O'Sullivan Disciplinary Action?

[Watford]

I think to be honest snooker needs Ronnie so I can't see them donig to much to him.
You can't compare this with Francisco and Hann they were bent!
Ronnie was very wrong! I'd of been bouncing if I'd been in the crowd!

[rich45]

I'd of been bouncing if I'd been in the crowd!

Tell me about it!

[Watford]

Unlucky mate!
I went to the grand prix final were Higgins knocked in four 100's and we all went home at 9 o'clock, that ****ed me off and I got to see a record in the making!

[chasmmi]

Don't forget snooker has destroyed the career of its star attraction once before so they may decide making an example will generate more publoicity than letting himm off

[Watford]

That's true I suppose!
But I don't think Ronnie is as disliked by the WPBSA and Snooker is not as strong as it was then!

[Black_cat]

People who watched the BBC broadcast told me they showed a video during the last interval and that Sir Walker seems to have said that Ronnie told him he had nothing to do with the statement that was issued on his behalf.
*is puzzled*
Can anyone shed any light on this?

[davis_greatest]

People who watched the BBC broadcast told me they showed a video during the last interval and that Sir Walker seems to have said that Ronnie told him he had nothing to do with the statement that was issued on his behalf.
*is puzzled*
Can anyone shed any light on this?

Yes, I saw that... Sir Rodney said that he understood that the statement had been issued by Ronnie's PR company and that Ronnie had in some way disassociated himself from the statement - i.e. had said that it wasn't from him. (I'm not sure that Sir Rodney used the word "disassociated", but I believe it was something to that effect.) I don't remember much more than that, I'm afraid (there wasn't much more) but that was certainly the gist of it.

[Black_cat]

Thanks, DG...Quite surprising. Joe Johnson said he had his doubts on the authenticity of the statement, namely the source.

[gingerale]

Sir Rodney Walker is quoted here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...er/6187385.stm

[slayericed]

Clearly this issue has raised doubts about the completeness of rules set by the governing body. Hence all the speculation.

I am not an expert in rulings over integrity violations but to me there does seem to be a lot of grey area in there. Does the ruling body classify acts of ungentlemanly behavior into different degrees? if it does, does it define a clear and complete framework for the penalties to be dispensed for each one of them? If they cannot give this particular issue a proper legal treatment with very strong co-relation (if not exact) to the rules set by the ruling body, they should let Ronnie off and treat this matter as an eye-opener.

It is not a person or a group of persons that should dictate matters but the policies. Stewardship lies with the institution. They definitely need to improve on the already existing processes/policies so as to basically streamline the governance process.

And i personally think that the rule concerning this particular event is crap. It is a fundamental right of a player to concede a game, there can be loads of reasons for it.

[snooky147]

Point is would everyone be discussing this like this if it was not O'sullivan that did it? Would the members of this board not be up in arms if it had been anyone else that conceded?
I love to watch O'sullivan play and if it was depression or illness of some kind let him get the help he needs by all means BUT if it wasn't and he just gave in because of some other reason well I am sorry but that is not good enough, not for the paying public, his fellow competitors or indeed the people who lost money on him.
There should at the very least be a hearing to ascertain what happened.

[slayericed]

Point is would everyone be discussing this like this if it was not O'sullivan that did it? Would the members of this board not be up in arms if it had been anyone else that conceded?
I love to watch O'sullivan play and if it was depression or illness of some kind let him get the help he needs by all means BUT if it wasn't and he just gave in because of some other reason well I am sorry but that is not good enough, not for the paying public, his fellow competitors or indeed the people who lost money on him.
There should at the very least be a hearing to ascertain what happened.

Like i said, i think the fault here lies with the association for not having a strict framework in place.

You cannot judge and penalize actions based on who did them or what you, me or anybody thinks about it.

[Nina]

What I got from:
"Walker said he understood that O'Sullivan "doesn't identify himself" with the statement issued by his PR company later on Thursday, in which he apologised to Hendry and fans who had paid to come and watch him."
is that issuing an apology statement does not explain his reasons and therefore the harshness of the punishment cannot be ruled on - rather than that they do not believe it was his statement representing his feelings.
The way I see it Sir Rodney Walker left all options open:
1: Ronnie must be punished.
2: Perhaps all he needs is counselling.
3: It is possible that he is not punished at all after all but helped instead.

[missneworleans]

He will be asked for reason of lefting

[snookerfran]

if it was depression or illness of some kind let him get the help he needs by all means BUT if it wasn't and he just gave in because of some other reason well I am sorry but that is not good enough

Well it looks like they are going to have a hearing for exactly those reasons, but how on earth do you propose they 'find out what happened'? Perhaps they'll ask him, 'Were you feeling happy or sad, Ronnie? Sadder than usual? That's settled, it's the illness.' Or, 'Oh you say you were feeling all right at the precise moment of concession? In that case, you get a fine.'

I'm being facetious, of course, but I really fail to see how talking to him will shed light on anything. He probably doesn't know why he did it himself.