Little Ko wins 8-Ball !!! Big KO ripped off, Pool hangs it's head
- Thread starter itsfroze
- Start date
Correct. :thumbup:
I agree, the fact that the cornerstone of all this outrage seems to lie in the timing of the drawing of the semi-final charts seems a bit over the top.
1. Can someone point me to a rule book somewhere hat states that "No changes shall be made after the charts are drawn"?
2. Can someone point me to a past scenario where a group qualifier was unable to continue onto the knockout stage, so the tournament began the knockout stage with a bye?
The WC8 Ball and WC9 Ball have always been run where there are a set number of spots allocated to players who enter nominated tournaments. In a 128 field this is normally twelve. The other 116 would be put forward by their Federation abouit two weeks before the main tournament. Should any of these drop out then the federations can nominate their replacement. Once the qualifying tournaments start in the host country these become the source of players.
The object of the exercise is to ensure that the Main Event starts with a full 128 player field thus ensuring that all groups start with the same number of players.
When the twelve players have qualified if there are any further late withdrawals (sickness or visa problems) then the guys who have spent money trying to qualify are next up. The performances of Raymund and Warren were the reason the filled two spots that became available. At this stage the tournament is closed meaning that there is no way back in. If an opponent fails to turn up then he forfeits his match.
Simple and unambiguous
Even though the second stage only had 4 players (25% of the entire field), I suppose I still consider it a valid second stage because there was a material change in the format of the tournament. Prior to the 4 man semi-finals:
a) a player can lose and still remain in the tournament
b) all matches are predetermined regardless of outcome.
However during the semi-finals neither is true. Due to this material change, I see them as two distinct stages.
Taken to its logical end, I suppose if there were only two groups (A & B) in the round robin stage. And the second stage consisted of the finals between the two group's respective qualifiers. In the event of a forfeit or dq, I would expect the tournament director to the fill the vacant finals spot with the next highest qualifier from that group.
Here is a hypothetical, suppose during this year's FIFA World Cup, a group qualifier (such as Uruguay) was disqualified prior to the start of the knockout stage. Do you really think FIFA would have awarded a walkover to Columbia and refunded the tens of millions of dollars in tickets and broadcast fees? or do you think they would have let Italy (3rd in Group D) advance?
Last edited:
if you can see over the table then you can enter the qualifiers. I have had 10 year olds playing in world 8 ball qualifiers in the uae in the past.
So then what's the problem with CSI ensuring the semi-finals are full with 4 players? I mean they picked the guy (Shane) that was 2nd in the group. It's not like they went out and picked someone that didn't even play in the tournament.
This can be easily resolved. All you guys complaining go out and get some sponsors or pony up about 20/30k of your own money, then you can have an event and run it however you please.
Until then just enjoy all of the 3 or 4 men's pro events we have a year in the U.S. And maybe 2 women's pro events. There's a reason pool is where it is, because all of the crybabies in the game.
Until then just enjoy all of the 3 or 4 men's pro events we have a year in the U.S. And maybe 2 women's pro events. There's a reason pool is where it is, because all of the crybabies in the game.
Quite often I find myself humming that Song when I have to use the Midget urinals at the bar.
"Hows the weather down there Tom"?
"Not bad Terry, but the water is really cold".
dom_poppa
Banned
Under no circumstance should a tournament bring back an eliminated player to fill up a spot just to please the viewers that were watching. It is part of the game, forfeits happen and dream match-ups don't pan out in sports.
Don't mess with the integrity of the game just to please viewers. If the viewers are mad then they should be mad at forfeiting player or forfeiting team. The viewers understand this.
The integrity should not be compromised to please ratings/viewers.
Don't mess with the integrity of the game just to please viewers. If the viewers are mad then they should be mad at forfeiting player or forfeiting team. The viewers understand this.
The integrity should not be compromised to please ratings/viewers.
I think CSI ponied up quite a bit more
I don't know it for a fact but I suspect expenses including travel aid for some if not all of the players added up to considerably more than the prize money. First place prize money wouldn't justify the time and travel unless you were a lock which nobody was in that field. I suspect the cost of the event itself was the tip of the iceberg especially considering that CSI or a sister entity owned the tables and such.
