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

I'll go with this. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The only question is wtf is this such a big deal, oh yeah its the internet. Move on people this forum use to be full of information to read but this constant BS is not needed. PM/IM/Email them directly if you are so bent on an answer. Does anyone moderate these boards?

spartan said:

Ok, we all know what happened on 25July2014 evening 2nd semifinal of CSi 8 ball Invitational. In short, Ralf had flight to catch. Shane was brought in to replace Ralf (even though Shane was already eliminated) to play Ko Pin Yi.
From the threads and reaction on Azb and facebook below, many (including myself) disagreed with CSI's decision to replace Ralf with Shane instead of forfeiting and awarding walkover to Ko Pin Yi. in the eyes of many, this decision was a faux pas/ boo boo on part of CSI
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=370494
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=370515
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=370555
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=370601
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4823623&postcount=64
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152327261017621&id=64361417620

Mark Griffin/CSI have said they will give explanation in due course in another few days after Rio events are over.
Obviously, we do not want standard politician type official statements that does not answer what we want to know.
So below I list some questions which I think many of us would like Mark/ CSI to answer and explain. I may have missed out other questions so if anyone has other questions, please feel free to post your questions.
Some Questions for Mark/CSI
1) What are your reasons for not forfeiting the semifinal match and awarding a walkover to Ko Pin Yi for him to proceed to final?

2) Is it true that when Ko Pin Yi protested and refused to play Shane, he was told that if he does not play he will not be paid his prizemoney?

3)Was Ralf paid his prizemoney ? If yes, how much was he paid?

4) Did you consider forfeiting the match and replacing it with alternative solution like a challenge match to appease audience/subscribers ? (IMHO, I doubt many would ask for refund even if you did not replace semifinal match with something else. Because it is only 1 out of 5 matches for day so prorated on $15 daily PPV fee is only a refund of peanuts $3. Most paying subscribers would not be bothered with asking for refund. Most subscribers like myself would have preferred that the right decision be made rather than make a bad decision in save some refund money)

5) When you decided to replace instead of forfeit, did you only choose Shane or did you also offer to other 2nd place finishers from other 3 groups?

6) In hindsight, do you think you made a bad decision and messed up?
If yes, what have you done to ameliorate the situation with the affected players?

:grin-square:

Click to expand...

Regarding #5, imo, it would not be fair at all to offer it to someone not in that group. Maybe one group is tougher than another so you can't compare records fairly. If they decide to replace Ralf (which of course they did) the replacement should be the second best record from that group, which was Shane.

I could be wrong, and often are, but I think CSI was put in a no-win situation. No matter what they did, someone was not going to like it. I think they did what was best for those who paid to see the matches, which should have been their primary concern.

When are people going to realize this was not a sanctioned tournament but an invitational. The money was put up by Mark Griffin and Mark determines who is invited, who is banned, and by what rules he conducts his business. This is the free enterprise system.
There is no body of elected officials he answers to but the IRS.
You dont like it as the consumer. Organize a boycott. Or dont purchase his products.
He does what he does that is best for his business. If that conflicts with your goals and beliefs then thats the nature of the business and can be resolved one way or the other.
But stop whining about it.

Mole Eye said:

I could be wrong, and often are, but I think CSI was put in a no-win situation. No matter what they did, someone was not going to like it. I think they did what was best for those who paid to see the matches, which should have been their primary concern.

Click to expand...

Except that you are messing with the livelihood of pools players! Putting the knocked out Shane back into the bracket meant the Ko brothers could potentially go home with $7500 (2nd and 3rd/4th) vs $13000 (1st and 2nd), that's quite a difference for players who had to fly in and pay entry just to play.

Integrity and doing the right thing should have trumped a single PPV match. :sorry:

hmm. all of these threads and comments...

These are all done by the two Shane haters, it's froze and Spartan....

Sure there are others who don't agree with how it went down, but these two any time Shane does anything have spasms and MUST protest.

It's getting old.

We all KNOW you hate Shane...ok... we ALL know that had the situation been reversed, your opinions would be completely different.

This is all about hating on Shane so get over your hate already, it's getting tired.

Jaden

Jaden said:

These are all done by the two Shane haters, it's froze and Spartan....

Sure there are others who don't agree with how it went down, but these two any time Shane does anything have spasms and MUST protest.

It's getting old.

We all KNOW you hate Shane...ok... we ALL know that had the situation been reversed, your opinions would be completely different.

This is all about hating on Shane so get over your hate already, it's getting tired.

Jaden

Click to expand...

