Jay Helfert resigned as Tourney Director at the US Open

It becomes a 'slippery slope' when switching players on a chart, or in any way affecting who plays which opponent.

IF any player withdraws (before the event starts) - for any reason (accident, illness etc). that spot needs to go to the next name on the waiting list. Otherwise you can get into 'selling spots' which can cause all kinds of problems - besides being wrong. Players would not sign up early if they knew they could 'buy' their spot.

So even if Efren showed up, he needs to get on the waiting list. If the waiting list is called, there has to be rules on how much time the called player has to respond. So, if a player is not immediately available, to either confirm or to play, it goes to the next name on the list. My policy has always been that no one gets 'signed up' unless they are paid in full. That eliminates most of the no-shows.

Now, if it was the promoter/tournament director's error, they better hope someone does withdraw. Mistakes happen - but the integrity of the event is more important than owing somebody a spot.

Years ago, we had the Jay Swanson filled at 192 and doing the draw. I had 2-3 players come up and ask where their name was. Well, we found that one of the desk people had signed up 11 people! So we opened up the field to 256. The only hurt people were those that had been turned away because we had told them it was already full.

Just my .02.

Mark Griffin
 
Mark Griffin said:
It becomes a 'slippery slope' when switching players on a chart, or in any way affecting who plays which opponent.

IF any player withdraws (before the event starts) - for any reason (accident, illness etc). that spot needs to go to the next name on the waiting list. Otherwise you can get into 'selling spots' which can cause all kinds of problems - besides being wrong. Players would not sign up early if they knew they could 'buy' their spot.

So even if Efren showed up, he needs to get on the waiting list. If the waiting list is called, there has to be rules on how much time the called player has to respond. So, if a player is not immediately available, to either confirm or to play, it goes to the next name on the list. My policy has always been that no one gets 'signed up' unless they are paid in full. That eliminates most of the no-shows.

Now, if it was the promoter/tournament director's error, they better hope someone does withdraw. Mistakes happen - but the integrity of the event is more important than owing somebody a spot.

Years ago, we had the Jay Swanson filled at 192 and doing the draw. I had 2-3 players come up and ask where their name was. Well, we found that one of the desk people had signed up 11 people! So we opened up the field to 256. The only hurt people were those that had been turned away because we had told them it was already full.

Just my .02.

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

I had not thought of that previously, Mark. That makes a lot of sense about switching spots. As always, thanks for chiming in with your expertise.
 
Mark Griffin said:
It becomes a 'slippery slope' when switching players on a chart, or in any way affecting who plays which opponent.

IF any player withdraws (before the event starts) - for any reason (accident, illness etc). that spot needs to go to the next name on the waiting list. Otherwise you can get into 'selling spots' which can cause all kinds of problems - besides being wrong. Players would not sign up early if they knew they could 'buy' their spot.

So even if Efren showed up, he needs to get on the waiting list. If the waiting list is called, there has to be rules on how much time the called player has to respond. So, if a player is not immediately available, to either confirm or to play, it goes to the next name on the list. My policy has always been that no one gets 'signed up' unless they are paid in full. That eliminates most of the no-shows.

Now, if it was the promoter/tournament director's error, they better hope someone does withdraw. Mistakes happen - but the integrity of the event is more important than owing somebody a spot.

Years ago, we had the Jay Swanson filled at 192 and doing the draw. I had 2-3 players come up and ask where their name was. Well, we found that one of the desk people had signed up 11 people! So we opened up the field to 256. The only hurt people were those that had been turned away because we had told them it was already full.

Just my .02.

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

Wait a second Mark, you had a problem and then came up with a solution?

Huh, imagine that


You're right about it being a slippery slope, you just do the best that you can.
 
JAM said:
Allen did nothing wrong. He would have been okay to have sat this one out and watched the trounament. It wasn't Allen's doing. This is wrong to say down to Allen. He even said to others that he would be okay with not playing after the controversy began. So there!
Click to expand...

Nah, at the end of the day.. he played.

The true principled stance in this is Allen going right up to Barry and saying "look, the draw is done, Jay is correct and it is wrong to change the draw at this point. I appreciate the offer Barry but I would not feel right about taking a spot now, I am not playing."

But, he did not do that. He took the spot after the controversy, he played his match, on the TV table no less. There is certainly a lack of character taking part in what went down. Allen has his part in the event, he took the spot and he played in the event even though he knew it was pretty controversial at that point.

