Just popping in to say I also think the random shot is stupid.

only nick can add game modes so would need to convince him, i would add Snooker Plus, Team Killer and possibly Straight Snooker (once people can figure out the rules) if it was me.

I was being sarcastic dgen
I was saying that we already have Premier League Snooker as a game type- it's normal snooker with a shot timer...

yeah so was i, its unlikely he would add more types anyway

yeah i agree if they want real snooker make an unlimited time limit shot clock (if people don't want it then don't join ) then no need for a random shot generator

I think we should just turn this into FunkyForums.com and get rid of the snooker game. That way all problems that do occur will be solved and everyone would be happier.

We do. See Power Snooker.



Wrong. There is a penalty for not taking your shot within the time limit. Call it a "time foul" if you want. That penalty is losing the right to take the shot you want, a pretty hefty penalty no matter what the outcome.



I've suggested this each time the subject has come up, just look back a few posts, but nobody seems interested...

Edited at 01:18 Thu 24/05/12 (BST)

Two things here:

- If you suggested this, I must've missed it. But that would certainly be a solution that most people could live with, since it eliminates the advantage the offender could currently get.

- If this were to be applied, it would have the same effect as a foul. But the whole time you've been saying people shouldn't punished with a foul for time fouls? Seems contradictory.

By the way, I didn't make the term "time foul" up. It's in the official rules of Premier League Snooker and Snooker Shootout.

no matter what happens on the random shot, the opponent gets control with the option of passing it back.

I thought that if the random shot happens and the the correct ball is hit by luck you don't get the option to 'pass it back' as they committed no foul.

Yeah, which is why I'm pretty sure that spinner never suggested this, since it would essentially classify it as a foul. That sentence above was my suggestion for a possible solution, since spinner wants to hang on to his random shot.

Sorry misinterpreted the meaning, I thought it was saying what did happen not what should happen.

Firstly, its right here, on the 3rd page of this thread : http://www.funkysnooker.com/thread/9118/random-time-shot-penalty/3#629521

In no way does it classify anything as a foul, since there is no reward in points to the opponent.

That is the crucial difference. The opponent does not deserve any advantage, as the player has committed no foul, however the player is penalized for missing the time (whether or not it be their fault, which is debatable but another subject) and that is why where the random shot works so well. It ALWAYS penalizes the player, but doesn't make any difference at all to the opponent.

*Thats* why replacing it with a foul cannot work.

It does penalise because you get a random but if you pot from the random then it effects the opponent therefore not penalising at all times?

lol I'm going to quit arguing against your logic, since we seem to have found a possible solution that satisfies everyone.
Everyone else that has ever invented a snooker game with timed shots has come to a different conclusion than you, including most of the people that have commented here.

The post you've linked to doesn't have the suggestion we're talking about.

"Or, pass the play to the opponent and then make their shot a random, then nobody can complain if it pots a red."

You mean that?? That's completely different!
I am suggesting that the random shot be taken. After the random shot, no matter what has happened (even if a ball on was potted), control passes to the opponent who has the choice to take the next shot or pass back.

Spinner just ban whocares8x8!

lol he might...

This is what is so often misunderstood - even if it makes what to the opponent may look like a helpful shot, the chances of it playing exactly the shot the player would have played is virtually zero.

What happens as a result of that shot is completely irrelevant as the penalty has been administered and the game has moved on.

The game would move on just as well by passing the shot over without a random whack. If this was football, Im gonna take a Penalty Kick, Im standing there thinking about my shot...what happens If I dont take my shot within a few seconds of the ref blowing the whistle? The ref calls a foul and would award a freekick to the opponent. The referee would not walk up to the ball and randomly kick it... INTO THE NET and awarding a point to the team. Its the same principle!

And I dont think the opponent cares if they have a random shot that either A) Pots a ball for them or B) Snookers the opponent.

So how is that irrelvant as, when the 2 players accepted to play a game of snooker, with a specific shot clock, both players are aware of this rule, and therefore it is breaking the game rule that they have not taken a shot and as far as im concerned it is a Missed Ball.

It seems common sense! It doesnt need a random shot! Whacking the ball randomly does not move the game on, I dont see the logic in that statement whatsoever.

And by removing this Random Shot and passing play over... I guarentee that 99.9% of players would give it a thumbs up! Its the sensible thing to do!

AND! If Real Life Snooker had the rule of the 20 secnod shot clock.. I somehow think they would pass the shot over with a foul dont you?

Edited at 23:12 Thu 24/05/12 (BST)

Which is exactly what they do in every existing snooker game with a timer (Premier League Snooker, Snooker Shootout- where it's even ball in hand, Power Snooker). Funky remains the exception!

Next we must find a solution to your opponent fluking in normal play...

Because thats what is trying to be done here!

But at least they are flukes played by the player and not a computer shot. Theres a difference.