by mick745 » 09 Mar 2021 Read
Well who knows.
He also got caught up in a suspected betting scandal when he played Maguire in the UK in 2008 when he missed an easy black ball frame ball described by Parrott "it would have been a poor attempt by an amateur let alone a professional".
I dont think any charges were brought but i suspect the suspicion lingered.
-
mick745
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: 02 January 2017
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
The match clip was taken off youtube but JB was banged to rights. I don't think Maguire played any part but Burnett should have been banned.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
And it very much wasn't just the black.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by SnookerFan » 09 Mar 2021 Read
mick745 wrote:Well who knows.
He also got caught up in a suspected betting scandal when he played Maguire in the UK in 2008 when he missed an easy black ball frame ball described by Parrott "it would have been a poor attempt by an amateur let alone a professional".
I dont think any charges were brought but i suspect the suspicion lingered.
What I don't understand is why Maguire never got blighted as much as the same accusation.
I mean, wasn't the accusation that Burnett was paid to lose 9-3? If you're going to pay somebody to lose a match by a certain score, wouldn't both players need to be in on it? (Unless you bribed somebody to lose 9-0, obviously.) Why would you risk bribing Burnett to lose, and then say; "Make sure you win three frames, yeah?" You couldn't be sure he would win three frames, and there's no point in bribing somebody to lose if part of it is then left to chance.
They've either got to both have been in on it, or neither be in on it. It's different if you're being bribed to lose by whitewash, by a non-specific score of just to lose an individual frame. But I'm not sure that was the case.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 155993
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by HappyCamper » 09 Mar 2021 Read
SnookerFan wrote:mick745 wrote:Well who knows.
He also got caught up in a suspected betting scandal when he played Maguire in the UK in 2008 when he missed an easy black ball frame ball described by Parrott "it would have been a poor attempt by an amateur let alone a professional".
I dont think any charges were brought but i suspect the suspicion lingered.
What I don't understand is why Maguire never got blighted as much as the same accusation.
I mean, wasn't the accusation that Burnett was paid to lose 9-3? If you're going to pay somebody to lose a match by a certain score, wouldn't both players need to be in on it? (Unless you bribed somebody to lose 9-0, obviously.) Why would you risk bribing Burnett to lose, and then say; "Make sure you win three frames, yeah?" You couldn't be sure he would win three frames, and there's no point in bribing somebody to lose if part of it is then left to chance.
They've either got to both have been in on it, or neither be in on it. It's different if you're being bribed to lose by whitewash, by a non-specific score of just to lose an individual frame. But I'm not sure that was the case.
Not necessarily one could easily hedge for the risk of the player not even winning three frames.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 19697
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by SnookerFan » 09 Mar 2021 Read
HappyCamper wrote:Not necessarily one could easily hedge for the risk of the player not even winning three frames.
I suppose.
Am I remembering incorrectly, I thought they were both investigated for it?
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 155993
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Dan-cat » 09 Mar 2021 Read
SnookerFan wrote:mick745 wrote:Well who knows.
He also got caught up in a suspected betting scandal when he played Maguire in the UK in 2008 when he missed an easy black ball frame ball described by Parrott "it would have been a poor attempt by an amateur let alone a professional".
I dont think any charges were brought but i suspect the suspicion lingered.
What I don't understand is why Maguire never got blighted as much as the same accusation.
I mean, wasn't the accusation that Burnett was paid to lose 9-3? If you're going to pay somebody to lose a match by a certain score, wouldn't both players need to be in on it? (Unless you bribed somebody to lose 9-0, obviously.) Why would you risk bribing Burnett to lose, and then say; "Make sure you win three frames, yeah?" You couldn't be sure he would win three frames, and there's no point in bribing somebody to lose if part of it is then left to chance.
They've either got to both have been in on it, or neither be in on it. It's different if you're being bribed to lose by whitewash, by a non-specific score of just to lose an individual frame. But I'm not sure that was the case.
That's exactly how they do it.
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 32107
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by mick745 » 09 Mar 2021 Read
SnookerFan wrote:mick745 wrote:Well who knows.
He also got caught up in a suspected betting scandal when he played Maguire in the UK in 2008 when he missed an easy black ball frame ball described by Parrott "it would have been a poor attempt by an amateur let alone a professional".
I dont think any charges were brought but i suspect the suspicion lingered.
What I don't understand is why Maguire never got blighted as much as the same accusation.
I mean, wasn't the accusation that Burnett was paid to lose 9-3? If you're going to pay somebody to lose a match by a certain score, wouldn't both players need to be in on it? (Unless you bribed somebody to lose 9-0, obviously.) Why would you risk bribing Burnett to lose, and then say; "Make sure you win three frames, yeah?" You couldn't be sure he would win three frames, and there's no point in bribing somebody to lose if part of it is then left to chance.
They've either got to both have been in on it, or neither be in on it. It's different if you're being bribed to lose by whitewash, by a non-specific score of just to lose an individual frame. But I'm not sure that was the case.
An opponent could play brilliantly and stuff you 9-0 or 9-1 say. I suppose suspicion falls when your opponent doesnt play great and tou still contrive to lose by a big margin as happened to Peter Francisco v Jimmy that time. From 2-2 he played terribly but White was not much better and gifted him loafs of chances which he didnt take.
Of course players do collapse in matches and have days when the cant pot a ball.
But surely a professional player can spot a mile off an opponent not trying his best or even deliberately missing shots?
-
mick745
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: 02 January 2017
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
by HappyCamper » 09 Mar 2021 Read
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:Not necessarily one could easily hedge for the risk of the player not even winning three frames.
I suppose.
Am I remembering incorrectly, I thought they were both investigated for it?
They were both questioned by police. No charges were brought against either.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 19697
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
The police aren't all snooker places. Burnett should have been charged.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
players
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by SnookerFan » 09 Mar 2021 Read
mick745 wrote:An opponent could play brilliantly and stuff you 9-0 or 9-1 say. I suppose suspicion falls when your opponent doesnt play great and tou still contrive to lose by a big margin as happened to Peter Francisco v Jimmy that time. From 2-2 he played terribly but White was not much better and gifted him loafs of chances which he didnt take.
Of course players do collapse in matches and have days when the cant pot a ball.
But surely a professional player can spot a mile off an opponent not trying his best or even deliberately missing shots?
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 155993
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
The last frame was as obvious or more as the Lee footage. He'd got his frames so was lunging at balls to let Maguire in. Damn sure Maguire was distracted and at 8-3 it was all too easy.
I'm pretty confident Maguire wasn't involved. In a best of 17 Burnett would have wanted to get his 3 frames fairly early but too till the tenth. After that it was about making it look as disputed as possible, and hoping Maguire hoovered up but he didn't. Remains a stain on the game unfortunately.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by shanew48 » 10 Mar 2021 Read
SnookerFan wrote:HappyCamper wrote:Not necessarily one could easily hedge for the risk of the player not even winning three frames.
I suppose.
Am I remembering incorrectly, I thought they were both investigated for it?
Pretty obvious that they were more than likely both in on it but not enough evidence to charge either of them, guessing that there wasn't an obvious money trail back to them so they were smart in that sense and got away with it.
-
shanew48
- Posts: 909
- Joined: 12 July 2020
- Highest Break: 46