I feel bad for Allen that he actually got put in that spot. Refusing to play likely would have pissed off Barry, but at that point it was the "right" thing to do, and Allen did not do it.
 
FranCrimi said:
Then according to you, all of the players should be held just as culpable since they stayed in the event and allowed it to continue.
Click to expand...

You are comparing a player who paid $1000 to enter the tournament to a tournament director who is PAID to run the event in a fair and effective fashion?

Seriously?
 
Mark Griffin said:
It becomes a 'slippery slope' when switching players on a chart, or in any way affecting who plays which opponent.

IF any player withdraws (before the event starts) - for any reason (accident, illness etc). that spot needs to go to the next name on the waiting list. Otherwise you can get into 'selling spots' which can cause all kinds of problems - besides being wrong. Players would not sign up early if they knew they could 'buy' their spot.

So even if Efren showed up, he needs to get on the waiting list. If the waiting list is called, there has to be rules on how much time the called player has to respond. So, if a player is not immediately available, to either confirm or to play, it goes to the next name on the list. My policy has always been that no one gets 'signed up' unless they are paid in full. That eliminates most of the no-shows.

Now, if it was the promoter/tournament director's error, they better hope someone does withdraw. Mistakes happen - but the integrity of the event is more important than owing somebody a spot.

Years ago, we had the Jay Swanson filled at 192 and doing the draw. I had 2-3 players come up and ask where their name was. Well, we found that one of the desk people had signed up 11 people! So we opened up the field to 256. The only hurt people were those that had been turned away because we had told them it was already full.

Just my .02.

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

Since someone else brought it up earlier, you had a situation a year+ ago where you moved SVB up when Souquet forfeited. I think it was the right thing to do because it was a two-stage tournament, and the forfeit and change occurred between stages. But the fact that people still talk about that and criticize you for it shows how seriously people take the issue of bracket changing, even in that situation.
 
JAM said:
I'm not defending. It doesn't have anything to do with being loyal.

I personally do believe that none of us on this thread, except Jay, knows the absolute truth of what transpired. We're passing along judgments and opinions, but they are based on supposition.

Personally, if the guy who paid his entry fee wants to give it up to Allen, he should be able to give it to whoever he feels like. It's his dough, and it's his spot. I understand the chart was drawn, but things like this happen in tournaments all the time, ESPECIALLY pool.

You want to rake somebody over the fires about running tournaments, how about Charlie Williams changing the times on charts. He did what he had to do, I guess, but it doesn't mean everybody is going to like it.
Click to expand...


Jam Read Jay's post he pretty well summed up the corrupt situation that had occurred.
 
Ken_4fun said:
I agree 100%.

Fran please remember, puff, puff, past.

Since my friend JAM referred to me as Brutus.....I will add;

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."

Ken
Click to expand...

I don't know what that puff puff stuff means but I'm wondering why everyone is assuming that Barry just decided to put Alan in the event the last minute. (Am I the only one who spells his name right?)

What if Alan was one of the first 10 people invited, but Barry just forgot to put his name in writing? I'm not a fan of Barry's but he actually came through with the added money. I was skeptical that he would.

This is Alan Hopkins, for crying out loud. There was no funny stuff... there's a way to let him play and still keep everyone in the event. I'm telling you --- those players would have agreed to let Alan play.
 
FranCrimi said:
I don't know what that puff puff stuff means but I'm wondering why everyone is assuming that Barry just decided to put Alan in the event the last minute. (Am I the only one who spells his name right?)

What if Alan was one of the first 10 people invited, but Barry just forgot to put his name in writing? I'm not a fan of Barry's but he actually came through with the added money. I was skeptical that he would.

This is Alan Hopkins, for crying out loud. There was no funny stuff... there's a way to let him play and still keep everyone in the event. I'm telling you --- those players would have agreed to let Alan play.
Click to expand...

Fran, your posts are written with good intentions. Don't let others provoke you. And I agree. Everybody loves Allen and being around him. They would have let him play.

Just so you know, Allen spells his name like this: Allen Hopkins (not Alan). :)

Allen's Wikipedia page --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Hopkins_(pool_player)
 
FranCrimi said:
I don't know what that puff puff stuff means but I'm wondering why everyone is assuming that Barry just decided to put Alan in the event the last minute. (Am I the only one who spells his name right?)

