Should Hawkins sue the WPBSA?

[wildJONESEYE]

Should Barry "The baby-faced assasin" Hawkins sue the WPBSA for loss of earnings & ranking points?

The decision yesterday to postpone his match at 9-9 has cost him thousands of pounds & points - and possibly even the World Championship itself.

He could well have had the momentum to go and lift the title after beating Carter.

O'Sullivan gets away with blue murder, yet players like McCulloch & Hawkins are let down again & again.

I suggest he takes them to court & tries to get re-instated in the competition.

how can you sue someone when its clearly stated a match will be pulled off if a frame has not started with 45 minute to the next seshion......

that has always been the case..........

Not a wind-up at all - i feel Hawkins was robbed yesterday of becoming a potential 6 or 7 times Champion.

The knock-on effect of this decision could haunt him for the rest of his days.

Maybe the WPBSA wanted to make sure Murphy got an easy as possible draw?

im a bit concerned about youre state of mind??????????????

are you feeling ok christ.....

[gavpowell]

It's alright, he also said Rory McLeod could surpass Hendry's seven-trophy haul, that he didn't rate Ebdon's chances of winning another major, while saying in another post that Ebdon was a dark horse who could quite possibly win the tournament this year.

He has said he expects Selby and Robertson not to win another major...but has said Selby is one he'd go for as a dark horse for the crucible.

I don't mind people on the wind up as long as they're consistent

[wildJONESEYE]

It's alright, he also said Rory McLeod could surpass Hendry's seven-trophy haul, that he didn't rate Ebdon's chances of winning another major, while saying in another post that Ebdon was a dark horse who could quite possibly win the tournament this year.

He has said he expects Selby and Robertson not to win another major...but has said Selby is one he'd go for as a dark horse for the crucible.

I don't mind people on the wind up as long as they're consistent

CHRIST THATS CONSISTANT...............consistantly frightening lol

[Signal Fire]

CHRIST THATS CONSISTANT...............consistantly frightening lol

wild - Why don't you go back to 606 where you think you rule the roost. It's a better class of contributor here - and it's not so easy to get people wrongly kicked off with false allegations, just because they don't fit into your clique.

[The Statman]

Blimey this has become quite a stirring subject.

From the attitude of some posts here I get the impression they would have been glad if it had been Carter who had won the last three frames to 9-9 and then the match been pulled off.

In what way was it more unfair on Hawkins than on Carter? Well a bit of a rhetorical question really, but the WSA would have held itself open to claims of favouritism if the match had NOT been pulled off because Hawkins had the momentum, if Carter had complained that the rules state the match would be halted.

Commonsense really, but given the choice between following the rules to one player's detriment, or making an exception to the other's detriment, I know which decision I would have made if I were tournament director – and it is the same one that Ganley made.

[Signal Fire]

Blimey this has become quite a stirring subject.

From the attitude of some posts here I get the impression they would have been glad if it had been Carter who had won the last three frames to 9-9 and then the match been pulled off.

In what way was it more unfair on Hawkins than on Carter? Well a bit of a rhetorical question really, but the WSA would have held itself open to claims of favouritism if the match had NOT been pulled off because Hawkins had the momentum, if Carter had complained that the rules state the match would be halted.

Commonsense really, but given the choice between following the rules to one player's detriment, or making an exception to the other's detriment, I know which decision I would have made if I were tournament director – and it is the same one that Ganley made.

Personally, i didn't really care who won - my original point was regarding the way it treated the spectators, both in the arena, and on TV.

Rules are fine, but common sense needs to be applied at times.

[gavpowell]

That WAS common sense - end of a frame, not enough time to play the next one without ruining the rest of the schedule.

What about the people who paid to see the next match and had a tight schedule to keep, trains to catch etc? Should they miss the last frame of their match because the other one went to a decider?

You can't please all the people all the time, and if your concern was for the spectators, why were you arguing Hawkins' career was in ruins and that he should sue the WPBSA?

[Signal Fire]

That WAS common sense - end of a frame, not enough time to play the next one without ruining the rest of the schedule.

What about the people who paid to see the next match and had a tight schedule to keep, trains to catch etc? Should they miss the last frame of their match because the other one went to a decider?

You can't please all the people all the time, and if your concern was for the spectators, why were you arguing Hawkins' career was in ruins and that he should sue the WPBSA?

Well, my initial concern was for the spectators, in that i thought it was a bit off and i personally didn't care who won, but that doesn't detract from the fact Hawkins career has been potentially ruined by this.

I'm seeing it from his point of view as well, not Carters, because he was the lucky one - he couldn't have complained about the match not being stopped; if he hasn't got the bottle to sweat out a decider at the time, he doesn't deserve to win!

[gavpowell]

Well, my initial concern was for the spectators, in that i thought it was a bit off and i personally didn't care who won, but that doesn't detract from the fact Hawkins career has been potentially ruined by this.

I'm seeing it from his point of view as well, not Carters, because he was the lucky one - he couldn't have complained about the match not being stopped; if he hasn't got the bottle to sweat out a decider at the time, he doesn't deserve to win!

Yeah, those 9 world titles seem a glimmer in the distance now huh?

Only, if Hawkins is good enough to win more than 7 world titles, why on Earth would an extra qualifying match make a difference to him? I don't think if you'd given Hendry a qualifying match in the mid 90s before he could defend his title, he'd have given it much of a thought, on account of he was simply not going to lose whoever he played.

[Signal Fire]

Yeah, those 9 world titles seem a glimmer in the distance now huh?

Only, if Hawkins is good enough to win more than 7 world titles, why on Earth would an extra qualifying match make a difference to him? I don't think if you'd given Hendry a qualifying match in the mid 90s before he could defend his title, he'd have given it much of a thought, on account of he was simply not going to lose whoever he played.

Snooker is a confidence game, and you need the right people pulling the strings as well.

Hawkins was never meant to win that match.

[Semih_Sayginer]

if theyd changed the rules and BH won, wed be saying its not right for AC who would have expected to come off if he was aware of the time....

In what way was it more unfair on Hawkins than on Carter? Well a bit of a rhetorical question really, but the WSA would have held itself open to claims of favouritism if the match had NOT been pulled off because Hawkins had the momentum, if Carter had complained that the rules state the match would be halted.

well said !!

as mentioned, if the other option was taken it would have been rule changing and could have been seen to be favouritism

[The Statman]

My final word on the matter is that it's unfortunate for spectators, but the booking form clearly states that if they run out of time the match may be halted – and, indeed, that if the match has finished already with a session to spare you won't see anything at all!

The argument of spectators not seeing the end of a match which they had 'paid to see', does not wash, unless you are arguing that they should have kept playing even if it had been only 8-8, or maybe 7-6. That is not the impression I got from the thread-head.

[Signal Fire]

My final word on the matter is that it's unfortunate for spectators, but the booking form clearly states that if they run out of time the match may be halted – and, indeed, that if the match has finished already with a session to spare you won't see anything at all!

The argument of spectators not seeing the end of a match which they had 'paid to see', does not wash, unless you are arguing that they should have kept playing even if it had been only 8-8, or maybe 7-6. That is not the impression I got from the thread-head.

No, i agree if the match has dragged on, and there are a potential 5 frames left, then it has to end - but when it's 9-9, they should play on.

There doesn't have to be hard & fast rules - common sense needs to be applied.