Just grabbing numbers out the air but I suspect the cost for a third party to put on an event like this might run fifty thousand at a bare minimum and would probably be much closer to a hundred thousand, might break over a hundred thousand.
Always easier and cheaper to stay on the sidelines and throw rocks, something we are all guilty of sometimes. I think the one referee for two tables is a bigger deal than putting the second place guy from the same round robin as the withdrawing player in is but that is just my perspective.
Hu
I don't know it for a fact but I suspect expenses including travel aid for some if not all of the players added up to considerably more than the prize money. First place prize money wouldn't justify the time and travel unless you were a lock which nobody was in that field. I suspect the cost of the event itself was the tip of the iceberg especially considering that CSI or a sister entity owned the tables and such.
Just grabbing numbers out the air but I suspect the cost for a third party to put on an event like this might run fifty thousand at a bare minimum and would probably be much closer to a hundred thousand, might break over a hundred thousand.
Always easier and cheaper to stay on the sidelines and throw rocks, something we are all guilty of sometimes. I think the one referee for two tables is a bigger deal than putting the second place guy from the same round robin as the withdrawing player in is but that is just my perspective.
Hu
And what about the argument that this was a multi staged tournament and CSI did what other ms tournaments have done in the past?
100% agree
The state of professional pool kinda sucks right now. Boy, don't you wish we had a few more tournaments like the CSI invitationals to make this business financially more rewarding for the players?
And MLB and the NFL shouldn't replace players that are injured going into their All Star games. Integrity and all, as you state.
Great. For a moment I thought it was us whiney fans fault.
About six a year
I wish CSI could see their way clear to do six or eight of these events a year. They have the business model to make things work. Taking cash from the amateur side and requiring the pro players to give lessons to help justify taking cash from the amateur side is what I have long seen as a great set-up. Assuming the players knew at the time of invitation that the lessons were a condition of entry I see absolutely no reason for a player to object.
Trying to help men's pro pool in the US is like banging your head against a brick wall. The only reason for doing it is that it feels so good when you stop!
Hu
I wish CSI could see their way clear to do six or eight of these events a year. They have the business model to make things work. Taking cash from the amateur side and requiring the pro players to give lessons to help justify taking cash from the amateur side is what I have long seen as a great set-up. Assuming the players knew at the time of invitation that the lessons were a condition of entry I see absolutely no reason for a player to object.
Trying to help men's pro pool in the US is like banging your head against a brick wall. The only reason for doing it is that it feels so good when you stop!
Hu
Should'a, could'a and would'a seem to be at work here once again. We always have someone's in AZB who seem to just know how everything in the pool world is supposed to go. What possible gain did Mark Griffin have to putting forth his remedy to the situation? All this caused him was a bunch of grief. Frankly, he seems to be getting more than his fair share of grief lately and I for one think we out to be thanking him for trying to keep professional pool alive in America. Give him an opportunity to fix it and next year I'm sure it'll be a much better program.
The most visionary part of CSI's invitational was the integration of amateurs with professionals - through lessons, free in-hotel PPV, and free admission. Acknowledgment that amateur interest in pool is absolutely critical to the financial viability of pro events is a great first step!
One thing not mentioned was incorporating the pro arena into a corner of the same ballroom where the amateurs were playing. No longer did they have to walk down a long hallway to find the pro matches. Also having the pros spend time every day interacting with the amateurs was a nice touch. They were giving free lessons, autographs and taking photos with them.
The end result of this was excellent attendance during the pro matches. I saw a lot of people in the stands every day, and it got really crowded for the most important matches, like when Shane or Efren played. This was well thought out and well received by the amateur players. Kudos to CSI for making these changes to make the pros more accessible to the amateur players. :thumbup2:
The end result of this was excellent attendance during the pro matches. I saw a lot of people in the stands every day, and it got really crowded for the most important matches, like when Shane or Efren played. This was well thought out and well received by the amateur players. Kudos to CSI for making these changes to make the pros more accessible to the amateur players. :thumbup2: