Mark Allen has openly questioned the validity of Zhao Xintong receiving a snooker ranking inside the top 64 after the World Championship.
Zhao is on course to become the first Chinese snooker world champion, taking an 11-6 advantage over Mark Williams into the last day of action at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield.
The 28 year-old has been in superb form right throughout this year’s competition, which he entered from the very first round of qualifying last month.
Invited as a top-up amateur on the back of his performances on the feeder Q Tour earlier this season, Zhao has orchestrated a rapid rise back to the elite since the conclusion of his ban.
The former UK Championship winner was out of the game for 20 months after being caught up in the Chinese betting ring that rocked the sport in 2022 and 2023.
Zhao was deemed not to have partaken in match fixing itself but was found guilty of being a party to those fixing matches and for betting on snooker.
Since returning in September, he quickly dominated the amateur circuit and won four events in a row on the Q Tour while contributing a brace of maximum breaks.
Topping the Q Tour rankings guaranteed a fresh two-year card to return to the professional setup for next season.
Originally, that would have meant starting the upcoming campaign from scratch and with zero ranking points.
But a little-known World Snooker Tour clause means that his remarkable run over the last few weeks will allow him to keep his ranking points and shoot back into the top 64 of the world rankings.
By reaching the final and guaranteeing himself £200,000 in prize money, Zhao is already assured of a spot among the top 32, according to the snooker authorities.
However, with the £500,000 champion’s cheque in Sheffield, he could rise all the way back up to number 11 in the world – just five places shy of his all-time high ranking that he reached shortly before his ban.
“It’s not actually a rule change,” WPBSA chairman Jason Ferguson told the BBC when it was put to him by Ken Doherty that “some players are up in arms” over the situation.
“It’s actually a scenario that’s never happened before. Amateur players do enter events from time to time.”
“As they come, they play against professionals and never break into the top 64.
“This is the first time we’ve actually seen this where somebody has actually broke all the way through and earned enough points in a season.
“In that scenario, the case is that the player retains those ranking points, because the player is deemed a professional player and joins the professional tour by retaining that top 64 position.”
This statement, however, appears to go against what has been written in the players’ entry pack for the tournament.
Mark Allen, whose ranking of 10 would be just ahead of that of Zhao Xintong if the latter secures the Crucible crown, shared a paragraph from the entry pack that seems to contradict Ferguson’s explanation.
“Makes this part of our entry packs a little more difficult to understand,” the Pistol wrote on X.
“An amateur player can qualify in the Top 64,” the section said, “however their ranking points will always reset to zero at the start of each season.”
“That amateur will count as a Top 64 player and the player ranked 64 would fall outside of Top 64 and fail to qualify.”
Resetting to zero would seem to suggest that the player should begin as a professional from scratch without retaining the ranking points from the World Championship run after all.
“My issue isn’t with Zhao at all,” Allen later added. “My issue is the fact there’s a rule in the entry pack for our events that they’re blatantly contradicting to suit themselves.”
“Change the rule for next season if you like, but everyone entered knowing what the rules were and the goalposts have moved.”
As it stands, Zak Surety would be the player to lose his position in the top 64, although the World Open semi-finalist’s pro status is safe as he has only finished one year from his two-year card.
Ali Carter, meanwhile, would drop out of the top 16 if Zhao were to complete victory in the World Championship final later on Monday.
The entire matter is confounded by the issue surrounding whether or not Zhao should have been allowed to compete this season at all.
The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association’s usual stance is that a player who isn’t in good standing with their national federation can’t participate in their tournaments.
While Zhao’s WPBSA ban ended in September last year, the Chinese Billiards and Snooker Association’s own suspension lasts until July this year.
However, the WPBSA confirmed before Zhao’s return that the usual stipulation won’t apply on this occasion.
“After an extensive WPBSA investigation, Zhao Xintong admitted to being concerned in match fixing at a hearing before an independent Disciplinary Commission,” the WPBSA told SnookerHQ.com in an official statement in August.
“In June 2023, he was sentenced to a suspension of one year and eight months, and to pay costs of £7,500. The suspension was to run from when he was first suspended in January, 2023.”
“After this sentence, the Chinese Billiards and Snooker Association (CBSA) imposed a longer suspension.
“The CBSA have now confirmed their sanction only applies to mainland China and that Zhao Xintong is permitted to play in events outside of China from the end of his WPBSA suspension.
“Zhao will have served the suspension imposed by the Independent Disciplinary Commission by 1st September, 2024, and he has paid his costs order.
“This means that he is eligible to play in WPBSA-governed events from 2nd September, 2024.”
Featured photo credit: WST
“Zhao was deemed not to have partaken in match fixing itself but was found guilty of being a party to those fixing matches and for betting on snooker.
“After an extensive WPBSA investigation, Zhao Xintong admitted to being concerned in match fixing at a hearing before an independent Disciplinary Commission.”
Is there somewhere where Joe Public can read the full facts of the investigation ascertaining exactly what offences were committed by which players? For example did Zhao place bets on games in which he was playing or on matches he knew were fixed? Was there evidence that showed some players were clearly bullied and frightened into taking part?
The report is available to read through the link available at the bottom of this page: https://wpbsa.com/wpbsa-statement-6-june-2023/
Many thanks to you David Caulfield. I now have a very clear understanding of the events.
Yes, read David’s link. But also bear in mind that any evidence of criminal wrongdoing (such as threats), would probably be redacted from the report (in case of any police investigation and subsequent charges), and also the various whistleblowers have the right to remain anonymous, which also limits what can be included.
It’s not a legal case report, nobody was ‘arrested’, no evidence was given ‘on oath’, and in fact WPBSA themselves are having to operate under legal constraints. Basically it was a disciplinary hearing and the players were found to have breached a Code of Conduct. The report just attempts to justify what WPBSA did. It can’t answer all questions, and Jason Ferguson himself had to dodge some issues when asked.
““It’s not actually a rule change,” WPBSA chairman Jason Ferguson told the BBC”…where can I read these rules, please?