Snooker
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Oct 18
10:45
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Mar 11
Firstly, let's nail the lie that he didn't know what he had done - anyone who has played the game to a high level knows that if the man with the greatest touch in snooker history moves a ball three inches with his cue, he knows that's what he's done.
So, can he ever make up for cheating a fellow pro in a tournament? Not for me. He's no longer the Rocket, no longer the only player worth paying to see, he's a common or garden cheat.
He has made the choice not to call that foul on himself, because he's bang under it in a game he was nailed on to win, and for this very simple reason: he thinks he is above the game.
We all know he's chucked the semi after realising he can't go on to win a tournament in which he has so blatantly cheated, but that's just yet another example of him cheating the game and the public.
So, can he ever make up for cheating a fellow pro in a tournament? Not for me. He's no longer the Rocket, no longer the only player worth paying to see, he's a common or garden cheat.
He has made the choice not to call that foul on himself, because he's bang under it in a game he was nailed on to win, and for this very simple reason: he thinks he is above the game.
We all know he's chucked the semi after realising he can't go on to win a tournament in which he has so blatantly cheated, but that's just yet another example of him cheating the game and the public.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 51
|
By:
Not sure how much of a stigma will remain to be honest, I think most will pretty much forget it fairly quickly, it’s just us on here who don’t get sucked into the ronnie fanboy culture you get elsewhere.
Only thing I would say in mitigation is I think you can make a distinction between what ronnie did and blatant acts of premeditated cheating. If ronnie had feathered the white, as davis did yesterday, would he have called it? I believe he would without question. The way this happened was probably such a shock, taken his brain a vital second or two to compute it, and leads him to miss the moment. A failure to act clearly but I’m less inclined than others to throw the entire book at him for it. It’s obvious he’s feeling pretty bad about it, particularly if you truly believe he yanked the sf because of it. I’ve said already I believe he might come clean about it at some stage, maybe an updated book perhaps, though have to wait a while for it. |
|
By:
*tanked the sf ffs!!
|
|
By:
There is nothing to suggest he chucked the semi? so we don't all know he did.
|
|
By:
I missed it live. Most onlookers missed it live. That's because we were focusing on the ball's route to the pocket. Ronnie would not have been sure whether the ball was going in or not due to being side on to it. I recall reading about an experiment where people were asked to watch a clip of basketball and count the number of passes for each team - something like that - a task which required complete focus. During the clip, a man in a gorilla outfit walked across the court. None of the onlookers noticed it. AFterwards, shown the clip again, they refused to accept it could have been the same clip. I believe it's possible Ronnie was focusing so intently he didn't notice it. But if you scorn that possibility, then you're saying he DID notice it. And if he did, it must have seemed like an obvious one to him. Three inches of movement! He knows the cameras are watching and pick up on everything. I just don't think he had anything to gain in those circumstances. People are saying he was up against it, under the cosh, etc. On the other hand, it was an English open quarter final and it wasn't even the deciding frame. In the context of a career, it was a pretty meaningless moment / frame/ match. Do yo really think he would risk his reputation on that? I just can't accept it. And I'm no apologist for Ronnie's behaviour over the years.
|
|
By:
As I said Howellsy, I am not even having for a second that he didn't know he'd done it. He doesn't make the calculation about potential gain or loss to his reputation, but in the two or three seconds he has to call the foul, he decides not to.
As for there being nothing to suggest he chucked the semi, watch it again and get back to me. |
|
By:
So you don't have a reasoning for him chucking it then?
|
|
By:
Sorry? I told you above why he chucked it, and his demeanour and play strongly indicates that's how it was.
|
|
By:
So we all know his play indicates he chucked, not quite the same thing is it?
|
|
By:
Whatever mate, I'm pretty sure when it comes to snooker, and Ronnie, I know exactly what I'm looking at.
|
|
By:
But enjoy your semantic triumph, well done you.
|
|
By:
No you say we all know he chucked it, that's your opinion and that's fine, but my guess would be that you are in the minority with that opinion.
|
|
By:
I don't care about that, I've been doing this for twenty years mate and it's never done me any harm to oppose the majority view when betting on snooker, in fact all sports are the same in that respect.
I've probably made more money betting on games involving Ronnie than any other single sportsman - while he has sorted his mental state out to some degree I think you can still read his mood and level of determination within a few shots of the game starting. To be honest, I was expecting him to have realised in the day between matches that his reputation would suffer much greater harm if he went on to win the tournament than if he made a timely exit before the final. |
|
By:
Lets hang him and light him on fire.
|
|
By:
I think you're missing out two very important stages atom - tarring and feathering obviously.
|
|
By:
Yes I agree with all that, could have written the first sentence myself, and you always want to see Ronnie's temperament before putting down, just think Davis deserves some credit for the way he played.
|
|
By:
Oops
Yes I agree with all that, could have written the first sentence myself, and you always want to see Ronnie's temperament before putting your money down, just think Davis deserves some credit for the way he played. |
|
By:
Of course he does, especially given how he hasn't produced his best for a while.
|
|
By:
I'm sickened on how some people require god-level fairness from this situation.
I'm more shocked that neither referre nor opponent were paying attention! Ronnie obviosly saw what he did but didnt react to it cause no one else did.... He took the chance. And i'm pretty ****g sure that is why he lost so miserably on the final table , because he was called out afterwards for someone elses lack of professionalism!!! |
|
By:
I'm more shocked that neither referre nor opponent were paying attention! Ronnie obviosly saw what he did but didnt react to it cause no one else did.... He took the chance.
