by shanew48 » 09 Mar 2021 Read
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
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?
by gallantrabbit » 09 Mar 2021 Read
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?