BetVictor Welsh Open Final !!

badtemperedcyril wrote:What’s wrong about that? Most professionals (or even amateurs) want to win by beating their opponent fair and square on the table not by having frames awarded to them by a technicality. I can’t think of another player who’d have done what he did.

Iranu wrote:

lhpirnie wrote:"That young man should not have been in the building", "he played without a care in the world",... Actually, Si Jiahui was having a difficult time personally, having dropped off tour, failing to get through Q School, having to spend 18 months in the UK separated from his family, girlfriend, etc. The attack was way too personal. But yes, that's not the main reason why Murphy is not liked.

I’m not defending Murphy’s comments, they were stupid.

But the quotes I provided make it clear that it wasn’t a personal attack on Si.

Iranu wrote:

lhpirnie wrote:"That young man should not have been in the building", "he played without a care in the world",... Actually, Si Jiahui was having a difficult time personally, having dropped off tour, failing to get through Q School, having to spend 18 months in the UK separated from his family, girlfriend, etc. The attack was way too personal. But yes, that's not the main reason why Murphy is not liked.

I’m not defending Murphy’s comments, they were stupid.

But the quotes I provided make it clear that it wasn’t a personal attack on Si.

lhpirnie wrote:Yes, he had a wider point, although I would argue that a stronger objection would be to amateurs qualifying for the tour via the 1-year list.

But how can you say that the phrase "that young man", and references to Si Jiahui's playing style aren't personal? Of course they are, even if he made other comments after that.

Iranu wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:What’s wrong about that? Most professionals (or even amateurs) want to win by beating their opponent fair and square on the table not by having frames awarded to them by a technicality. I can’t think of another player who’d have done what he did.

If an opponent breaks a rule and that rule is applied, it is fair and square.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:What’s wrong about that? Most professionals (or even amateurs) want to win by beating their opponent fair and square on the table not by having frames awarded to them by a technicality. I can’t think of another player who’d have done what he did.

If an opponent breaks a rule and that rule is applied, it is fair and square.

No it's not, gtfoh

SnookerEd25 wrote:It was 19 years ago, it’s been debated to death. Can’t we just let it go?

Holden Chinaski wrote:I'm starting to think Johnny Bravo is a joke account, possibly created by Pink Ball.

SnookerFan wrote:Well, I'm one, by the way.

Pinkball created me some years before he signed up as himself.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Well, I'm one, by the way.

Pinkball created me some years before he signed up as himself.

Who the buck are you?

SnookerFan wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Well, I'm one, by the way.

Pinkball created me some years before he signed up as himself.

Who the buck are you?

Dominic Dale.

SnookerFan wrote:To be honest, I didn't like the way Murphy behaved with that. Even if he was technically following a rule.

As Iranu said, he wasn't cheating because no rule was broken. The tournament director/referee applied a rule, and all rules were followed. However, I do believe that they followed the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. That rule is really there to make sure people are punctual to matches. If a player is 20 minutes late for example, they get docked a frame. That's fair enough.

Maguire was on time for the match. His arriving and going; "Oh rubbish, my chalk is still in my dressing room" isn't really delaying the start of the game, is it? Maybe by the two minutes it took to get there and back. Common sense could've dictated that there wasn't a need to dock a frame. Yes, it's stupid for a professional player to forget an important bit of equipment for a match, but it's hardly some big heinous crime, is it? They could've just let it go. Everybody is human.

And I don't believe Murphy's defence about him just questioning it and nothing more. He went up to the referee, and said; "Where's Maguire going?", and then the tournament director hurried over and went; "Stop the conversation lads, I'm docking him a frame", did he? It's bullocks.

Bear in mind, it took Murphy more than a decade to publicly announce that defence. He knew people remembered it, and it seemed Maguire had a bit of a grudge about it every time they played. Yet it took Murphy that long to come out and explain his side of the story? I don't mind what people think of me if their opinion is based on something that is true. But I hate people saying stuff about me that's not true.

Fair enough, if Murphy didn't care what people were saying, so never bothered to defend himself on it. But clearly, he wanted to set the record straight, but he waited more than a decade to do so? That smells more of somebody who after years, decided to make an excuse. I would've tried to clear the air straight away, if I really wasn't to blame.

I also remember a Murphy match, I forget his opponent, but they realised they hadn't brought some other type of implement that they often carried with them, and asked the referee if they could go back and get it. Suddenly Murphy is involved, giving his opinion. Jan Ver Haas (who was second refereeing) ran back to the dressing room in a few seconds. Murphy was still arguing that it wasn't allowed by the time Jan had retrieved it. So it's not like he's above that sort of behaviour.

Ultimate decision is with the referee/tournament director, so they could both have said no. And I'm not saying it wasn't a silly mistake by Mags either. So Murphy wasn't 100% to blame. But that's not to say that it's 0% his fault either.

SnookerEd25 wrote:It was 19 years ago, it’s been debated to death. Can’t we just let it go?

The_Abbott wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:It was 19 years ago, it’s been debated to death. Can’t we just let it go?

and now its being mass debated OK

SnookerFan wrote:

The_Abbott wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:It was 19 years ago, it’s been debated to death. Can’t we just let it go?

and now its being mass debated OK

It defeats the point of a mass debate, if you're just going to let it go half way through.