Have always wondered

who the two no votes were from when they had that vote as to whether Paul Hunter's ranking position should be Frozen while he had treatment for cancer, the names that enter my mind straight away are Murphy (obviously) and Carter and Mcquire.

If Murphy can complain get someone docked a frame for asking to run back to pick up some chalk then who knows what lengths he would go to to break into the top 7 or 8 places in the rankings, makes you think doesn't it, obviously we will never know the identity of those two individuals but in the absence of any confirmation either way it is most probably sensible to pencil Murphy in as one of the culprits until proven otherwise.

I would say that it's most probably NOT sensible to pencil Murphy in as one of the culprits. We'll never know, so why speculate?

Pink Ball wrote:I would say that it's most probably NOT sensible to pencil Murphy in as one of the culprits. We'll never know, so why speculate?

Just came into my mind so thought I'd speculate, unless nobody wants to speculate, in that case there will be no speculating lol

Do we know if Paul had any beef's with anyone on the tour at any point? If so that should narrow the suspects list down. As for Murphy he had already won the world championship at this point which is a far bigger deal than anything Paul had ever won so why would he need Paul out the way? Also after the 2006 World Championship which was Paul's last Murphy moved to number 5 in the ranking anyway.

CaldoTheKid wrote:Do we know if Paul had any beef's with anyone on the tour at any point? If so that should narrow the suspects list down. As for Murphy he had already won the world championship at this point which is a far bigger deal than anything Paul had ever won so why would he need Paul out the way? Also after the 2006 World Championship which was Paul's last Murphy moved to number 5 in the ranking anyway.

Think Murphy's WC win was in fact in 2006, I was just being a bit mischievous suggesting him as one of the two, just him costing Maguire that frame in "chalkgate" means you can't put anything past him really can you, very sneaky guy.

shanew48 wrote:

CaldoTheKid wrote:Do we know if Paul had any beef's with anyone on the tour at any point? If so that should narrow the suspects list down. As for Murphy he had already won the world championship at this point which is a far bigger deal than anything Paul had ever won so why would he need Paul out the way? Also after the 2006 World Championship which was Paul's last Murphy moved to number 5 in the ranking anyway.

Think Murphy's WC win was in fact in 2006, I was just being a bit mischievous suggesting him as one of the two, just him costing Maguire that frame in "chalkgate" means you can't put anything past him really can you, very sneaky guy.

For what its worth Murphy says he never told the ref to dock Maguire a frame but just asked the ref here he'd went.

It's interesting how some players (Murphy, Carter and sometines Maguire) are quite often painted as villains. Probably not the frendliest blokes on the tour, but they are not there to make friends.

As for the Hunter freeze, I highly doubt it was one of the 3 above.
The frozen ranking for Hunter was 34. At that point the 3 above were all inside Top 16, so not a lot to gain unless they really hated the guy.

I would probably look lower down the ranks to those on the edge to drop off tour, Hunter's frozen ranking would take their tour card away. Survival could be a strong motivation

I dont get the negativity on Murphy. I have met him several times and he's always been extremely polite and gentlemanly. In fact i think he's a good ambassador for the sport. He was extremely gracious in his speech after losing the world final ladt year.

Probably the worst thing that could be levelled at him is that he is sanctimonious at times but there are worst things to be.

Shaun Murphy is brilliant and awesome.

If it was Mardy he would have mentioned it, at length including all his reasoning/justification
He is simply not capable of keeping his opinions to himself

Wait when is Maguire painted as a villain? Everyone says he’s one of the nicest guys you could meet (™ Dennis Taylor) off the table?

The vote was 16-8, no?

No one knows.

So there were 8 no votes then, interesting.

SnookerFan wrote:

CaldoTheKid wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

CaldoTheKid wrote:Do we know if Paul had any beef's with anyone on the tour at any point? If so that should narrow the suspects list down. As for Murphy he had already won the world championship at this point which is a far bigger deal than anything Paul had ever won so why would he need Paul out the way? Also after the 2006 World Championship which was Paul's last Murphy moved to number 5 in the ranking anyway.

