Although sometimes it cant be helped if you miss a shot, fact is you shouldn't be awarded a possible fluke for something you didnt actually do yourself, if we base it on that theory whenever im next in trouble il just let it time out and hope i get one of the flukes lol.

As whocares says a ball in hand would be a fair solution imo, Don't know how it can be argued that if you could get it then the random shot will count, the fact is they never got it lol and with the new double points system in tournaments etc it's hardly fair to lose to say a 600 rank when you in the high 800's because they could have maybe got the shot.

You say it's more of a punishment to the person who times out, but the real punishment is to the player who is there playing which seems a bit daft. Rant over lol.

The thing is Spinner, while your argument is to an extent valid, everyone here is calling for 100% penalty against the opponent, just a loss of shot or ball in hand or just take control of the game.

There is an alotted time limit, the player agrees to this limit when he/she joins the room. If that person can not play a shot in the agreed time limit they should be penalised 100% of the time not 99.999% of the time.

Random shots have worked in my favour and against me before now, and it is rather annoying when I have a 90 second shot clock, watch someone time out to then get avery lucky random shot to then time down to 10 seconds their next shot and go on and win the game. Surely they should lose their right to play on if they break the agreement of the shot timer rules.

I know what you will say about the timer etc but I have 90 seconds to try avoid things like this and give people time to think, and quite frankly if they can't think of a sho in that time and then get a random and get flukey that is out of order and the other person would feel hard done by.

agreed should be a foul.

But that makes absolutely no difference to the opponent, and even if the random does get someone out of a snooker or win a frame for them it is still a penalty 100% of the time because they were deprived of the chance to make the shot they would have themselves.

Again - the outcome is entirely irrelevant, the penalty is to lose the chance to play the shot you want, which is pretty hefty IMO.



As I have always said, if the game were made so it was a shot clock style game, I hae no problem with it being a ball in hand or a forfiet of frame, for that matter. The fact is, as it stands, no foul has been made, so no opponent should be rewarded.

How about this : After the shot clock has run out the random shot takes place anything up to 10 seconds after - and remove the "random shot" notification.

That way no-one will know whether a shot was random or hit and hope. Or are we to deem hit and hope shots as fouls too~?

It makes a massive difference to me because on a fluke the opponent actually hit the shot! I am fine with flukes, because they are part of the game. Having a computer pot the ball is NOT part of the game. That is the difference.
Can you also clarify what you mean by "shot clock style game"? I think it's pretty clear that the opponent agrees to take shots within the time limit when starting the game.
The only problem right now is that the rule on funky says a random shot will take place instead of "ball in hand" or "foul + pass back option".
I just see no scenario at all in which a random shot is a better solution than a ball in hand or a foul + pass back option.

Sorry but I refuse to accept that a computer playing a shot for you is a harsh enough penalty for not playing in time.

I think the real rule should be incorporated and not the farce we have currently where someone can commit the offence of not playing within the given time limit and still manage to get away with it!

agreed, maybe someone from crowd should take a random shot for ronnie for premier league, it just doesn't happen.

on snooker it is a 4 point foul (or more depending on how far it is into the game) and you have option to pass back or take shot yourself.

on pool it is a ball in hand i think in the US games, in UK you have a 2 shot carryon so thats damaging enough.

so a computer taking your shot for you is completely out of the window unless someone from the crowd does take ronnies shot for him.

If you can't take your shot in x amount of seconds then you should be punished and random shot is not the way to go.

i doubt this will ever change but i am just stating my opinion here.

To make matters worse, when the opponent who has had the random penalty and actually goes on to win the frame without having taken the initial shot leading to victory..

As I have always said, if the shot clock is incorporated into the game rules, I have no problem with the designated penalties :



The fact is, as we stand, there is nothing in any of the the game rules (except power snooker) to say that not playing within the time is a foul of any kind.

I am completely in favour of it being added as a rule, as it is one of the things I enjoy about power snooker and indeed real life pool, however, remember that the sixty seconds mentioned is at the referee's discretion. Much like caling a miss, it is simply impossible to impliment unless we have on site referees watching every player to ensure their timeout is valid!

So, we need a compromise. No foul has been commited, so no advantage should go to the opponent. How else can we penalise a player without giving the opponent an advantage they do not deserve?

Edit - how about declaring the game void? Nobody wins, nobody loses, completely fair both ways.

