The WPBSA has fined Ronnie O'Sullivan £300 plus £1,000 costs for conceding a frame early against Joe Perry in their UK Championship match last December.
He trailed Perry 23-0 at the time.
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dave - can you explain what the £1000 costs relates to and if this is broken down at all?
It doesn't cost that much to rack the balls up again surely.....
I agree, which is why it would be nice to know what this £1000 relates to. A drop in the ocean to Ronnie obviously but the term 'costs' is often used without actually being specific.
I don't know how this works but if an external lawyer acting as chairman decides the punishment even just by an exchange of documents at least a £1000 fee would arise. If an external lawyer/chairman had to go to a hearing then the costs are even more understandable.
From your previous blog: Frame concessions (2nd incident) Dave Harold - fine £150 Mark Williams - fine £150 Ronnie O'Sullivan - fine £150 Lee Spick - £150 suspended for 12 months; £1,000 costs Stephen Maguire - fine £150 Robert Milkins - fine £150 David Roe - fine £150 Jin Long - fine £150
I suppose as this was Ronnie's third incident understandable that the fine would increase (to £300), but why does Lee Spick have costs and nor Ronnie, but the others didn't?
Drives me mad how for example the BBC Snooker website doesn't even mention the qualifiers yet this story is up straight away. They aren't the only ones either.
The fine is a correct one. It was a live TV match and there is nothing whatsoever gained in the sport by such a premature concesssion. This is what the fines committee should be attempting to eradicate not someone conceding after leaving the frame ball teetering over a pocket.
I agree the fine was correct, (and it could be argued £300 for a third offence and also in a major match is quite low and hardly a deterrent) but why did just Spick and O'Sullivan incur costs - surely costs is different to fines.
2.46pm It needs to be in place as giving up frames like this isn't sporting, denies the public an opportunity to see snooker frames (or a match)- what about a football team who walked off the pitch when 3-0 down?
Again I don't know how this works but if the committee is of world snooker directors and by inference no external people on it and if world snooker has an in house solicitor on a salary- hard to know where any fee would arise. unless they booked an external meeting room for the hearing. my understanding was world snooker directors are now on a salary so per diems as in the time of Geoff Foulds et al wouldn't arise.
Surelay what's "childish and pathetic" is conceding a frame in an act of petulance.
Ronnie has been the prime offender in this over the years, and he makes snooker look stupid when he does it. I can't believe anyone would defend him on this, and I agree with the person who wrote that £300 is hardly a deterrent.
Its a total of £1,300 of costs to the player, not £300, so I would think it would be taken seriously. Giving up a frame doesn't feel like the worst offence to the live audience. The match before it (Dott v Maguire-i think) ran a bit long so if O'Sullivan did us all a favor with speeding his match up, I can't see why its bad for the sport.
Since when has a world governing body carrying out a disciplinary case been "throwing toys out of a pram"? And are you seriously suggesting there's something immature about it?
In terms of causes to fight you've chosen a very strange one.
The WPBSA have always failed to remember they are in the entertainment business. They previously waged war against Alex Higgins and were proven to have wrongly done so on one occasion. One punishment was a £12,000 fine and a 6-month ban. This was at a time when Higgins was still a big crowd puller. They kill snooker by trying to portray ultra professionalism. I doubt the sponsors were impressed. Seems like the WPBSA are going the same way with Ronnie. Maybe Hearn will bring some common sense.
21 comments:
Dave - can you explain what the £1000 costs relates to and if this is broken down at all?
It doesn't cost that much to rack the balls up again surely.....
Bearing in mind Ronnie dodn't attend the hearing, I don;t understand how the legal costs could be £1,000.
I also don't understand how such an obvious breach of the rules - live on TV - can take eight months to resolve.
I agree, which is why it would be nice to know what this £1000 relates to. A drop in the ocean to Ronnie obviously but the term 'costs' is often used without actually being specific.
