Chamberlain Raises Serious New Questions on Ebdon-Liang

If you may remember, Peter Ebdon's 5-0 defeat to Liang Wenbo in the 2008 NI Trophy was investigated but both players were cleared. However the ref for that game Alan Chamberlain, has released some diagrams of strange shots by Peter Ebdon in the final frame, when Wenbo lead 4-0.
Thanks to Sonny I can now use the Shotmaster, and show you the diagrams.

SHOT 1:


Ebdon was in play 24 ahead of Liang needing only the yellow to leave Liang needing a snooker. ås you can see, professionals would normally pot this type of ball and roll back for the green, however Ebdon smashed the ball very hard and missed by eight to ten inches.

SHOT 2:


The yellow was not pottable to the middle pocket but it was still a very simple snookering opportunity. All it needed was a fullish stun shot to leave Liang snookered. However, Ebdon played the Yellow thin, leaving the Yellow over the middle pocket.

SHOT 3:


Liang went on to pot Yellow, Green and Brown, but left Ebdon a simple blue. Chamberlain believed Ebdon would pot it 99 times out of 100. However, he cut it far too thin.

SHOT 4:


The obvious shot here was to strike the blue three-quarter ball and double the blue over the blue and pink spots and leave it near the black spot. However, Ebdon doubled it gently towards the corner pocket leaving an easy potting chance for Liang.

SHOT 5:


Liang potted the blue, but Peter could still win the frame by potting Pink or Black. Ebdon was left with a thin cut to to the middle pocket, thin but still expected to get it. Ebdon played it too thick and slowly, leaving him between the middle pockets. He could of hit it harder so to make sure the white went safe towards the black spot and position on the black was irrelevent. Liang potted Pink and Black and won 5-0.

So a case for more investigation?

All ready and done now...


DISCUSS

Maybe he was just having a stinking day at the office, he was 0-4 remember ...

Bourne wrote:Maybe he was just having a stinking day at the office, he was 0-4 remember ...

still odd shot choices though

Yeh if these are accurate, then it does smell a bit ... where are these diagrams from, like, where did AC disclose them ?

where did chamberlain say all this seems abit odd coming out with info now

link please

Wasn't that the year his wife walked out? Mind might have not been on the job. The thing I don't buy in the Ebdon match fixing claim is that a seed wouldn't normally throw a first round match because he needs the points. It would make more sense to throw your second round match.

GJtheaussiestud wrote:where did chamberlain say all this seems abit odd coming out with info now

link please

Chamberlain drew these diagrams shortly after the match, unaware of the irregular betting announced the next morning.
They have recently been published in Snooker Scene

Templeton Peck wrote:Wasn't that the year his wife walked out? Mind might have not been on the job. The thing I don't buy in the Ebdon match fixing claim is that a seed wouldn't normally throw a first round match because he needs the points. It would make more sense to throw your second round match.

It was soon after his wife left him and he hadn't picked up a cue in three weeks.

That was his excuse...

Well I think if a guy plays some crummy shots after his wife has left him then he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there's a NOTW video out there shwoing him meeting up with some dodgy Arab sheikh.

Templeton Peck wrote:Well I think if a guy plays some crummy shots after his wife has left him then he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there's a NOTW video out there shwoing him meeting up with some dodgy Arab sheikh.

well Ebdon does live in Dubai...

Cheesyman99 wrote:

Templeton Peck wrote:Well I think if a guy plays some crummy shots after his wife has left him then he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there's a NOTW video out there shwoing him meeting up with some dodgy Arab sheikh.

well Ebdon does live in Dubai...

he moved back a while ago i think

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Cheesyman99 wrote:

Templeton Peck wrote:Well I think if a guy plays some crummy shots after his wife has left him then he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there's a NOTW video out there shwoing him meeting up with some dodgy Arab sheikh.

well Ebdon does live in Dubai...

he moved back a while ago i think

after taking the money from the Arabs.

This was two years ago this Liang match

GJtheaussiestud wrote:where did chamberlain say all this seems abit odd coming out with info now

link please

It was all described in snooker scene right after it happened. Now Chamberlain has resigned it's in snooker scene again with the diagrams.
I was never satisfied with the "all clear" verdict having read the account in snooker scene. Match in cubicle so no witnesses, no telly recording, whitewash backed by massive irregular betting ... but of course the main suspect was a member of the board at the time

GJtheaussiestud wrote:

Cheesyman99 wrote:

Templeton Peck wrote:Well I think if a guy plays some crummy shots after his wife has left him then he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt unless there's a NOTW video out there shwoing him meeting up with some dodgy Arab sheikh.

well Ebdon does live in Dubai...

he moved back a while ago i think

Lives in Budapest now

match fixing is a serious business
whether you'r playing in a cubicle or not there is still at least one witness, the referee
If Ebdon was really cheating he wouldn't miss so many routine shots, he'd do it the way less visible for spectators and referee as to not raise any obvious suspicions
the way it looks for me, Ebdon just wanted to get over with the match as quickly as possible

Black2white wrote:match fixing is a serious business
whether you'r playing in a cubicle or not there is still at least one witness, the referee
If Ebdon was really cheating he wouldn't miss so many routine shots, he'd do it the way less visible for spectators and referee as to not raise any obvious suspicions
the way it looks for me, Ebdon just wanted to get over with the match as quickly as possible

Possibly. But there was the abnormal bettings ...