Yeah, he took the chance, and his reputation is sullied for ever. |
|
By:
jfc
|
|
By:
Just 2 points I’d make. Doesn’t matter what we, the viewers, saw or didn’t see. Ronnie’s the one best placed to see it and it’s frankly very hard to argue he could have missed it imo. There’s a lesson for the ref here too in that when rest or spider is involved be on extra guard rather than concentrating on being in a position to replace it for the player. Let him do that himself ffs
The other point is it’s a bit illogical to call ronnie out as a blatant cheat and then claim he deliberately tanked the sf. Those positions don’t follow imo. Cheats cheat because they want to win and do whatever it takes to do so without attacks of remorse or conscience that lead them to acts of self sabotage next time out. It doesn’t seem to me that ronnie actually decides anything because he does not even have time to weigh things up. He does nothing because that’s simply what instinct dictates on this occasion. However that mitigates it is up for you to decide. |
|
By:
I think they do follow - as I said I expected him to tank the semi precisely for the reasons in my previous post.
And again I think it is perfectly reasonable for him, having cheated, to feel bad about it. |
|
By:
Fair enough jed, I’m just wondering if it’d be worth trying to put this in some perspective.
In my book a common or garden cheat, as you put it, is a guy who bets his opponent to win or a doper. An athlete doped up to the gills who wins his sf by 20 meters does not normally get an attack of the guilties and then false start the final the next day. Likewise the guy betting on himself to lose does not come to his senses and start trying his absolute best to win. These are common or garden cheats and whatever law ronnie transgressed i personally would not place him in that category. |
|
By:
You have to consider his opponent as well though surely? How will being cheated out of that match affect him? When he sits down and reviews the match, he will know he lost because Ronnie cheated him.
|
|
By:
As said earlier in thread the lowest of the low,even when you're playing your mate in the club instinct you just own up even if they don't have a clue,to do that world champion at his age just sums his attitude up..imagine of reardon or davis or hendry had done that would never have heard the end of it..But now you can do anything you like,the attitude lots seem to have now and and lets all laugh about it and of course it's o'sullivan so lets not say anuthing and forget it..
|
|
By:
Yeah fair point jed, it’s unfortunate on him but I don’t see why he’s going to suffer from this. He might not have won anyway and if anything, he can take great heart from the performance. It’s not satisfactory but don’t see any consequences for him personally.
|
|
By:
he points out he never seen it in a million yrs, that's fair enough as I to don't think he sees it, I wanted to believe Ronnie would defo declare a foul on himself
it was only when i watched this back with a set of headphones on im now convinced he would of heard that distinctive sound of ferrule touching object ball and he would of also felt it his lack of performance in the semis was through sheer guilt |
|
By:
I think its easily possible he missed that.
|
|
By:
As said befire o'sullivan doesn't give a fcuk about anyone else like higgins will do anything to win,all this guilt stuff is utter nonsense he certainly didn't lose through guilt,more like fcuk i've been caiught out and look like a ****.
|
|
By:
As I said in my OP, I don't think it was guilt, more that he had a day to realise he couldn't win a tournament in which he had cheated because his conduct would have been examined in far greater detail. It was simply expedient for him to lose, so he did.
|
|
By:
I broadly agree with Jed. There literally wasn't a single mention of the previous night's events during Ronnie's defeat to Davis, or subsequently, from what I heard. Still not utterly convinced that the decision to lose on Saturday was of his own making, though....
|
|
By:
ie "It was simply expedient FOR SNOOKER for him to lose, so he did."
|
|
By:
Over their 10 previous games Davis has a reasonable record against Ronnie and I doubt he played better in any of the matches than he did on Saturday.
Profit of 11pts now from the 11 matches on Betfair, and Davis has won the only final and semi-final that they have met in, I still don't think Ronnie threw that game. |
|
By:
Checked the record to see what final davis beat OSullivan in. It’s that thing they call the championship league, whatever it is.
What caught my eye though was the score in the deciding frame: 57-2. Very unusual frame score that, guess davis could have potted a load of low colours but wonder how many reds were left when ronnie conceded! |
|
By:
Davis made a break of 55, so there were defo 4 reds potted without colours. And it was only the final of a group stage, not the overall tournament (so Ronnie would have been back for Group 6 anyway).
|
|
By:
Yes from that score you can work out a few things, like, Ronnie must have only potted 2 balls, Davis could not have committed a foul and this was one of only 2 final frame deciders they have played, Davis winning both!! But without checking which is the only one of those 3 could you guarantee?
|
|
By:
I didn't see the R.O'Sullivan v M.Davis match, so I can't comment on whether O'Sullivan consciously played well below par, but for those of you who did watch it - I'd be interested in O'Sullivan's body language particularly early on. I did think pre-match that O'Sullivan might under-perform, and might think that he'd be better off losing, but I didn't bet against him as I thought a big Saturday night match, with a full house, a lot of whom would have been supporting Davis, would see his natural instincts take over especially at the start.
|
|
By:
After Davis made 55 break it was 57-1 Ronnie potted first red of 3 left and missed black
|
|
By:
Didn’t occur to me that he was not himself till about frame 3. Though do remember him playing a safety shot in the 2nd that I thought was weird, instead of playing an obvious snooker he just played white to baulk cushion. Now while that actually led to the frame winning chance the shot still struck me as casual and odd. Anyway I’m not in the he tanked it on purpose chorus, but the feeling he just wasn’t going to over exert himself grew gradually over the course of the match. My instinct would tell me that if he could have won that match a handy 6-2 or even 6-3 he’d have willingly done so. By 1-4 it already looked like no mas.
|