I don't know how this works but if an external lawyer acting as chairman decides the punishment even just by an exchange of documents at least a £1000 fee would arise. If an external lawyer/chairman had to go to a hearing then the costs are even more understandable.
The disciplinary committee is chaired by a WPBSA board member.
From your previous blog:
Frame concessions (2nd incident)
Dave Harold - fine £150
Mark Williams - fine £150
Ronnie O'Sullivan - fine £150
Lee Spick - £150 suspended for 12 months; £1,000 costs
Stephen Maguire - fine £150
Robert Milkins - fine £150
David Roe - fine £150
Jin Long - fine £150
I suppose as this was Ronnie's third incident understandable that the fine would increase (to £300), but why does Lee Spick have costs and nor Ronnie, but the others didn't?
Drives me mad how for example the BBC Snooker website doesn't even mention the qualifiers yet this story is up straight away. They aren't the only ones either.
Predictable I know but irritating nonetheless.
frame concesion meens you lose the frame it isnt a advantage against youre oponement you are handing frames on a plate so why fine them for it ??
what is gained by fining them anything ? answer sod all.
The £150 fines were, I think, for concessions when frame ball was left on, rather than when most of the balls were remaining as in this case.
The fine is a correct one.
It was a live TV match and there is nothing whatsoever gained in the sport by such a premature concesssion.
This is what the fines committee should be attempting to eradicate not someone conceding after leaving the frame ball teetering over a pocket.
I agree the fine was correct, (and it could be argued £300 for a third offence and also in a major match is quite low and hardly a deterrent) but why did just Spick and O'Sullivan incur costs - surely costs is different to fines.
2.46pm It needs to be in place as giving up frames like this isn't sporting, denies the public an opportunity to see snooker frames (or a match)- what about a football team who walked off the pitch when 3-0 down?
big deal if it is a TV Match
if its every frame during a match i see a point but only 1 frame every now and again its getting childish and pathetic.
should have fined him 10000£ for continually being in "trouble" over the years.
Again I don't know how this works but if the committee is of world snooker directors and by inference no external people on it and if world snooker has an in house solicitor on a salary- hard to know where any fee would arise. unless they booked an external meeting room for the hearing.
my understanding was world snooker directors are now on a salary so per diems as in the time of Geoff Foulds et al wouldn't arise.
To 4:12PM
Surelay what's "childish and pathetic" is conceding a frame in an act of petulance.
Ronnie has been the prime offender in this over the years, and he makes snooker look stupid when he does it. I can't believe anyone would defend him on this, and I agree with the person who wrote that £300 is hardly a deterrent.
well said 11-08
its unreal the amount of people who are blinkered by his talent as to what an idiot he really can be at times.
Its a total of £1,300 of costs to the player, not £300, so I would think it would be taken seriously. Giving up a frame doesn't feel like the worst offence to the live audience. The match before it (Dott v Maguire-i think) ran a bit long so if O'Sullivan did us all a favor with speeding his match up, I can't see why its bad for the sport.
he didnt do us a favour
he acted like a spoilt brat AGAIN and so was punished, again.
:)
TO 11.08am
so if 1 party is being childish and pathetic that gives the go ahead to everyone else to act the same ?
just because ronnie throws his toys out of a pram the wsa does the same...yes very mature that is.
To 8.25pm
Since when has a world governing body carrying out a disciplinary case been "throwing toys out of a pram"? And are you seriously suggesting there's something immature about it?
In terms of causes to fight you've chosen a very strange one.
The WPBSA have always failed to remember they are in the entertainment business. They previously waged war against Alex Higgins and were proven to have wrongly done so on one occasion. One punishment was a £12,000 fine and a 6-month ban. This was at a time when Higgins was still a big crowd puller. They kill snooker by trying to portray ultra professionalism. I doubt the sponsors were impressed. Seems like the WPBSA are going the same way with Ronnie. Maybe Hearn will bring some common sense.
Post a Comment