SJM's Slant on the CSI 8-ball Scandal

[yobagua]

Nope. A DUMP is a DUMP. What would you say to those who might have laid down some action on the match? Or those who paid to see a video of the match? Or the producers who aired it? Would Shane have to then take his friends aside and tell them
not to lay down any action on me? Where is the moral ground there?
Your logic is flawed.
The only way to look at this is-Mark Griffin makes the rules. Its his ball. He does great things for pool and billiards. This we all know. He is human. He is not GOD. He reaps the rewards, he takes the blows. He does it his way.

Its only a scandal if you really care.

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

Altho SJ always writes a pretty right on post, I would agree with the guy from the Nobular City as I believe that he did bring up a couple of good counter arguments to SJ's.

I figured what a crappy decision until I read Freddy's post on the Lucky Loser scenario.

Normally, your opponent forfeits and you should advance, no questions asked. I can't Blame KO for being pissed, who wouldn't be.

As in any new production, in which Mark knows what he is doing, you are bound to find a few glitches that will leave you wondering, "What was I thinking about". Can happen to anyone.

You know what they say. " Now that we find ourselves up to our asses in alligators, it is hard to realize that our initial objective was to first drain the swamp".

I think that the total screw up on this one has to be laid on Ralph. Altho he has always been the consummate gentleman, player etc in everyone's eyes, when you are invited to something such as this, it was totally up to him to arrange his flight plans, etc around his initial obligation to Mark. Who cares if you are going to China, you accepted an invition from Mark and you owe him first.

And if its true that he got a pay out. well thats just absurd. You forfeit your position, you get zero. And to believe that if Ko had have forfeited to Shane, he would have been forced to play or get zero is as equally absurb.

Mark has always been more than Forthright with all of us and I am sure that his post coming up within a few days will probably straighten everything up nicely. he is probably whooped from running this show and to expect him to take the time to type a post under those circumstances is way too much.

Not trying to be judgmental but I honestly can't believe how many members are willing to jump on Mark's shit without waiting to hear from him.

Come on guys, we can do a lot of things to other members that deserve it but Mark, if anyone deserves the benefit of a few days to explain his side before we start making a Hang Mans Noose for him.

Pretty sure that any glitches made this year in the first attempt will be more than rectified in the coming year.

 

[7forlife]

I blame mark

Ok so ralf gets the blame for not making just notice of his situation. But Mark gets the blame for everything that follows and you could forget that "back against the wall crap". If he is so great then he of all people should of known that bringing in Shane (or any player) back from the dead was wrong.

Now some say "hey, there was no wrong cause that is what's suppose to happen, the next man gets bumped up" this is true and is a known fact that has occurred in many formats of many sports but I say this.... If it's soooo common then they FAILED to let Ko and them know because he said hell no to the "option" which based on the OP statement is what it was, but he said no an act they were a) not expecting and b) not in lines with what they wanted so he was forced to play.

Yes we can sit on the side and speculate for the next 100 pages mark should of said "sorry guys but we are unable to bring you X match at this time due to an unforeseen circumstance" explanation and end it. I think it is very said if as some imply that this was done to prevent an all Taiwan finals because their knight fell at home twice and a bunch of foreigners came and put foot to ass

 

[abs]

Regarding Ralf S. being the initial cause of this whole issue, I feel that's a secondary issue. While Ralf forfeited by choice, it seems, he could just as well gotten sick, or missed his event due to being delayed in a car crash, etc... Thankfully, he wasn't out due to anything dangerous. In the end, for whatever reason Ralf had to bow-out, CSI should have had a plan for how to handle this, and it should have been known by all players up front so there is no question (maybe it was communicated, but it doesn't sound like it).

I know CSI can't possibly identify every possible issue that could hang-up the event, but a player not showing-up or forfeiting is an obvious one that should have been planned for and well communicated. Also, simply based on the info noted in this thread and the others, CSI should be consistent on how the treat the players in these situations... If Ralf gets paid on the forfeit, so should Pin-Yi; to do otherwise is shameful. And if CSI threatened to withhold prize money, that is just coercion and pure thuggery. My comments are based on if's and presumptions... I it's best to reserve judgment until Mark/Ozzy address these concerns directly or in their next pod-cast and can clarify their perspective on the event issues.

