Ding Accepts Disciplinary Charge

Bourne wrote:So many double standards here

Bourne wrote:You're basically saying that opening a pack of reds is the only definition of a disgrace to the sport. You think you're able to define every shot when a player is trying 100% or a 'corrupt' 99.9999%. You clown.

Wild wrote:seriously anyone who thinks what ding did was right are clueless morons and trying to compare that to some players maybe not giving every shot 100% concentration is just proving how clueless people are.

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:seriously anyone who thinks what ding did was right are clueless morons and trying to compare that to some players maybe not giving every shot 100% concentration is just proving how clueless people are.

if saint selby did the same i doubt you would be as hard line

Bourne wrote:Exactly, they've set a precedent now, but I guarantee you they will in no way keep it up.

SnookerFan wrote:It's just nonsense though. I mean, Bourne's right. Is somebody supposed to be there judging whether a player plays 100% on every shot? That reeks of dictatorship. "You will play in a certain way, you won't play shots we don't like." Maybe Hearn could employ a second referee to stand there and judge whether each shot was played 100% Nobody was complaining when Ronnie all but stopped trying to win against Bingham, on live TV at the second most prestigious tournament of the year, did they? That's alright, as he's a troubled genius.

The guy was ill, ffs, and travelled to Europe to play anyway. That's not a player who doesn't give a monkeys about the sport. When you have flu, you can't concentrate to full efficiency, and when playing a game like snooker that requires full concentration, it can be easy to see how he would lose patience or act more recklessly then usual.

Who of us was aware that there was a rule governing that if you have the flu, you have to announce it to World Snooker? Put up your hand if you were aware of it before reading this article. He played when ill, he didn't play or try to his best granted, but should at least be commended from going over there and playing for the fans who had paid to see him. (Ronnie ) Chances are Ding didn't know he had to report having the flu either. World Snooker just added that disclaimer that he didn't report it, so they didn't look stupid.

I think a bit of common sense needs to be applied here. I don't remember people moaning about this month's ago when it happened. But suddenly, somebody who put it up on You Tube, and moans about it and Ding gets fined months after it happens. It's a knee-jerk reaction. Ding isn't known as a crooked player. If they have to enforce this farce of a rule, he could have at least had it explained to him that this isn't what was expected of him. And, next time could he report any illnesses that might hamper his performance or decision making. If he becomes a repeat offender, then other action will be considered. But no, people were complaining, so we need to make an example of somebody. So we fine Ding £2,000.

Wild wrote:

Bourne wrote:Exactly, they've set a precedent now, but I guarantee you they will in no way keep it up.

you want a bet.

i wont let them drop bellow that standard if they do ill be on them like a tone of bricks.

Bourne wrote:

Wild wrote:

Bourne wrote:Exactly, they've set a precedent now, but I guarantee you they will in no way keep it up.

you want a bet.

i wont let them drop bellow that standard if they do ill be on them like a tone of bricks.

Yes I do, i'll bet every penny I owe if you like.

Sonny wrote:So after Seifer we now have another member of the ISP - the Internet Snooker Police.

I wouldn't expect the concept of a foreign player growing up in an entirely different culture with a different set of values and a different life experience to be understood by someone who has spent their life locked in a shed in North Wales putting the world to rights from a very narrow viewpoint.

Ding has been hard done by in my opinion. If it was someone from Britain then it would be a different story because they would have grown up knowing the score. I feel sorry for Ding, especially with having pin ends grassing him up to the authorities.

Bourne wrote:If he tried to lose the match he'd have either not turned up or quit halfway through, but he persisted because he's not in any way like that and didn't want to let down the fans who wanted to see him. He was unable to perform his best, and 3-0 down of course it's a hell of a climb but ten times worse when you're not feeling right. These 'anti corruption' guys had a duty to look for the balance but have spectacularly missed it.

Bourne wrote:There was no guarantee Liang would have cleared up anyway

Wild wrote:

Bourne wrote:There was no guarantee Liang would have cleared up anyway

that makes it alright then

Bourne wrote:

Wild wrote:

Bourne wrote:There was no guarantee Liang would have cleared up anyway

that makes it alright then

Not in the grandest sense of the word but it's not as if he was 56-56 and feathered a black over the pocket at 3-3 ...

Sonny wrote:It was wrong to play how he was feeling? Why is it wrong to smash the reds up from the break off? Can you tell me that? It's tactically not the correct shot to play, but why is it wrong exactly? I thought it was a legal shot.