Snooker
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 51 comments are related to the topic:
Will Ronnie O'Sullivan ever lose the stigma of his cheating?
Will Ronnie O'Sullivan ever lose the stigma of his cheating?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 51
|
By:
Fair enough treb, I figured he needed snookers alright, just looked a fairly uncommon frame score is all
 Gonna definitely try and figure out what the championship league is one of these days! |
|
By:
what a load of bo11ocks about ronnie i take notice from the players and except for one they all agree ronnie never knew about the foul in the british open
|
|
By:
I think the Betfair forum pulls less punches than most other places of debate, maybe we are just a bunch of moody b*******, but looking at these other forums comments they are just stupid, like "Ronnie don't need to cheat" or "Ronnie always calls his fouls" and "Ronnie was not looking at the red he was following the white"
But now if you are saying 127 pros say he did not know and only one believes he did that's a bit more powerful, I don't use Twitter or places like that, has there been a poll taken? or if you are saying a handful have supported Ronnie and one has not that to me would mean nothing, in fact I think the silence of the vast majority would be quite damming. |
|
By:
From the discussion we had on Saturday night, only a handful of pros had voiced any kind of opinion. Robbo supported him wholeheartedly, Allen reminisced about an incident where he smashed up half the table with the rest, and apparently there was one "salty comment", but I don't think it was attributed to anyone.
For me, and Wonder pointed out that Ronnie's a terrible actor before the interview, the whole "What, what, what? What am I looking at?!?" thing was completely over-acted. "The commentator should have stopped the match!" Brilliant. The Eurosport guys ("Mates") exonerated him before any discussion even took place. And, seemingly, there has been no subsequent mention of it AT ALL since. Ronnie literally sat there in silence on Sunday night in the commentary box when Davis feathered the white and called a foul upon himself. IF it was dodgy, I can understand why the sport would want to gloss over it as quickly as possible. It's not in its interests for its biggest box office pull to be considered a cheat. |
|
By:
Rob Milkins it was with the barbed comment. “Sure the red hardly moved”. He might just have been trying to be funny but sounded pretty salty to me anyway.
I’m pretty much with trebor here. We might think we’re all clued in snooker fans here and objective when it comes to judgement of deed or character, but we’re a minority, we’re not the snooker establishment nor the army of casual fans who almost to a man or woman can’t see ronnie doing any wrong. Other comments I have come across over the past few days: “it’s so obvious that he mustn’t have seen the red move.” “Ronnie offered a replay [actually an utterly ridiculous thing to do which he surely knew] because he felt so bad for his opponent, that’s the sort of man he is.” If Ronnie came out and admitted he threw the sf on purpose, they’d still find a way of commending him, that’s just how it is. Out of interest if I threw the name John parrot into this conversation would folk instantly know what I was referring to? |
|
By:
Parrott was in an impossible situation, he played the only ball he could see and didn't commit a foul. think he is innocent even if the red had fallen.
|
|
By:
Which parrott incident is that? Have a feeling there were a couple involving him. Doesn’t sound like the 1992 world championship one.
|
|
By:
Oh your talking about the miss against Knowles, the one I put was against Davis
|
|
By:
The one I was talking about was when he potted a red and the only ball he could see was black but a red was in the jaws of the pocket, if he gave away 7 points by knocking the red in Davis needed a snooker, he tried to knock the red away with the black knowing if the red dropped it was still advantageous to him as it took 8 points off the table
|
|
By:
Oh yeah I do recall that one now, not sure about it but it’s not what I was referring to.
Why I raise the knowles one is I’m wondering whether parrott is still remembered for that - a lifetime stigma as mooted in the thread title here - and how would people compare it to the ronnie incident. Seems to me the parrott one is far more grievous than anything ron is guilty of. |
|
By:
I would say it is worse than the Ronnie incident as he had plenty of time to think about what he was about to do, Ronnie had not much more than a second to own up, both probably would like to have a second chance and act differently.
|
|
By:
It’s much worse because as you say, he had plenty of time to consider what he was doing and everybody, except ref apparently, sees what’s happening too.
But I just don’t believe careers are stigmatized by these things in any serious way. Do people still talk about the boulder moving incident with Tiger Woods at the Phoenix Open years back? Or the drop at the masters. Will Serena Williams career be undermined by her hissy fit at the us open? No I think is the answer, not in any significant way. Same here. Most will have forgotten it within a short space of time. |