If CSI simply confirms the reported issues, I have to say that will really tarnish their efforts to elevate pool. While we shouldn't judge CSI on only this event, but instead on their body of work as a whole (as SJM wrote), this will take them two steps back for sure, to which I could say I hope it would be a lesson learned for them. I know they need to make some business decisions in the end, but that only stretches so far. But again, it would be best to hear their side of the story, and see what their actual response is to the comments here on AZ.

 

[itsfroze]

Ralph forfeited before he played, right?
** So the brackets were finalized once they had confirmation of who would play in them. If Ralph had forfeited after beating little Ko in the semis, it probably wouldn't have been right to bump little Ko up to the finals.*** But this was the transition between stages, and filling up all brackets with first-stage entrants is the norm.

And CSI didn't make explicit what would happen if someone forfeited between stages (and perhaps didn't even consider the possibility). But my guess, and I'd be willing to be proven wrong, is that once people think it through, most people familiar with tournaments will agree that this was the right choice and consistent with other practices.

** AS soon as someone wins their match, if said match is the match right before the semi's they are confirmed as a semi' finalist if they have won their bracket. If they at any point after that decline to play their semi-final match for any reason it is a forfeit, and a bye should be given to the semi-finalist who was ready to play. So your statement above in red is reaching at best. The brackets for the semi's, are decided by who wins each round robin bracket period, they aren't finalized once "they" have conformation who will play. This is where your argument falls apart. What the determining factor is as to who moves on is play and play alone.


*** You talk as if this "transition between stages" as you put it is some grey area like the "Twilight Zone" where anything can happen to bolster your side of this discussion, it is not. Whatever player wins the bracket be it A,B,C, or D is the semi-finalist from that bracket as soon as they sink their last or winning ball in the round robin portion of the tournament, they have cemented their spot in the single elimination, semi-final portion of the tournament. Prior to the semi-finals everything that has happened and everyone else that was in the tournament is now finished, you only have the four remaining players. One of these four players will become the Champion. If any player fails for any reason to show up for their match at this point they are forfeited and their opponent receives a bye.

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

That and everything else sounds fair Frozen One. Trouble is, try and explain the Lucky Loser scenario and how it works to a Taiwanese player who most likely has never heard of anything close before.

All he knows is, "Forfeit, I win". And why should he know anything else unless it was originally in the rules and they were explained to him at the start.

He feels Ripped Off and no amount of explanations are going to make any sense to him.

He sees it as, Whats good for the goose is good for the gander".

So if Mark knew about Ralph's travel plans before hand, he would or should have been ready for it. To me anyway, it sounds like Ralph laid this on Mark at the last minute.

I will put the majority of blame on Ralph until I read different.

 

[itsfroze]

That and everything else sounds fair Frozen One. Trouble is, try and explain the Lucky Loser scenario and how it works to a Taiwanese player who most likely has never heard of anything close before.

All he knows is, "Forfeit, I win". And why should he know anything else unless it was originally in the rules and they were explained to him at the start.

He feels Ripped Off and no amount of explanations are going to make any sense to him.

He sees it as, Whats good for the goose is good for the gander".

So if Mark knew about Ralph's travel plans before hand, he would or should have been ready for it. To me anyway, it sounds like Ralph laid this on Mark at the last minute.

I will put the majority of blame on Ralph until I read different.

No problem at all, in pool there is no "Lucky Loser" scenario there for no reason to have to explain anything to KO. Once it is down to four players it is down to four, no one else can be resurrected and given a chance to win the tournament, this is unheard of, period. Certainly blame can be put on Ralf for bailing out, but what happened subsequently is squarely on Mark's shoulders. It wasn't Ralf who choose not to issue a bye, which was the correct thing to do. It wasn't Ralf who choose to bring back a player who was already eliminated (which is unheard of) all these things were done by Mark, and Mark only. I fail to see why people are so ready to lay all this at Ralf's feet. Yes Ralf handled things poorly in the way he withdrew, but all subsequent actions were Mark's actions. Which Ralf had neither say in nor part of.

In other words if Ralf withdrew in the same way, but Mark choose to do the right thing and issue a forfeit to Ralf and a bye to KO, then the only discussion (and it would be small) would be why did Ralf withdraw. Let's lay blame at the feet of whom it belongs.

