O'Sullivan Disciplinary Action?

[gavpowell]

Sky are saying he could face disciplinary action, but I fail to see how - Mike Ganley said a player can concede whenever he likes. I suppose you could have him for ungentlemanly conduct, but it seems a little unfair if the rules allow him to be petulant- assuming his given reason is the real one that is.

Can anyone clarify whether he's got off scot-free or whether he could be hauled over the coals? I#'m a fan but personally I think it'd do him good to get a metaphorical slap for his actions.

[Hendry the 8th]

If he is going to be punished, I think he should lose his ranking points from the UK Championship and docked half his prize money.

[rich45]

Someone at work today was saying how he should be banned from the World Championship, a comment that I found ridiculous!

I think a warning would suffice in this instance.

[Ellena]

Someone at work today was saying how he should be banned from the World Championship, a comment that I found ridiculous!

I think a warning would suffice in this instance.

Oh i 'heard' ( better said read on the forums) worse - that he should be banned for a year even two. I find it a bit to harsh .
The fact is , if conceding a match had been against the rules there would have been also a punishment for it , so we wouldn't have had to make speculations about it.

[elvaago]

There's a rule that you cannot concede a frame when there's still enough points on the table without some disciplinary action. Seems a bit silly that you /are/ allowed to concede an entire match without some disciplinary action, unless you provide a proper reason like health or personal circumstances or whatever.

[Semih_Sayginer]

Someone at work today was saying how he should be banned from the World Championship, a comment that I found ridiculous!

I think a warning would suffice in this instance.

IMHO , i think, IF hes to be punished at all, then a fee equalling ticket prices for both sessions of that match be donated to charity, as a goodwill gesture for fans paying their money for the match (at least then in a round about way their ticket money went to charity) and also a warning about future conduct.

i dont think ranking points should be an issue, as he gained points from matches prior to this one

then, they should review and change the rule ASAP, even if it means an EGM meeting.

[Hendry the 8th]

Sir Rodney Walker has spoken about the incident. You can see what he says by clicking this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...er/6187385.stm

[Maija]

@Hendry 8th: Lots of words, but not really saying anything at all, imho.

Some sort of light disciplinary action should be taken, and donating money to charity is a good suggestion, I think.

"The professional players know we're beginning to rebuild the sport," Walker told BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek.

"Incidents like this do nothing to give sponsors and spectators confidence to invest in the sport.

Well, don't "they" say that all PR is good PR? I'm not saying that Ronnie should get away with behaving like that, nor that anyone should, but a wee bit of the badboy attitude in a sport normally perceived to be more boring than watching grass grow or paint dry just might raise public interest.

[rich45]

IMHO , i think, IF hes to be punished at all, then a fee equalling ticket prices for both sessions of that match be donated to charity, as a goodwill gesture for fans paying their money for the match (at least then in a round about way their ticket money went to charity) and also a warning about future conduct.

Totally agree, and I think Ronnie should actually do this of his own free will rather than waiting for the governing body to force him into it. Anybody can issue an apology after the event (possibly put out at the request of his management company anyway...?) - with a donation, he'll have acted off his own back and will be better thought of as a result.

Not holding my breath for that though...

[Ellena]

IMHO , i think, IF hes to be punished at all, then a fee equalling ticket prices for both sessions of that match be donated to charity, as a goodwill gesture for fans paying their money for the match (at least then in a round about way their ticket money went to charity) and also a warning about future conduct.

i dont think ranking points should be an issue, as he gained points from matches prior to this one

then, they should review and change the rule ASAP, even if it means an EGM meeting.

Nicely put! This deserves a rep .....hmm..... a bad rep ..of course!

If such acts might cost them the amount of money Sir R. Walker said , then they should have thought about a rule and a sanction regarding it.

[davis_greatest]

Precedents

I don't remember the details but wasn't Quinten Hann fined, with prize money withheld, after "failing to give his best" against Stephen Lee in the 2002 World Championships? Hann was simply smashing balls around the table and Lee won 13-3.

Peter Francisco was banned for 5 years, I believe, following his 10-2 loss to Jimmy White in the match-fixing scandal. I'm not sure whether Francisco was ever officially found guilty of match-fixing per se, or simply of failing to give his best.

[gingerale]

I remember Hann just smashing the balls around the table at the 2000 Grand Prix, actually playing Ronnie O' Sullivan (0-5). As far as I know, Hann lost prize money and ranking points for unprofessional conduct.

[snookerfran]

The article Hendry the 8th linked to above has been updated: Rodney Walker was on the BBC earlier tonight talking about it again. His words of wisdom = Ronnie needs counselling. Er...

(Oh, and there'll be a long drawn out decision made by committee people as to whether or not to 'punish' him.)

My prediction, btw, is that he'll eventually be asked to make a donation to charity or something similar. No way will he get a ban.

Edited to add:

Seems a bit silly that you /are/ allowed to concede an entire match without some disciplinary action, unless you provide a proper reason like health or personal circumstances or whatever.

I think this is what Walker was getting at with the counselling v punishment thing. If they (whoever 'they' are) decide that Ronnie's actions resulted from his illness, then they'll do their best to 'help' him. If on the other hand they decide he was just being a git, then he'll get a slight fine/whatever.

[Nina]

Apparently there is a gap in the rules where conceding is concerned.
From what I've gathered so far, Ron won't be punished really. For wasn't the counseling part a subtle way to say he needn't be penalised?

[Ellena]

Apparently there is a gap in the rules where conceding is concerned.
From what I've gathered so far, Ron won't be punished really. For wasn't the counseling part a subtle way to say he needn't be penalised?

True , there is a gap , and they will have to take care of it.
As for the punishment , i don't think they won't punish him AT ALL , there will be smth ... just hope it won't be to harsh .