Cheesyman99 wrote:

Bourne wrote:Maybe he was just having a stinking day at the office, he was 0-4 remember ...

still odd shot choices though

ive known of peter ebdon since his amataur days he has never played the conventional shots so trying to second guess what shot peter trying to play is a no go area.

Oh, go away Chamberlain. Why don't we investigate why you were always too literal with the rules when Selby was playing, but not with anybody else? Did you know somebody who used to bet on those matches?

SnookerFan wrote:Oh, go away Chamberlain. Why don't we investigate why you were always too literal with the rules when Selby was playing, but not with anybody else? Did you know somebody who used to bet on those matches?

I think this is uncalled for.

Monique wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Oh, go away Chamberlain. Why don't we investigate why you were always too literal with the rules when Selby was playing, but not with anybody else? Did you know somebody who used to bet on those matches?

I think this is uncalled for.

mon, snookerfan does have a point here

rocket_ron wrote:

Monique wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Oh, go away Chamberlain. Why don't we investigate why you were always too literal with the rules when Selby was playing, but not with anybody else? Did you know somebody who used to bet on those matches?

I think this is uncalled for.

mon, snookerfan does have a point here

nah i disagree Ron, Monique is right. Thats just a cheap shot at Chamberlain for telling his side of the story on this match now he is free from the WPSBA.

rocket_ron wrote:

Monique wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Oh, go away Chamberlain. Why don't we investigate why you were always too literal with the rules when Selby was playing, but not with anybody else? Did you know somebody who used to bet on those matches?

I think this is uncalled for.

mon, snookerfan does have a point here

It probably was a bit of a cheap shot, to be fair. But I've never liked Chamberlain. He seemed a tad inconsistent as a referee, and it just seemed a bit rich for him to be getting on his high horse. Especially when there are times when he was involved in controversial decisions, and they all seem to regard Selby. And one time even flat out refused to clean a ball for him when requested. You could also point fingers and shout match-fixing at him. At times like these, especially, all facts need to be considered before mud-sligging at each other and worsening the reputation of the sport.

I guess mon's point is that, I shouldn't let my personal feelings of a referee get in the way of serious investigation into match fixing, and in that case, perhaps what I said was too harsh. Especially if Chamberlain is genuinely concerned about a match. However, as said, we can all come up with certain incidences where it could look like there was match-fixing, especially after last week's revelations. But, I take mon's point.

And considering what had happened to Ebdon leading up to that match, and considering he was playing a young up and comer like Liang Wenbo, I think it's not the most implausible thing that people would pick up on this and put large bets on the result and scoreline of this match, and be proven right.

fair enough.
Although the story is in the last snooker scene issue that was certainly printed before the Higgins affair came out. So there is no relationship. Chamberlain raised his concerns right after the match. WPBSA, the old board (of which Ebdon was a member) estimated that they were satisfied with Ebdon's explanations and that there was no ground to go furthe. It seems Chamberlain wasn't happy with that and now he's retired decided to challenge the decision.
Rightly or wrongly I don't know, but if you read both the inital article in snooker scene right after the facts and this last one, there is at least a case to ask some questions.

Chamberlain was the best ref they had; he's the only one whoever properly interpreted the miss rule. Chamberlain can only apply the rules as they stand and sometimes they don't allow for discretion. He made the correct call on the Selby incident, that's what the rules state and in that scenario the rules don't allow for discretion. Virgo and Thorne seem to be under the impression the referees can just make up entirely new rules as they go along.

Templeton Peck wrote:Chamberlain was the best ref they had; he's the only one whoever properly interpreted the miss rule. Chamberlain can only apply the rules as they stand and sometimes they don't allow for discretion. He made the correct call on the Selby incident, that's what the rules state and in that scenario the rules don't allow for discretion. Virgo and Thorne seem to be under the impression the referees can just make up entirely new rules as they go along.

That was a difficult decision, granted, and he had to make a call. And Dott could've shown sportsmanship there by potting the white on purpose, to give Selby back the advantage. He didn't. If we strike that one off, and say the rules were correct, and that it's not 'the referees job to explain why a player has mad a foul', I still don't see how the referee can refuse to clean a ball when requested, which he has done for Selby.

But anyway, my retort seems to have got us off the point of Ebdon vs Liang. I don't think it's that unrealistic that if it was known that Ebdon was having personal problems, and hadn't been practicing that;

a) He would lose to an up and comer like Liang.
b) People would think to bet on it.

I'm not a fan of Alan Chamberlain, never have been. What irks me with this is that if he wants to come across as whiter than white, he should have spoken up at the time & phoned the WPBSA with his concerns.

Unfortunately, Peter Ebdon's gambling problems have been well documented & its quite easy in this case to put 2 & 2 together & come up with 4.

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:I'm not a fan of Alan Chamberlain, never have been. What irks me with this is that if he wants to come across as whiter than white, he should have spoken up at the time & phoned the WPBSA with his concerns.

Unfortunately, Peter Ebdon's gambling problems have been well documented & its quite easy in this case to put 2 & 2 together & come up with 4.

He has John, right after the match.

I agree. If you're in the know about his personal life a bet on 5-0 makes good gambling sense because it will give you the best odds, and you cover the bet with another on a win to Wenbo. It would show up abnormal betting on a 5-0 scoreline but it's actually a logical bet in the circumstances.