The fact that Ralf gets paid on the forfeit, yet they threatened not to pay Pin Yi when he initially refused to play Shane (a player previously eliminated) speaks volumes as to where Mark is coming from, a point not to be over looked. Ralf had no hand in this decision either for those having a hard time keeping up.

 

[JMuck]

This a distortion by a promoter to sell a product,pure and simple.When a distortion reaches into how a tournament,match or ball is played then the cornerstone for the competition is compromised.The product is the "sweat' by the paying public and for the competitors who prepare to work within the perimeters given and to win the tournament no matter where the payoff originates or is distributed.Players should never be put into a situation where their personal integrity is compromised by the function of the tournament.

Commandment #1:Game integrity

Not defining clearly or adhering to game or tournament criteria simply relegates the competition to a carnival game.

 

[chevybob20]

In a qualifying scenario in any sport including pool, players aren't eliminated or nocked out or dead or any other term being loosely tossed around here until the bracket is filled. There were four round robin groups so each group is expected to advance one player.

I think that there is more to the Ralf story than meets the eye. I am looking forward to Marks explanation.

 

[itsfroze]

In a qualifying scenario in any sport including pool, players aren't eliminated or nocked out or dead or any other term being loosely tossed around here until the bracket is filled. There were four round robin groups so each group is expected to advance one player.
Wrong each group is expected to advance the winner of that group. Subsequent to that if one of the group winners withdraws a forfeit is issued and a bye given.

I think that there is more to the Ralf story than meets the eye. I am looking forward to Marks explanation.

--------------------------------------

 

[wrickyb]

1) This was an Invitational Event:
A) No entry fee
B) Travel and Hotel Paid for each player
C) All Players were paid

2) The decision between Ralf and Shae would have been a tie breaker going to Ralf since he beat Shane.

3) THIS WAS A 2 STAGE EVENT - In other 2 stage events this has been the norm to fill the final bracket.

4) It has also been posted that Ralf had been trying to get his flight change for sometime to no avail but it had look in the final 2 days it was going to get changed. I understand that was some mix-up when Ralf booked his tickets.

5) The availability of other Pro's to play is incorrect because I Know Oscar also flew out before the finals.

I feel there is a lot of wrong information and assumptions take here. I KNOW Mark will address this in the up coming CSI Pod Cast. He will not remain silent and will not berate people and HE has the FACTS!

And before anyone ask YES I Consider Mark my Friend but the above is based on FACTS. Mark is trying to bring back some Class to the Game. And is Doing a GREAT JOB!

 

[(((Satori)))]

I think that there is more to the Ralf story than meets the eye. I am looking forward to Marks explanation.

I would rather hear Ralf tell what happened but him being the kind of guy who.........AVOIDS CONFLICT.......... I will wait to hear Marks explanation.

 

[sjm]

Nope. A DUMP is a DUMP. What would you say to those who might have laid down some action on the match? Or those who paid to see a video of the match? Or the producers who aired it? Would Shane have to then take his friends aside and tell them
not to lay down any action on me? Where is the moral ground there?
Your logic is flawed.
The only way to look at this is-Mark Griffin makes the rules. Its his ball. He does great things for pool and billiards. This we all know. He is human. He is not GOD. He reaps the rewards, he takes the blows. He does it his way.

Its only a scandal if you really care.

Where is the moral ground for someone who bet that Ko Pin-Yi would win the event? Answer: there isn't any because the event was rigged in a way that denied him a berth in the final he'd already earned. The producers already compromised the moral integrity of the event, and Shane had an opportunity to regain some of it back, even though you can't see that this is true. Still, it's a matter of opinion and I respect yours.

Still, if Mark is empowered to make the rules, why did he give Shane, who did not outperform Dechaine or Appleton in the round robin section of the event, the berth in the semis. They, like Shane, went 2-1 but were eliminated. Whatever the reason, intended or not, this was a case of favoritism toward Shane and abuse and bullying of Ko Pin-Yi, one of the world's greatest players. That Ko, who competed with near perfection in both his play and his conduct, was mistreated in this way, is truly horrific.

The posted brackets at the Rio had Ko vs Souquet and Baby Ko vs Hohmann. A walkover is not at all uncommon in sports. If your opponent doesn't show, you win. It's not uncommon in either match play golf or in tennis. Pool has long wanted to be like those sports, but this incident reminds us that our game lacks the integrity that is the backbone of those sports.