Stop dropping acid pal,
I'm a big fan of Shane and can't remember ever saying anything bad about him.
Another thing the ego you have, that let's you think you know what I'm thinking
you ought to lose that, because it's giving you false info. I would feel the same
if any player's opponent withdrew and they pulled this same stunt, period.
A bye should have been issued.

There now you know what I'm thinking you don't have to guess any more.

IMO, the only thing that matters is if the procedure was set up before it all started or if it was changed on the fly.

The ACUI used to use the same format. If you placed second in a region and the 1st place finisher could not make it to the finals, you were the next in line to take his place.

punter said:

Regarding #5, imo, it would not be fair at all to offer it to someone not in that group. Maybe one group is tougher than another so you can't compare records fairly. If they decide to replace Ralf (which of course they did) the replacement should be the second best record from that group, which was Shane.

Click to expand...

Or if tied, which Ithought someone said it was, it should go to highest winning percentage.

Enough guessing. Who paid the entries ,hotel, and travel. No guesses please.

I was confusing you with someone else. my bad...

itsfroze said:

Stop dropping acid pal,
I'm a big fan of Shane and can't remember ever saying anything bad about him.
Another thing the ego you have, that let's you think you know what I'm thinking
you ought to lose that, because it's giving you false info. I would feel the same
if any player's opponent withdrew and they pulled this same stunt, period.
A bye should have been issued.

There now you know what I'm thinking you don't have to guess any more.

Click to expand...

I apologise It's Froze...

I was confusing you with another poster, I reviewed some of the posts I was thinking of, and you are not the Shane hater I was thinking of...

So again, I apologize for including you in that.

Jaden

Why would CSI really have to answer anything? I don't see Ko on here complaining, nor Shane, nor Ralph. Their tournament, and I think it was a fair decision to make to the other players. Look at it this way, Ko would have had to play anyway if Ralph did not quit, so why does it matter if he played someone else?

It's like 3 people in the dessert with one jug of water. Two take a drink, the last one just dumps his share out on the ground. That water could have saved the other two for a while if the last one did not want it and should have been saved for those that could or wanted to use it.

I really think this is all crazy and out of hand.

I was there, but busy working in the booth as well as playing in the open teams so I didn't get to see any of this go down.

Here's how I see things.

It doesn't really matter how or why Ralph could not play. All that matters is that he couldn't. Whether or not he got paid, or what he got paid is his business and is between him and the tournament. The same thing goes for Shane, and all the other players.

It was a tiered round robin format. In that format, each lower tier group advances one player to the next tiered group. In the event the top finisher backs out, the second finisher takes his place. This is normal in tiered round robin formats and is the right way to do it. Altering that or doing anything else would be going from right to wrong. I believe that Shane was the #2 player in his group, and if that is correct, then he should have been the one to advance when the #1 player could not.

I don't really think this is about the stream. I believe that Mark and Ozzy would do the right thing regardless of whether or not it affected the stream. Don't get me wrong, if it did affect the stream not only would there be people wanting a refund, but there would be people expecting to get a full refund even though they still watched all the other matches.

I know Mark Griffin personally, and I can tell you that he loves pool and pool players. Both amateur and professional. He has also given tremendously to the game and both groups of players. And I mean given from his own pocket. Sure, he'd like to make a profit, but quite often he doesn't or at least makes very little. Certainly not what you would expect given the expense and the risk. There are many who seem to think that promoters are walking away with tons of cash when in reality it's a very risky proposition just to make a little.

So, if you like pool, and like to see the best players in the world matched up. Then you need guys like Mark and Ozzy . Other than CSI, there aren't very many people out there who are willing to risk so much for so little in return, and still get blasted by so many who don't really know anything about what it takes to do what he does.

Cut Mark and Ozzy some slack. They are the good guys, and are willing to take on significant personal risk to help pool.

Royce

Wow, lots of vitriol over this insignificant event.

If I was responsible for this tournament and someone demanded "answers" for things I did, I would tell that individual to go F*@k themselves. I don't owe you anything and please don't bother to participate in my future events.

All the *****ing is what is really bad for pool, not "who" plays in a semi-final.

haystj said:

*****ing

Click to expand...

Complaining..

sorry

haystj said:

Wow, lots of vitriol over this insignificant event.

If I was responsible for this tournament and someone demanded "answers" for things I did, I would tell that individual to go F*@k themselves. I don't owe you anything and please don't bother to participate in my future events.

All the *****ing is what is really bad for pool, not "who" plays in a semi-final.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your opinion...

Great post Royce. I personally don't even think CSI needs to address the issue - but I'm sure they will. I kind of hope Mark just ignores the more vociferous criticisms, and they just state what they did and that they respect others' opinions and move on. Don't get drawn into the petty drama.