Nobody has a problem with flukes in general. People have a problem with an advantage being received when a player times out. The player that times out should never profit from not taking a shot- on 0.0% of occasions, not more.

Edited at 23:51 Thu 24/05/12 (BST)

Player gets timed out, pots a ball. Thats a fluke.

Definition of a fluke: chance occurrence; an accident.

Absolutely no different than any other possible fluke that occurs during a game.

How many times has this happened to anybody? I think once ever in the 4 years I have been playing has it happened to me. And I think once its ever happened against me.
Thats twice in probably 5000 games I have played.
And so what if he flukes? Maybe he had a bad connection? Its happened me in the past. I couldnt take a shot because of lag and I timed out on simple shots with balls over the pocket. Couldnt miss! Random shot and fouled!

Edited at 00:00 Fri 25/05/12 (BST)

He hasn't potted a ball. The computer has potted a ball for him. Why would anyone support that?

It also doesn't matter how many times it happens. The change would bring that number down to 0.

It makes a mockery of any skill that's part of this game. On any occasion. When a fluke occurs from a random shot, that's silly. Similarly, if the opponent profits because the random shot smashes the pack open, that similarly takes any skill out of it by leaving an open table to the opponent.

The obvious solution is to do what any other snooker game with a shot timer does- hand the shot to the opponent with option.

Its an online game. Its really not life or death. For real rules, play real snooker.

For the amount of times it occurs, its really not worth this level of debate or change.

True, but why not improve something when it's possible?

^^ Certainly, but handing a ball over and treating a non-foul like a foul would be a big step back and much less fair than the current situation.

An improvement has to make things better, not worse.



Exactly, but for some reason, nobody ever wants to take up that part of the debate...

Why not having a voting for that to see peoples opinion.

I fully sign Seb's opinion. Every ball not shot by the player himself is not in sense of online gaming. If you let pass the shot time its your own fault and has nothing to do with bad connections as players then are 'not responding'. Any thing else is in responsibility of the player and to be treated like a foul!

Flukes are a totally different story!!!

I have taken up that part of the debate, but this is being ignored. A player has to "earn" a fluke by actually making the conscious decision to take a shot. When a computer pots for you, that's not in the spirit of the game.

"treating a non-foul like a foul"- Completely wrong. In all snooker games that have a timer (funky has a timer), not taking a shot within the time limit is considered a foul. Look it up!
It is only funky that does not have this (yet).

I wasn't sure at first, but the argument that having a computer pot a ball for you is NOT an advantage seems really far out there. In the beginning (meaning a year ago), I really thought you were just messing with us.

But back to the suggestion that you may or may not have made (your link to the third page didn't have the suggestion I was talking about)- you would be ok with a random shot taken and regardless of the result, play passes over with option?

Nooo dont do that! Luck is part of the game. I would be more angry about going through like that, than I would be by losing because of fluke.

As for the OP. Happened to me couple of times and I agree that passing the shot over would be for the best.

far as i know nick's always wanted the site as close to real snooker as possible, as i have said before i have never seen a referee come up to the table and take a players shot for them but i have seen the pass back option in Premier League and thats real snooker despite not being main snooker your thinking of.



Edited at 14:08 Fri 25/05/12 (BST)

I wouldn't do it now because of ranked tournies, back then it was all friendlies so you didn't mind being a good sportsman as you didn't lose anything

My point still stands. Maybe we should start debating the merits of introducing a referee into all funky games too if we want to make it as close to realistic as possible? Just get rid of the time limit too while we are at it.

Nobody has explained the difference so far between fluking a normal shot and fluking on a random shot. A fluke occurence is still a fluke occurence regardless. The outcome is the exact same.
People keep saying "gaining an advantage" as if it is a deliberate attempt at cheating. Its "gaining an advantage" in the exact same manner as any other fluke. The fluke by definition was not intended.

I did suggest an idea where to have a time limit where you could take long as you like (you could get a protractor out and a ruler for 60 seconds each shot ) and since no time limit = no random shot penalty, i know people will say that they will be bored etc but if you don't like the limit you can create one to suit you

problem solved both ways then

Seriously?


As I said twice before, a normal fluke was still a shot taken by a player rather than a computer. Nobody has a problem with that. What people have a problem with is someone not taking a shot and being rewarded for it.

Just think it is another case of players ranked professional\virtuoso in most disciplines wanting to tailor the game more in their favour, or influence their strict\serious ideas onto the site. I say this because I somehow cannot imagine a serious professional\virtuoso player concentrating on anything other than a match, meaning he\she is highly unlikely to "time out", yet benefit from a "fluke" shot penalty...Whether it's because they have been dealt this "fluke" when playing a newbie or something? I don't know..

The majority of players come on here occasionally, have casual frames and leave without thinking about it the next morning. They are not bothered about making the rules any more serious than they already are (which are pretty damn serious already considering nick says this is a "family friendly" site), which means the invention of "straight snooker" is just a matter of time! (oh dear!)

A fluke is still a fluke regardless of whether it is by a person (through the medium of a computer), by the computer itself or by an alien from a distant universe.
Absolutely no difference.

What does this have to do with virtuoso ranking?

Why anyone would want the computer taking a shot for you or your opponent is beyond me.

Why don't we just let the computer take all the shots for us?
Making a conscious decision to take a shot is what people do in snooker. Having a computer take a shot for you is not what people do in snooker.

If I could like a post, this would be the first one I would like.

I think that there is a parallel between players ranked highly wanting a more serious game, hence proper rules, and those who don't take the game as seriously not caring.

You only have to look at the majority of players asking for the rules to be changed to see it!