Questions CSI should answer about 25July2014 Ko Pin Yi-Ralf Souquet 8ball semifinal

BeiberLvr said:
You would have a point if Ralf or Ko broke the 1st rack and then Ralf quit. At that point, Ko would get a bye.

But that's not what happened.

So you're wrong.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

No in fact you're wrong, people forfeit and a bye is issued all the time in tournaments.
The fact that one of the players didn't break has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'd say most of the time when people forfeit it's because they don't show up for their match
at all, so obviously they haven't broken the balls, yet a bye is still issued breaking the balls
has nothing to do with this.
 
itsfroze said:
No in fact you're wrong, people forfeit and a bye is issued all the time in tournaments.
The fact that one of the players didn't break has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'd say most of the time when people forfeit it's because they don't show up for their match
at all, so obviously they haven't broken the balls, yet a bye is still issued breaking the balls
has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

In elimination tournaments, yes.

In round robin tiered tournaments, no.

If you disagree, then show examples.

Royce
 
RBC said:
In elimination tournaments, yes.

In round robin tiered tournaments, no.

If you disagree, then show examples.

Royce
Click to expand...

This was down to the single elimination (or knockout) part of the tournament. The 4 four semi-finalists had already been determined. In fact the names had already been written in the semi-final brackets. It had already been determined where Shane had finished and what that prize was. You can't bring someone back who's already been eliminated, and yes once the four semi-finalists had been determined the rest of the field was eliminated. Only one of those four could become the Champion.

Other wise it's not a tournament it's a side show !!!

It's not "one person advances" from each bracket as many on your side of the discussion like to say, it's the winner of each bracket advances.

Also this isn't really a tiered tournament ,
I'll add this post by: Niceguy
"Typical round robin knock out stage implies a stage in which you play for a qualifying spot of a separate paying tournament bracket. In this case, the knock out stage was part of the same tournament, evident by the place and prize money received by the round robin finishers.

So how does someone who already finished in a place where prize money is assigned, get resurrected to play for more money. Shane was loose and firing in the semis, hard not to when you are on a free-roll."

As this stated it nicely.
 
Last edited:
RBC said:
In elimination tournaments, yes.

In round robin tiered tournaments, no.

If you disagree, then show examples.

Royce
Click to expand...

Examples have already been shown ,,it would not matter anyway it's not changing anyone's mind ,,, there are other issues that are driving the force equally ,,, like was Ko threaten to play ,, was Ralf paid ,, were they aware of the overlap possibility ,, did they have the rules in writing to back up decisions or were they made on the fly , why were there no announcements to ring side spectators or paying viewers ,,

It's been said CSI is trying to bring class back to pool ,,, well you lead by example and they are failing miserably if in fact that is their intent


1
 
BeiberLvr said:
You would have a point if Ralf or Ko broke the 1st rack and then Ralf quit. At that point, Ko would get a bye.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if Ralf actually started that first rack or not. The main point is that he got paid 3rd place (according to sources here), which is the biggest elephant in the room. So if he did in fact get paid 3rd, it's as if he broke the 1st rack and quit.

For all those who defend SVB moving up to face Ko, do you also defend Ralf getting paid 3rd place, essentially changing the payout structure that was posted before the tournament started (since there would be three 3rd place finishers)? If you do, then you are in favor of setting the example that it is allowable for a promoter to change the payout structure whenever he wants, regardless of what was initially posted.

Again, it is reasonable to be in favor of SVB moving up to replace Ralf in the semis, but I feel that at the same time you should be in favor of stripping Ralf of 3rd place prize money.
 
I'll need to see proof ralf got paid 3rd place other than what someone said.
If he did get paid then of course it's wrong

Unless CSI came out of pocket to do so. Then I see no issue
 
BeiberLvr said:
I'll need to see proof ralf got paid 3rd place other than what someone said.
Click to expand...
You're correct. I'm going by what was posted by one of the most respected forum members here. There is still the possibility that he got the information wrong. So a statement from CSI is warranted.
 
jsp said:
It doesn't matter if Ralf actually started that first rack or not. The main point is that he got paid 3rd place (according to sources here), which is the biggest elephant in the room. So if he did in fact get paid 3rd, it's as if he broke the 1st rack and quit.

For all those who defend SVB moving up to face Ko, do you also defend Ralf getting paid 3rd place, essentially changing the payout structure that was posted before the tournament started (since there would be three 3rd place finishers)? If you do, then you are in favor of setting the example that it is allowable for a promoter to change the payout structure whenever he wants, regardless of what was initially posted.

Again, it is reasonable to be in favor of SVB moving up to replace Ralf in the semis, but I feel that at the same time you should be in favor of stripping Ralf of 3rd place prize money.
Click to expand...

I'll be the first to go on record in favor of any promoter INCREASING the payout structure whenever he/she wants to.

I think there are 2 possible scenarios:

1. You strip Ralf of his 3rd place prize money.
2. As a sign of goodwill you let him keep it and you increase the payouts by adding an additional 3rd place finisher.

Either is fine. I don't think any professional pool player would argue with the 2nd method.

I don't think Ralf getting paid third place money or not is any sort of hinge pin in the whole scheme of things.
 
never mind


If this is what spending my money to promote pool does, then I think I might just keep it.

Royce
 
itsfroze said:
This was down to the single elimination (or knockout) part of the tournament. The 4 four semi-finalists had already been determined. In fact the names had already been written in the semi-final brackets. It had already been determined where Shane had finished and what that prize was. You can't bring someone back who's already been eliminated, and yes once the four semi-finalists had been determined the rest of the field was eliminated. Only one of those four could become the Champion.

Other wise it's not a tournament it's a side show !!!

