Conceding ...

[wildJONESEYE]

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

firstly i think youre little piggy is cute......

right back on topic.......i dont know but it seems strange because how many frames in a season will players actually concede when they can stil win and if they do that... so what.. theire oponement would be overjoyed having a frame on the board while he had to do nothing to earn it................

[moondan]

Davis Greatest, absolutely right.

The only thing I would add, There should be a Mandatory very steep fine.
Nobody holds a gun to any players head to become a pro player, they sign up to rules and regulations, thats what runs snooker, not a players flight of fancy.
Say the player concerned loses by the odd frame. It leaves snooker open to ridicule and mistrust.

[dantuck_7]

I agree - Snooker is after all a physcological game and a player conceding early has just been beaten in a different manner.

[rivercard]

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.

This is of course understandable, but in the end implying this rule would hurt the spectators even more, as the frame, or even the match would come to an early end. Basically the player would be docked a frame which he would have wanted to concede anyway, and if he does this twice, it's match over.

So all in all this rule is great, if it doesn't have to be implied.

[Monique]

Thank you D_G and Statman for clarifying this. I know it is in the rule and was not challenging the need for it and rationality behind it. I was just wondering why being harsher now ... and I think Statman answered that ...

[davis_greatest]

theire oponement would be overjoyed having a frame on the board while he had to do nothing to earn it................

The point is that the opponent should have to earn it - that both sides are trying their utmost is a fundamental requirement to make sport work.

Otherwise, we might just as well make it legal for players to accept bribes to lose a match. And if we did that, or there were suspicion of that, not only would betting markets fail (not that I particularly care about those), but viewers would not be able to take matches seriously. People would stop watching, sponsorship would stop, broadcasting of matches would stop...

[dantuck_7]

Otherwise, we might just as well make it legal for players to accept bribes to lose a match. And if we did that, or there were suspicion of that, not only would betting markets fail (not that I particularly care about those), but viewers would not be able to take matches seriously. People would stop watching, sponsorship would stop, broadcasting of matches would stop...

I have to say the main reason why people would stop watching snooker is if it's fairly slow and tedious play. If there is a talking point such as whether a player should be allowed to concede early it would probably attract more interest.

There is a fine line between throwing a game and conceding early. But, snooker being what it is how are you going to prove that someone has a lost a frame intentionally to make money out of it. Take the Quinten Hann carry-on - I don't have the transcript to hand but does anyone think that he really was going to throw the match.

It has to come down to the referees judgment. If there is an easy 10-20 points on offer to win a frame and it's perfectly obvious then so be it. The concession probably should be allowed early.

[wildJONESEYE]

The point is that the opponent should have to earn it - that both sides are trying their utmost is a fundamental requirement to make sport work.

Otherwise, we might just as well make it legal for players to accept bribes to lose a match. And if we did that, or there were suspicion of that, not only would betting markets fail (not that I particularly care about those), but viewers would not be able to take matches seriously. People would stop watching, sponsorship would stop, broadcasting of matches would stop...

that could be the reason its inplace to stop it being widespread but in all honesty players ive seen want to win and win well.............throwing frames away at will wont help to achieve that goal will it........

all thats needed is common sense to the situation and there wont be a problam........

[missneworleans]

I think in any situations when player doesn't need a snooker mustn't be conceded. Because it's bad for snooker, then we won't see so much play, and everybody who were watching this match would be disappointed

[wildJONESEYE]

yes but suerly its better to see a competative frame where the 2 players are feeling like playing rather than a frame where 1 player has given up and the only thing on his mind is go out to clear his head of negativity.................

you see i agree to some extent being a snooker pro meens spitting blood to get a frame on the board....but the only person that will trully suffer is the person doing the conseading....

when Ronnie walked out that was wrong only 5 frames of a best of 17 had gone. but 1 frame wont do any difference if the player comes back and tryes then if not the referee should then act or report him to the tournament director for disapline and bringing the sport in to disrepute by being unprofesional and letting down the paying public...........just use common sense and there wont be a problam...........