Just thought I would throw this up for discussion....

I was playing a match earlier and got a random shot penalty - potted my ball and went on to win the frame at that visit....

My Random "Penalty" was more like a Random "Get Out Of Jail Card".....

I would suggest that if a player times out a receives this penalty they should automatically lose their turn - then it really is a penalty

Thanks

Emily

xoxo

imo in real snooker they dont just throw the white in any direction they call a 4 point foul (or a ball in hand or 2 carry on in pools case) and the opposing player has ability to take the shot or put his opponent back in (white staying exactly where it is).

I totally agree with you Emily. It's not fair that someone can be given a random shot penalty and end up either potting one of their balls or place their opponent in a snooker.

i know spinner has mentioned previously that 9/10 the random shot is against you but i would still want it to be according to real snooker than throwing the white in a random direction.

example: my mate (now deactivated) is only player to score 5 times from a random shot in carom and ive seen a fluke in 9 ball (combo) with random shot winning the frame for them.

but if it was to real snooker i would have got a ball in hand (9 ball) or a shot with position as they was (carom)

Why not just have the random shot and then no matter what happens, the opponent gets control (with the option to give it back, like a foul in snooker).
If the 9 gets potted in 9-ball with the random shot, it gets replaced and again it is the opponent's turn. (is this what you were suggesting emily?)

A shot time limit penalty should definately be treated the same way that a miss or wrong ball foul is, whereby you either get ball in hand or two shots with carry, depending on what game you are playing4

thats exactly what I was suggesting hon

I have been suggesting this same thing for years and I still think its needed so people are penalised 100% of the time - not 99% of the time as it is now.

Ive won and lost frames because of lucky Random Shot 'Penalties' giving as emily put it a get out of jail free card...and I feel bad when I won as well.

Yahoo Pool gives the ball to the opponent when the clock times out (or did it when I played that before I found Funky) and that worked fine.

The same thing happens in killer - and it can be a major disadvantage if either a random shot penalty is applied and the white goes safe or a player is on one life and doesnt like his shot so just leaves the game leaving the next player with the same shot.

Having the ball in hand is a major advantage tho after a foul and often leads to the next player being snookered to pot. So the solution is to leave white where it is and offer the shot back to the previous opponent or if that opponent has left the game then have the ball in hand or play a free shot with no loss of life. However as janmb points out this should not leave the next player at a major disadvantage. So if you have the ball in hand in killer do you....
1. Pot and leave easy pot (being nice like janmb)
2. Pot and leave nasty snooker (if only two of you left in game then yes this is the natural option lol)

Nope, I'm happy that at least 99.999% of the time a random shot is a penalty, in that it is not EXACTLY the shot the player would have played had they had the chance.

Not getting to play the shot you want is a pretty hefty penalty IMO.

What happens after that, and the effect it has on any player or the game in general, is completely irrelevant.

Ah, I remember reading this argument in another older thread before. I usually agree with most of your opinions spinner, but this one makes little to no sense to me. Pool and snooker are results-oriented games, so how can you say that what happens after the random shot is played is irrelevant??
There is nothing you can say that will convince me that it is ok when I can potentially win a game by timing out on my shot. Nothing!

Since you're not going to agree with that, how about: What do you think of our proposal above (let's not argue in favor or against the current system)? Do you think that under our system, it is possible to gain an advantage by timing out?
The code (I'm guessing) is easy to implement, since the passing-back option is available on 9-Ball pushouts and on snooker fouls.

i disagree it is completely irrelevant

2 scenario : you play a good snooker which would leave you a frame winning opportunity (which happened to me - i was in the snooker).....i timed out while trying to figure out the angles and got a random which got me out of the snooker - potted the ball and left me with the game winning opportunity - which i won

^^ But would it still be "wrong" if you had played that shot?

I can see what you mean by the suggestion above, but I can't see how it is fair for someone to be effectively double-punished for something that isn't even against the rules.

In games where the shot clock is part of the rules, like power snooker, there is a penalty and thats fine.

If we were to adopt the proposal above, then someone running out of time would have a random shot played for them (penalty 1) then also lose control of the able no matter what (penalty 2).

I personally think one punishment is enough.

Yes, but in games with a shot clock (whether snooker or pool or anything else) the punishment ensures that the player violating the rules (by timing out) can not gain an advantage from it.
I would be ok without the random shot. So either:
-Ball in hand for the other person
-Loss of control, with the option of passing it back (so you can't gain advantage by purposely not playing)
-Any other method that ensures the person timing out can't gain an advantage
It can be done without what you call "double punishment"

again, plenty of discussions before on random shot penalties:

http://www.funkypool.com/findTopic.do?forumid=6&searchString=random+shot+penalties

Agreed, as I mentioned with power snooker above - however the timer in these games, IMO, is not a "shot clock" as there is no mention of this anywhere in the rules. The timer system exists simply to keep the online game moving since you can't physically, or otherwise, "poke" your opponent to tell them its their shot.

If it were decided to consider the timer as a shot clock then unquestionably failure to take the shot within time should definitely incur a foul or whatever punishment is defined in that games rules.

just happened to me, you lay a great snooker the other guy hasnt got a clue and times out and then the computer decides to pot, it should be a foul....

I'm in agreement, random shot isn't a suitable enough punishment. I've argued about it before too. Emily's case is the EXACT REASON it needs changed. 1% or 99%, if it's not 100% it's not good enough. There are too many flaws with this rule.

But what if that player did play the shot?

Should it still be a foul?

For any argument against the random shot penalty to be correct then the answer must be yes...

What if he did pot it? How is this an argument?? He didn't. The computer potted it for him.
This is pool, where there actually is a shot clock in reality (unlike the argument you made on snooker). He has violated the rule that you have to play within the time limit.
Why not just make the penalty a ball in hand or something else. This would avoid all these obvious problems...