SJM's Slant on the CSI 8-ball Scandal

NlceGuy said:
No he cannot because he knows about as much as the next guy making comments.

Decision was already made when he 'overheard' whatever he thinks he heard. The actual decision occurred in the back room. He is right about one thing, Ko and the group wanted to be the bigger person in this exchange; however it doesn't mean threats were not made. Let's just say that when this occurred, no money was paid yet for any of the events.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is false. Souquet had already been paid for third place before the semis, a significant point because it means that, at first, CSI interpreted Ralf's bolting for the airport as a forfeit to Ko Pin-Yi, as did nearly all in attendance ..... until, of course, the life-after-death ruling that put Van Boening in the semis. And yes, I was in the arena when it all went down.

I'm sure the picture will become clearer when CSI makes a public statement, which seems likely in view of the circumstance.

I won't need a statement from CSI saying "we got this wrong" to be satisfied. All I really need to hear is something to the effect that "CSI understands why this decision was offensive to many and will learn from the experience. No player will ever get life-after-death treatment in a CSI event going forward unless such treatment is discussed and agreed to in the players meeting."

CSI is a wonderful organization run by one of American pool's true superstars in Mark Griffin. Unless CSI statement insults the intelligence of those that feel this was mishandled, I don't really see why we can't all move forward with confidence that this kind of occurrence will be handled with greater skill going forward.

Knowing Mark Griffin, I feel confident that better times lie ahead. Mark's commitment to excellence in his events is well established.
 
watchez said:
We can bet whatever you want to post on that --- should be stealing for you since I know nothing.
Click to expand...

Lol, internet tough guy, what are you trying to prove. I had Lil-Ko's check in my hand after the event and was asked to find a way to cash it since he wasn't 21. Unfortunately couldn't get around the 30% tax refund between US and Taiwan.

I don't know if other players collected early but Taiwan players waited until it was over. We collected some side bets only...

Have a nice day, continue with your internet heroics.
 
NlceGuy said:
Lol, internet tough guy, what are you trying to prove. I had Lil-Ko's check in my hand after the event and was asked to find a way to cash it since he wasn't 21. Unfortunately couldn't get around the 30% tax refund between US and Taiwan.

I don't know if other players collected early but Taiwan players waited until it was over. We collected some side bets only...

Have a nice day, continue with your internet heroics.
Click to expand...

Wow, it just proves what I said in Vegas: that kid is too young to be winning big tournaments. What a wonderful performance it was by Ko Ping-Chung and his fellow Taiwanese players. Hope we'll see the Ko brothers and JL Chang at the US Open.
 
watchez said:
Have you joined a MLB forum to call out Bud Selig --- because in the All Star game each year which has definite meaning of home field advantage for the World Series, if a player is injured, he is replaced. They don't play the game 25 players vs 21.

Or in the Olympics, a player that qualifies on the US gymnastics team gets injured -- the Olympic committee doesn't state that the US team has to be minus one player. I think in the last Olympics the player that was the alternate won a gold medal.

Beyond that, this was a round robin tournament feeding into a single elimination event. If the player who won the round robin, for whatever reason, couldn't continue, he should be replaced. In my mind, it was good karma finally showing up in pool towards SVB cause he should have been the player to move forward in the first place.

-Watchez is the teacher
Click to expand...

Your first two examples have no bearing what so ever, but again enjoyed the read.
The round robin portion was over and Ralf was the winner of his bracket as soon as he sank the winning ball.
The names were entered in the semi-final brackets, then Ralf withdrew. He should have been issued a forfeit
at that time and Ko issued a bye. Once the four semi-finalists, winners of their respective brackets are determined a
player already eliminated can't be brought back. That's if you're running the tournament fairly.
Whether Shane should have moved forward or not I don't know. That should not and would not have
a bearing on whether Ko was issued a bye in a fairly run tournament. If there were issues in certain matches then
maybe the format has to be tweaked.
 
Last edited:
Speculation is always a good thing, I'm so happy Mark G. has this might nut hangers on his side, he'll never have to fight a battle of his own at this rate. For the record Baby Ko getting in his ass for the finals was all worth it.
 
watchez said:
And the SVB being effected more than Ko - I believe that to be true. Just go back and look at the lag on the match. SVB didn't get the ball past the side pocket. He was jarred but after a few routine run outs, he settled down and into the match.

And even though you analogy of Ko no voicing his frustrations has no real basis -- I can let you know that it wasn't like the other members of the Taiwanese group were huddled around talking about it either. Kevin was standing next to me, the translator down by the table. The other players in different parts of the arena area.
Click to expand...

Heard of blind men and an elephant story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant ?
You may be right from your perspective and where you were sitting.
In interpreting human intentions, feelings there are many variables involved
Let us agree to disagree on CSI decision to replace Ralf. But I will say that for everyone here who agrees with CSI decision there one who disagrees so it is probably 50:50 Elsewhere like on this facebook account https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152327261017621&id=64361417620 there is probably bigger % who disagree
So it is not a minority who disagree. Those who disagree are not the lynching mob they just disagree with this decision. And it is not personal it is business :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top