Conceding ...

[Monique]

This is a quote from Janie Watkins on another thread ....

Conceding a frame when there are still enough points to win is now considering a hanging offence. Players will be warned and referees are instructed to add any incident to their match report. We are now hearing that players will be put on a disciplinary charge for this offence.

As it happens quite often I would anticipate a long queue of players waiting for their cases to be heard.

and this is a genuine question ... maybe a naïve one

What was the rationale behind the introduction of that change in attitude?

It seems to be a bit over the top to me. Obviously there are situations where you feel you just can't come back, that you need a fresh start. I'm almost certain everyone who plays has been there some day ...

[wildJONESEYE]

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

but they for some reason they making a bigger point of it at the moment........bottom line is if a player conseades when hes not aloud to, it will be forgoten like its always been.......

[Monique]

Well Wild that's exactly my question ... why are they making a bigger point of it now?

[hegeland]

Janie, do you know what reasons are behind this new deal about conceding? I would imagine players are not too happy about this, or perhaps they have wanted this?

I think the player should have a right to concede a frame anytime he wants to, as long as it's his turn on the table. The discussion with WSA, especally when conceding a frame on a TV table, as I would imagine they dislike extra much, is another matter. But it should not be against the rules of the game.

[Rane]

This is a quote from Janie Watkins on another thread ....



and this is a genuine question ... maybe a naïve one

What was the rationale behind the introduction of that change in attitude?

It seems to be a bit over the top to me. Obviously there are situations where you feel you just can't come back, that you need a fresh start. I'm almost certain everyone who plays has been there some day ...

The 25 - 1 doesn´t need to be a conceding. But at that level it would be incredible if only one or two colours was potted after potting a red.

[Lee Vilenski]

I'm probably the only one player that likes this, because I was playing the other day and I wasn't paying much attention to the match - I thought I'd lost, I said to the ref that I wanted to concede the match and the frame, and he said that I could still win, well my opponent missed, I cleared up, won the next three frames, and got to the semi-finals of that particular competition. My opponent wasn't very pleased, but I did win! It's not even the first time this has happened to me either!

[rivercard]

I said to the ref that I wanted to concede the match and the frame, and he said that I could still win

I didn't know referees can give advices to players wether to concede or not
I think once a player says he wants to concede, than it's frame over, the referee can only warn you after that, not before.

[Lee Vilenski]

I dunno, but I got a hell of an advantage out of it...

[davis_greatest]

What was the rationale behind the introduction of that change in attitude?

It seems to be a bit over the top to me. Obviously there are situations where you feel you just can't come back ...

The rationale is that a professional sportsman has an obligation to do his best to win. If he concedes when there are still sufficient points for him to win, without requiring snookers, he is not doing his best to win.

The rule only applies when a player can come back, because there are sufficient points on the table. A player is allowed to concede a frame if he is the striker and requires snookers.

Professional sport (and the money it brings the sportsmen) is able to exist because people want to watch it - so the viewers invest time in watching, and perhaps money on tickets or to pay TV channels, the sponsors and TV channels invest money, and a betting market exists. All of those parties have a reasonable and justifiable expectation that the sportsmen are making their best endeavours to win.

[Monique]

D_G, I do understand that ...

but this was always the case. So why becoming harsher now, and in qualifiers when no one is watching? After all, when conceding ... they give up some chances of winning, so they only "harm" themselves.

[dantuck_7]

Some good points DG. I have a feeling that this has in part been influenced by the gambling companies that provide live betting on each frame.

I don't want to start suggesting any more!

[davis_greatest]

I didn't know referees can give advices to players wether to concede or not
I think once a player says he wants to concede, than it's frame over, the referee can only warn you after that, not before.

I don't think that counts as advice. Rather, the rules are clear that the player may not concede unless snookers are required (any breach being regarded as ungentlemanly conduct) so the referee may have been informing the player that he did not have the right to concede.

Also, a player may only concede when he is the striker; the opponent also then has the right to refuse the concession.

(PS I'm not sure what would have happened if, in the unfortunate Hendry-O'Sullivan UK Championship episode, Hendry had "refused" to accept O'Sullivan's concession. I think Hendry was too taken aback even to consider this possibility.)

[davis_greatest]

D_G, I do understand that ...

but this was always the case. So why becoming harsher now, and in qualifiers when no one is watching? After all, when conceding ... they give up some chances of winning, so they only "harm" themselves.

I am not absolutely certain, but I believe that it was only comparatively recently that the rule was introduced barring players from conceding when they do not need snookers. Perhaps one of the referees or someone else could confirm this.

The principle is that the sportsman must try his best, and if that should apply in the final frame of the World Championship final, then it must be built into the rules of snooker - and so apply at all levels. They could not have a rule that says one cannot concede in a major final, but can if it's just a qualifier with no one watching... or can if there are only 5 people or 2 people watching because they hardly count. That just would not work, so the principle must be upheld at all levels.

[rivercard]

I don't think that counts as advice. Rather, the rules are clear that the player may not concede unless snookers are required (any breach being regarded as ungentlemanly conduct) so the referee may have been informing the player that he did not have the right to concede.

Also, a player may only concede when he is the striker; the opponent also then has the right to refuse the concession.

I didn't know that the rules stated this, but I have to say that I've never seen this rule implied like this. I'm fairly sure pro players have conceded frames when they didn't need snookers, and nothing happened (maybe the ref had had a quiet word with them). I mean the referee (or anyone else) can't force the player to continue when he wants to concede.
And as far as I know ungentlemanly conduct can cost a player the match, surely that is too harsh.

Anyway, if those are the rules, they should be taken more seriously.

[The Statman]

It used to be the Rule that you could concede only when you were the striker, and that the opponent has the right to decline the offer of concession.

That has not changed, but it has now been added that you may not concede while you are still mathematically able to win without snookers.

The reason is as Davis Greatest says. The frame seems unfinished if the player who wins it is not seen to acquire an unassailable lead. Spectators deserve to see the frame ended in a natural fashion and the winning player deserves the satisfaction of scoring more points than his opponent can gain. I believe, if you do concede when you can still win, it is classed as ungentlemanly conduct and, as such, you lose the frame you conceded (of course) and the referee will warn you that a further case of ungentlemanly conduct will cost you frame/match, whichever it is.

I think the stiffening of the rule was done because of an increase in players conceding unnaturally early. Several spring to mind: particularly O'Sullivan who once conceded a frame with about 12 reds left when he was about 20 points in front! Michael Holt has done it as well, as have a couple of other players.

I would imagine a referee would make an exception if, say, a player left an unmissable final black over the pocket and conceded the frame, although I wouldn't blame the official if (s)he didn't.