If you read the February issue of Snooker Scene you may have seen a story in which we reported Michael Holt had been fined £1,000 for swearing at the qualifiers.
Unfortunately, the information we were given has turned out to be wrong.
One of the problems of reporting disciplinary matters is that the WPBSA do not comment on them (although they used to in years gone by) so we are left to piece together information from other sources.
Nevertheless, we regret this inaccuracy and will be publishing a correction in the March issue.
19 comments:
Surely the WPBSA is not to blame for this also.
I agree with the above comment. Poor though the WPBSA are, it is unbelievable that you have to include them as a reason for YOUR inaccuracy!
Actually, if the WPBSA announced disciplinary decisions, as is routine in other sports, this story would never have started circulating.
So yes, like most things wrong in snooker, it is their fault.
If Michael Holt wants to disclose the details of his punishment then that is fair enough, but the governing body has to respect the confidentiality of its members. For all you know (above poster) Michael may not have wanted the details made public - as, in a disciplinary matter - is his right.
the rules are the rules, whether you agree with them or not.
you choose what you think is worth publishing, or what fits in the free space per issue
getting it wrong is not the fault of the governing body not furnishing you with the info. getting it wrong is "your" fault for not sourcing accurate info.
if a publication reported a manchester united player for being fined for hitting a team mate during training and it was published in a magazine as such but was not correct, that same magazine would not blame the teams management for not furnishing them with the accurate account of the story. if they did it would be absurd.
obviously "your" opinion may differ from this, but that is how i see it, and several people ive spoke to about it so far since you posted this.
not that it is that important
"you" made an error. "you" are fixing it. the only part i feel in the extract didnt need to be there was the inference that the governing body added to you making an error. "you" made an error cause you went with inacurate info.
imho
ive just read that back and it reads at a dig at you dave, or snooscene
it wasnt meant as such.
any reports on the world of snooker is welcomed and during the course of a year a mistake or two can happen, so please dont take that as if it was a direct dig. it was more of a moan at the "inference".
keep up the good work Dave- it is fair comment that a lack of disciplinary transparancy in world snooker contributes to rumours and inaccuracies. We still await news of an announcement of an investigation into Ebdom/Wenbo from last August.
My God, I wasn't blaming World Snooker. It was our fault. We found out it was wrong yesterday morning and corrected it yesterday afternoon.
In 38 years this is the first time we have ever had to print a correction, which isn't a bad strike rate.
Dave H said...
My God, I wasn't blaming World Snooker. It was our fault. We found out it was wrong yesterday morning and corrected it yesterday afternoon.
In 38 years this is the first time we have ever had to print a correction, which isn't a bad strike rate.
------------------------------
i dont think people thought you directly blamed world snooker
more that the mention of them not furnishing "you" with accurate info was in no way related to you getting it wrong.
"If Michael Holt wants to disclose the details of his punishment then that is fair enough, but the governing body has to respect the confidentiality of its members. For all you know (above poster) Michael may not have wanted the details made public - as, in a disciplinary matter - is his right."
What absolute nonsense. What other governing body decides to "respect the confidentiality of its members" by not making these things public?
And since when has it been a player's right in any sport to keep the details of a disciplinary decision private?
Yes, Snooker Scene made a mistake, but if World Snooker made their decisions public, as all other sports do routinely, then Snooker Scene would have known the story about Michael Holt was incorrect when they heard it. And then it would never have been published.
then thered be a lot less in snooker scene as wed get "all" the info we want from WS.
there is more than one issue here
i agree WS should make things public more than they do
but that is totally separate to the FACT that ss did not get it wrong because of anything WS did or didnt do
it got it wrong because it went on information it believed to be correct which wasnt.
now, ok had WS already made it public then ss would have had a place to check with confidence
it didnt.
that is no excuse for getting it wrong
hence why they are saying they got it wrong by printing a correction
If Michael Holt wants to disclose the details of his punishment then that is fair enough, but the governing body has to respect the confidentiality of its members. For all you know (above poster) Michael may not have wanted the details made public - as, in a disciplinary matter - is his right.
"What absolute nonsense. What other governing body decides to "respect the confidentiality of its members" by not making these things public?
And since when has it been a player's right in any sport to keep the details of a disciplinary decision private?"
If you go into work this week check your HR manual which will confirm the confidentiality aspect. The fact that SS incorrectly reported the facts means that either M.Holt himself had not been approached by SS or he had but was unwilling to comment. SS is apologising so that should be the end of it, and hopefully in the magazine there will be no inference of blame for their inaccuracy on the WPBSA for not disclosing any information.
hey at least one of the very rare articles in this blog that doesn't use whatever incident to praise he skills of Ronnie O'Sullivan
i see this post is getting swamped by yes men which is sad to see.
all disciplinary matters involving household names are a matter of public interest, if the sporting governing body is going to operate in high secrecy for no good reason then snooker scene should be lauded for trying to obtain the information, unfortunately this means you will ocassionally get the odd mistake but that is the govening bodies fault, not snooker scenes.
"If you go into work this week check your HR manual which will confirm the confidentiality aspect."
michael holt is not an employee of world snooker so um you are totally wrong really, really just wrong.
Anonymous said...
i see this post is getting swamped by yes men which is sad to see.
all disciplinary matters involving household names are a matter of public interest, if the sporting governing body is going to operate in high secrecy for no good reason then snooker scene should be lauded for trying to obtain the information, unfortunately this means you will ocassionally get the odd mistake but that is the govening bodies fault, not snooker scenes.
5:41 PM
-------------
what a load of crap you speak!
Anonymous said...
"If you go into work this week check your HR manual which will confirm the confidentiality aspect."
michael holt is not an employee of world snooker so um you are totally wrong really, really just wrong.
5:44 PM
-----
"he" never said he was an employee of WS did "he"?
No!
so, erm, you are really, just really, really wrong!
Looks like Snooker Scene's tabloid headline on this subject wasn't just inappropriate it was totally inaccurate as well.
May I suggest the heading for next month's apology:
"WPBSA to blame for both Snooker Scene's inaccuracy and in the collapse of the world banking systems"
What actually happened with Holt?
Post a Comment