Edit 2 - Then again, why not just use the official penalties as if it were a rule?

Edited at 16:27 Tue 18/01/11 (GMT)

As you described above, "the incoming player is awarded two visits from where the ball lies or baulk". That's a fair punishment for 8UK. Pretty much what we've been arguing for... It is certainly better than a random shot. Unlike the "intention" aspect of the miss rule, a time countdown needs no referee.
Having watched many 9-ball tournaments in the US, there is an electronic shot clock standing on the side counting down from (usually) 30 seconds every shot. Players have 1 time extension per frame (although we don't really need this on funky). If the shot is not taken, it is ball in hand for the opponent. Referees don't make that call, there is a sound, much like in basketball.
Simple, effective, and fair.
More importantly, the fouled player doesn't lose the frame because of the opponents failure to take a shot in time.

Edited at 19:33 Tue 18/01/11 (GMT)

Again, I have no problem with the penalty being ball in hand/2 shots or whatever the official rule for that game is.

The referees function is to allow more time if it is deemed fair. As many have said, why should you be double punished for something not your fault (network lag, cat eating mouse etc). A timeout button has been sugested but obviously this wont work as the point is you're not there or you would take the shot!

However, it is this ongoing sentiment that by no means is someone who does not take their shot in time allowed to win that bothers me.

What if a player misses their shot, the opponent gets ball in hand, and then pots the black and loses. Is that *still* going to be wrong? After all, that would be the player who does not take their shot in time gaining from doing so.

Likewise, how do you propose to prevent someone who times out early in a frame from fluking a win later on?

Now, you may say, these are all irrelevant, but the arguments up till now have all been saying that it is what happens after the missed shot that matters, so...

No these arguments are irrelevant:
All we are saying is someone should not be able to continue to shoot or profit from having a computer take their shot.
What the player who gets ball in hand chooses to do with his shot has nothing to do with the penalty. That is the normal flow of gameplay. Not shooting in time has not caused the black to go in. The shot of the player shooting afterwards caused the black to pot.
We don't need to prevent that. If the player who timed out wins the game later on (after the appropriate penalty has been assessed) that is fine. It will not be a win as a result of the timeout.
You are talking about the shots after the appropriate penalty. We are talking about the shot that causes the penalty itself.

How about we introduce the death 'Penalty' for those who don't take their shot.

Time is up - Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmm

You sure? :





Ah but the computer is not "taking their shot" - that would be completely unfair and unquestionably wrong. What happens is that a random shot, in both power and direction is taken.

As you say, what happens, who wins etc, after that is done is irrelevant.

I still think adding the shot clock to the rules for each game would be the ultimate solution.

i was playing earlier and i snookered someone time ran out and the random penalty went off and hit there ball out of the snooker they then went on to win the game.(it was an amazing snooker aswell.. lol)

i think it should be classed as a foul and you should receive 2 shots that would make more sense.

If there were to be a change to the official rules, I would be in favour of something I hae alway opposed in the past - a time extension.

This would eliminate people feeling hard done by if they cant play within the time due to some outside influence (phone call, someone at door etc - things that do not affect the real life game).

I would suggest that the first time either player does not play within the alloted time, a 60 second extension is automatically started.

It would be one extension per frame, as these incidents should be quite rare, to help prevent misuse.

The problem I see regardiing a time extension of 60 seconds, where applicable, could have a severe effect on the outcome of a game. Especially where it were a speed game!

Additionally, if you were in a game where the time limit was about to be announced, ie Time warning, players have 5 minutes to complete this round puts another unwarranted pressure on the completion of the game.

Edited at 08:20 Fri 21/01/11 (GMT)

Yes, both very valid points and the gut reaction is that some method of keeping the game moving is much preferred.

Like, perhaps, the player forfeiting their shot, a random one being taken in its place, and the game continuing..

Spinner, when you say change to the official rules, do you mean the rules in the help section on funky? (I don't see the rules saying a random shot should be taken)
If all it takes to get rid of random shot is a sentence in the rules section, then I'm all for it!

Friday 25/02/11!

I was playing a game in 8 ball pool uk against dam1269!

I tried to shoot, but i was just too late with my shot:

random shot for me = foul!

1 shot later:

dam1269 didn't play his shot:

random shot for him = site potted a ball for him!

after that he finished!

If i lose: no problem, but this way is not really fair i think!