Think Murphy's WC win was in fact in 2006, I was just being a bit mischievous suggesting him as one of the two, just him costing Maguire that frame in "chalkgate" means you can't put anything past him really can you, very sneaky guy.

For what its worth Murphy says he never told the ref to dock Maguire a frame but just asked the ref here he'd went.

he claims he didn't mention it to the ref or the TD but it was just strange that while Maguire was retrieving his chalk Murphy is seen conversing with the ref and TD and then next thing you know Maguire is docked a frame, what were they talking about? the weather?

That's most probably where the magician nickname came from, he magically managed to be 1-0 up without even having to play a single shot, that is genius to be fair.

SnookerFan wrote:Yeah, have got anything other than Murphy's word for that?

The ref or TD have never corroborated his claim so it's safe to say that he is not telling the truth, can't blame him though in the sense that why would he want to admit to it? not something that anyone would want to admit to is it.

Players are routinely docked a frame if they are able to start at the correct time. Why would it need Murphy's intervention to apply the rule (correctly) in this instance.

shanew48 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Yeah, have got anything other than Murphy's word for that?

The ref or TD have never corroborated his claim so it's safe to say that he is not telling the truth, can't blame him though in the sense that why would he want to admit to it? not something that anyone would want to admit to is it.

Has the ref or TD ever refuted his claim?

HappyCamper wrote:Players are routinely docked a frame if they are able to start at the correct time. Why would it need Murphy's intervention to apply the rule (correctly) in this instance.

Is it a routine occurrence? I think this case was viewed so egregious due to the fact that it had the optics of another player getting involved, guessing it only took Maguire a few short minutes to nip backstage to get some chalk, there may well have been some to hand it the practice area which I would guess is generally a short walk from the arena dependant on where the tournament is being held?

In this particular shameful episode could Murphy have not accepted the docking of the frame and basically said that he perhaps felt it a harsh ruling due to the minimal delay? would there be any discretion allowed bearing in mind this was a rare situation of a player forgetting their chalk and just having to quickly rush backstage to collect it? Maybe he could have just said that he was prepared to start at 0-0 rather than 1-0 up? Like I say really not sure if he could have done that or not in this relatively rare situation?

Iranu wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Yeah, have got anything other than Murphy's word for that?

The ref or TD have never corroborated his claim so it's safe to say that he is not telling the truth, can't blame him though in the sense that why would he want to admit to it? not something that anyone would want to admit to is it.

Has the ref or TD ever refuted his claim?

I'm guessing they arnt keen to be getting involved as they have to be seen to be as neutral as possible don't they.

I'm not sure if that episode is why he is so universally disliked by the other players and fans, or it's more the condescension, obviously he didn't do himself any favours recently when he threw his toys everywhere.

shanew48 wrote:

Iranu wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Yeah, have got anything other than Murphy's word for that?

The ref or TD have never corroborated his claim so it's safe to say that he is not telling the truth, can't blame him though in the sense that why would he want to admit to it? not something that anyone would want to admit to is it.

Has the ref or TD ever refuted his claim?

I'm guessing they arnt keen to be getting involved as they have to be seen to be as neutral as possible don't they.

They why is their lack of “corroboration” evidence that Murphy’s lying?

Iranu wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

Iranu wrote:

shanew48 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Yeah, have got anything other than Murphy's word for that?

The ref or TD have never corroborated his claim so it's safe to say that he is not telling the truth, can't blame him though in the sense that why would he want to admit to it? not something that anyone would want to admit to is it.

Has the ref or TD ever refuted his claim?

I'm guessing they arnt keen to be getting involved as they have to be seen to be as neutral as possible don't they.

They why is their lack of “corroboration” evidence that Murphy’s lying?

Why is the general consensus that he did, why would anyone have accused him of such a thing in the first place?

SnookerFan wrote:I just thought it was odd that Murphy took more than a decade to deny it, when he know perfectly well that it's what everyone thought.

I think it took something like 18 years for the denial to come?