What if Alan was one of the first 10 people invited, but Barry just forgot to put his name in writing? I'm not a fan of Barry's but he actually came through with the added money. I was skeptical that he would.

This is Alan (?sp) Hopkins, for crying out loud. There was no funny stuff... there's a way to let him play and still keep everyone in the event. I'm telling you --- those players would have agreed to let Alan play.
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you it doesn't matter who the hell it is, you don't change the rules on the fly for anyone, especially in a WPA sanctioned event. It's not a matter of "taking a vote". It's a matter of sticking to the rules and applying them equally.

That Barry didn't originally include Alan(?sp) by mistake, or there was a miscommunication, DOES NOT MATTER, after the fact. I expect grown up, professionals to realize the mistake can not and will not be fixed, and to move on, appropriately.
 
JAM said:
Fran, your posts are written with good intentions. Don't let others provoke you. And I agree. Everybody loves Allen and being around him. They would have let him play.

Just so you know, Allen spells his name like this: Allen Hopkins (not Alan). :)

Allen's Wikipedia page --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Hopkins_(pool_player)
Click to expand...

Yep, or the BCA Hall of Fame page.

http://bca-pool.com/general/custom.asp?page=30

Allen there as well.

Are you sure "you" are spelling it right Fran?
 
Tooler said:
Not a tough call at all. What Jay did was 100% the correct thing to do. Everyone but Barry knows this is true. Barry needs to be put out to pasture. Give him his piece wood with his name on it, and kick him to the curb. He is without a doubt, the worst person to promote a cub scout event, let alone a pool tournament.

This whole US Open thing is laughable, and has been for years. Jay did his absolute best, just like he always does, and Barry intentionally shit on him.

The guy I feel sorry for is Alan more than anyone.
Click to expand...


My guess is that Jay would disagree with you -- there were a lot of issues in play, to include the welfare of the field at large.

And frankly, Hopkins is just as culpable as BB.

Lou Figueroa
 
FranCrimi said:
I don't know what that puff puff stuff means but I'm wondering why everyone is assuming that Barry just decided to put Alan in the event the last minute. (Am I the only one who spells his name right?)

What if Alan was one of the first 10 people invited, but Barry just forgot to put his name in writing? I'm not a fan of Barry's but he actually came through with the added money. I was skeptical that he would.

This is Alan Hopkins, for crying out loud. There was no funny stuff... there's a way to let him play and still keep everyone in the event. I'm telling you --- those players would have agreed to let Alan play.
Click to expand...

according to wiki, it is spelled allen actually
 
FranCrimi said:
Then according to you, all of the players should be held just as culpable since they stayed in the event and allowed it to continue.

I agree that it was an extremely difficult situation, but abandoning the players was not the answer.
Click to expand...


Nope. Just the two shitbirds involved. BB made the call as the de facto TD.

Lou Figueroa
 
FranCrimi said:
So then leave it up to the players. Call a meeting ask for an anonymous vote. Each player gets a piece of paper and can write one of three things:

1.) Redraw: Add the extra player, redraw and use a 256 player chart.

2.) Extra match: Leave the draw alone and have the player draw into an extra match (which is the same as a 256 player chart without the redraw)

3.) No change. Alan is out and everything stays the same.

There were options. Jay opted to leave.
Click to expand...


No. That's why you have (had) a TD. You don't take everything to the field for a vote.

Lou Figueroa
 
stevelomako said:
So why aren't people upset that Pat Fleming made it a TV match also?


Can't you make up all sorts scenarios, like:

Isn't it Jay Helferts fault that Alan was overlooked since he was the Tournament Director?

Isn't it Pat Flemings fault since he was in charge of all the entries?

Isn't it the fault of the player that willingly gave up his spot?


In the end it's a little too much drama over not a whole lot in the big scheme of things. It's not like this hasn't happened before at tons of tournaments. You come to play...and you play.

What would have been wrong with making an announcement first, "Attention to all players, we made a mistake and a former champion Allen Hopkins was supposed to have an entry that was overlooked, is someone willing to give up their spot?" And take it from there.

If Efren showed up and said "Hey, I thought I was in?" then what?
Click to expand...


Because you should be treating all players fairly?

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
No. That's why you have (had) a TD. You don't take everything to the field for a vote.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's okay to take something to a vote, Lou. I agree, that most of the time it's not okay, but sometimes it is. I think this could possibly have been one of those times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top