely to work in their favour anyway.

The only complaint is the fact that a ball or a snooker or a safety may have been fluked. But the same people that moan about that would also moan if the same fluke had been played by the player manually!!

The complaint is that it is an option you shouldn't have.