It's not "one person advances" from each bracket as many on your side of the discussion like to say, it's the winner of each bracket advances.

Also this isn't really a tiered tournament ,
I'll add this post by: Niceguy
"Typical round robin knock out stage implies a stage in which you play for a qualifying spot of a separate paying tournament bracket. In this case, the knock out stage was part of the same tournament, evident by the place and prize money received by the round robin finishers.

So how does someone who already finished in a place where prize money is assigned, get resurrected to play for more money. Shane was loose and firing in the semis, hard not to when you are on a free-roll."

As this stated it nicely.
Click to expand...

^^^This explanation couldn't be any clearer.
 
RBC said:
never mind


If this is what spending my money to promote pool does, then I think I might just keep it.

Royce
Click to expand...

I know a few people who stopped having pool tournaments because of the complaints. When the effort expended exceeds the reward, quitting becomes a viable option.
 
BasementDweller said:
I'll be the first to go on record in favor of any promoter INCREASING the payout structure whenever he/she wants to.

I think there are 2 possible scenarios:

1. You strip Ralf of his 3rd place prize money.
2. As a sign of goodwill you let him keep it and you increase the payouts by adding an additional 3rd place finisher.

Either is fine. I don't think any professional pool player would argue with the 2nd method.

I don't think Ralf getting paid third place money or not is any sort of hinge pin in the whole scheme of things.
Click to expand...

I agree. Whether or not Ralf got paid 3/4 money seems irrelevant to this discussion.

However, I will say that if SVB did NOT receive 3/4 money, and instead received something less, than that is probably relevant.
 
thing is when the decision needs to be made he only has a couple mins to make a decision. not days to discuss the options with AZ. If he did maybe he coulda made a better call.

still not a big deal... and whopdi shit bout Ko not wanting to play.. he got invited to play by the boss, if the boss says play you play... or no dough...
 
RBC said:
never mind


If this is what spending my money to promote pool does, then I think I might just keep it.

Royce
Click to expand...

FWIW....in the past year, I've purchased an OB cue and an OB break shaft...and I am extremely pleased with both.

It was largely through your presence as a sponsor of various tournaments that I became aware of your brand.

The money you're spending to promote pool is not going to waste!
 
My comments are below.

itsfroze said:
This was down to the single elimination (or knockout) part of the tournament. The 4 four semi-finalists had already been determined. In fact the names had already been written in the semi-final brackets. (this point seems totally arbitrary as it is not necessarily indicative of the commencement of the semifinal stage. Had the semifinal matches already begun, I would feel differently.)

It had already been determined where Shane had finished and what that prize was.
- it apparently was not

You can't bring someone back who's already been eliminated, and yes once the four semi-finalists had been determined the rest of the field was eliminated.
Only one of those four could become the Champion.
- I think your are assuming the conclusion...i.e. you are "begging the question"

Other wise it's not a tournament it's a side show !!!

It's not "one person advances" from each bracket as many on your side of the discussion like to say, it's the winner of each bracket advances.
- There are numerous factors that could decide the winner, win-loss record, head to head record, rack differential, and apparently the ABILITY to continue.


Also this isn't really a tiered tournament ,
I'll add this post by: Niceguy
"Typical round robin knock out stage implies a stage in which you play for a qualifying spot of a separate paying tournament bracket. In this case, the knock out stage was part of the same tournament, evident by the place and prize money received by the round robin finishers.
-please describe how the FIFA world cup (which is clearly a 2 stage tournament) fits Niceguy's definition of a 2 stage tourney.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Let it go people...CSI doesn't care what you think. They will never admit fault. Just keep it up until there is nothing left that resembles pro pool in America. You do this by alienating the knowledgeable consumers that post here.
 
I'm taking the bets on over and under for how many pages all these threads turn in to after Mark comes on and gives an explanation of what happened...you think people are posting now.... If I were Mark I would just simply say: I ran a tournie with 16 of the top pros in the world; I made decisions some of them were hard. If anyone has a problem with my decisions you are more than welcome to run your own tournie. I'm looking forward to the next tournie..and that's it.
 
There is so much we don't know about this situation. There is something to be said for all possible scenarios. There's pay for view implications, there's the fact that this format was being used for the first time, I believe? I know Mark pretty well and he tries to put forth the best pool possible. He tries very hard to put on a good show and there are some players and spectators who just don't care for him and his CSI Program. Well, that's their problem. This is America and if you got something better to promote then put up or shut up. There was no intent here to take advantage of someone or to pull the wool over someones eyes. A decision was made based on Ralf deciding to leave early and the result works for me.
 
Houstoer said:
If I were Mark I would just simply say: I ran a tournie with 16 of the top pros in the world; I made decisions some of them were hard. If anyone has a problem with my decisions you are more than welcome to run your own tournie. I'm looking forward to the next tournie..and that's it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but knowing Mark that's not going to happen. :thumbup:
 
I think Mr. Mark Griffin is a great person!

I just disagree with his decision on this one!

With VERY short notice he made a quick decision!

In hindsight, I hope he puts a BANDAID on the situation and has that eureka moment of clarity to see how it could be perceived negatively!

That bandaid could come in many different forms and at many different intervals, but a bandaid none the less.

His administrative decision very well could have affected the players and the outcome!!! This tortious interference on the outcome is the primary cause for alarm and needs to be rectified. Make the BIG KO whole and eliminate any hint of malice. Issue solved and image restored!

Some others may have other objects or extraneous motivations for posting. But staying on topic and knowing that he reads these things. I want CSI to know we are behind CSI and are only speaking up to help not harm!

Sincerely,
Kid Dynomite
Mike Wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top