Ralf shouldn't have played in the event. It's really that simple. However, the fact that Mark did not penalize him for a no show in the semis but threatened Ko with nonpayment of prize moneys earned (a big dose of moral injustice that you are apparently fine with) will always stand out as an atrocity to me.

Moneywise, this was the first tournament ever in which five players came in the top four. It will become a trivia question soon enough, one that I'll be able to answer for certain because I'll never forget what I witnessed on July 25, 2014 at the CSI 8-ball championship.

 

[sjm]

Regarding Ralf S. being the initial cause of this whole issue, I feel that's a secondary issue. While Ralf forfeited by choice, it seems, he could just as well gotten sick, or missed his event due to being delayed in a car crash, etc... Thankfully, he wasn't out due to anything dangerous. In the end, for whatever reason Ralf had to bow-out, CSI should have had a plan for how to handle this, and it should have been known by all players up front so there is no question (maybe it was communicated, but it doesn't sound like it).

Yes, but this was a planned absence. Ralf knew long before the event began that he'd walk out on the semifinal if he was one of the contestants.

This is in no way comparable to the matter of an absence that couldn't possibly have been foreseen.

 

[chevybob20]

I would rather hear Ralf tell what happened but him being the kind of guy who.........AVOIDS CONFLICT.......... I will wait to hear Marks explanation.

I agree. And for the record, I fully expect Ralf to be cleared of all wrong doing.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

 

[itsfroze]

Regarding Ralf S. being the initial cause of this whole issue, I feel that's a secondary issue. While Ralf forfeited by choice, it seems, he could just as well gotten sick, or missed his event due to being delayed in a car crash, etc... Thankfully, he wasn't out due to anything dangerous. In the end, for whatever reason Ralf had to bow-out, CSI should have had a plan for how to handle this, and it should have been known by all players up front so there is no question (maybe it was communicated, but it doesn't sound like it).

Yes, but this was a planned absence. Ralf knew long before the event began that he'd walk out on the semifinal if he was one of the contestants.

This is in no way comparable to the matter of an absence that couldn't possibly have been foreseen.

Certainly blame can be put on Ralf for bailing out, but what happened subsequently is squarely on Mark's shoulders. It wasn't Ralf who choose not to issue a bye, which was the correct thing to do. It wasn't Ralf who choose to bring back a player who was already eliminated (which is unheard of) all these things were done by Mark, and Mark only. I fail to see why people are so ready to lay all this at Ralf's feet. Yes Ralf handled things poorly in the way he withdrew, but all subsequent actions were Mark's actions.
Which Ralf had neither say in nor part of.

In other words if Ralf withdrew in the same way, but Mark choose to do the right thing and issue a forfeit to Ralf and a bye to KO, then the only discussion (and it would be small) would be why did Ralf withdraw. Let's lay blame at the feet of whom it belongs.

 

[FranCrimi]

This reminds me of back when the men and women had events together and Jean Balukas wanted to play in both events. The schedules were studied by the administration and it was determined that if Jean made it to a particular point in both events, she would have to choose one over the other.

So, the administration told her that this would not be acceptable and that because of the possible conflict, she could only participate in one event.

This is what should have been done by CSI in the first place. You almost can't blame a player for wanting to take a chance and hope that it works out. But CSI should have told Ralf in advance that he could play in only one or the other.

Ralph was not the tournament administration.

 

[jsp]

I agree. And for the record, I fully expect Ralf to be cleared of all wrong doing.

No. Ralf being in the wrong is the only non-debatable thing throughout this entire fiasco, provided Ralf knew well in advance that there would be a scheduling conflict. Ralf voluntarily backed out on a commitment to play. It's as simple as that.

 

[jsp]

This is what should have been done by CSI in the first place. You almost can't blame a player for wanting to take a chance and hope that it works out. But CSI should have told Ralf in advance that he could play in only one or the other.

From what I've read, Ralf could have booked a later flight to China after the 8-ball event and still would have been there in time to participate in the World Team event. According to posts here, he tried to change his flight but didn't want to pay the extra expense of changing his flight at such short notice.

But wouldn't you think that the extra prize money for 1st place would cover those additional costs?

 

[FranCrimi]

Post deleted.

I thought both events were CSI events being run simultaneously. It wasn't until I read about changing flights when I realized they weren't.