CSI literally moves their entire office to the RIO for the two weeks of the BCAPL. Then it takes a few days to move it all back. I am sure when Mark is all set back up, he will respond to you and your cronies.
Questions CSI should answer about 25July2014 Ko Pin Yi-Ralf Souquet 8ball semifinal
- Thread starter spartan
- Start date
CSI literally moves their entire office to the RIO for the two weeks of the BCAPL. Then it takes a few days to move it all back. I am sure when Mark is all set back up, he will respond to you and your cronies.
Yes you are right, what I should have said was "when a player/team voluntarily forfeits...", but I stand by what I said and I'm glad it made sense to you. Again, there is no doubt in my mind that in such a case, the forfeited player cannot be replaced, much less by an eliminated player.
Doesn't mean I think Mark is a terrible person or anything, but in this instance the wrong decision was made and he should own up to it. :frown:
You are talking about a qualification stage where the prize of getting out of group or whatever else format used is merely a spot in the elimination tournament. In those cases yes, the place you finish is the order in which you get a spot in the next stage.
That was not the case with this tournaments... they had payouts assigned to the players in group stage, thus group stage was NOT JUST used to fill elimination stage, it was used to determine where you finished and how you were paid.
You are welcome to show me any example of when this was not the case, and someone who already got a place with prize money got a chance to increase their pot because of a forfeit.
I know this may be a shock to you but people can do another task while chewing bubble gum ,,,but at the end of the day I could care less but apparently there's many who do
1
How rude... let's hope you don't fall off your high horse, it'd be a shame if you actually participated in the discussion and we all find out you don't actually understand much either, which I highly suspect.
You are talking about a qualification stage where the prize of getting out of group or whatever else format used is merely a spot in the elimination tournament. In those cases yes, the place you finish is the order in which you get a spot in the next stage.
That was not the case with this tournaments... they had payouts assigned to the players in group stage, thus group stage was NOT JUST used to fill elimination stage, it was used to determine where you finished and how you were paid.
You are welcome to show me any example of when this was not the case, and someone who already got a place with prize money got a chance to increase their pot because of a forfeit.
So CSI was being more generous than is typical, and that means they were unfair?
How do you know that players who failed to advance to the elimination stage were paid? I've only heard about payments for the elimination stage - not that it has any bearing on whether to fill all the brackets in the second stage.
Yes, there was a payout for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, place finishers in the group stage, plus a 250 bounty on the final group stage match.
CSI is no more generous then any other large format tournament as I pointed out in regards to FIFA world cup finals, whom pays the teams eliminated in group stage a hefty prize fund. You can also consult the guild lines of FIFA where there is absolutely nothing that even hints at a forfeited team being replaced, only rules on how to handle forfeited games which are NOT played.
you sound like you've been talking to Mark Griffin.
FIFA also settles the biggest tournament they are involved in, in the case of a tie, by penalty kicks.
Let's not put that organization and it's mentality and rules up too high on a pedestal or mountain top.
That would be the same as a pool tournament stating if two players are racing to 9 and the score is tied 8 to 8, the match moves to best out of 5 spot shots.
I think you have a very strong and unyielding opinion on how a tournament should be conducted...nothing wrong with that. However, I have a different view. In my opinion, when running a tournament you should:
1. Follow the rules you wrote - whether it's in the form of a contract, agreement, press release, or what have you.
2. In the absence of anything written, follow what was verbally expressed.
3. In the absence of (1) or (2), follow precedent.
The reality is, for the CSI invitationals, I would be willing to bet that there was nothing either written or verbally expressed that covered what would happen if a group winner was unable to advance into the semifinal round. So, in these cases, people will generally follow precedent.
Of course there have been numerous examples of when a player forfeits a match and the tournament awards a bye. However, as many on this forum -including myself- believe, the fact that this particular forfeit occurred during the transition between the round-robin and the knockout stage constituted a materially significant change in circumstances.
And, as you and I seem to agree, there have been very few -if any- instances when a team/player voluntarily forfeited after qualifying out of a round robin stage. Therefore, there is little if any precedent to guide us.
Therefore, what does a TD do in this circumstance? He makes a decision that attempts to weigh the interests of all parties concerned...the players, the audience, and of course the integrity of the game itself. And he has perhaps an hour to do this.
Did he make the right decision? We'll have agree to disagree...for now.
Last edited:
Fair enough... which brings us back to the other point of how this decision was enforced. I was at the event, almost none of the event participants agreed with this decision. Even in the back room discussion, there were plenty who sided with the bye option as they felt that was the fairer option.
Mark strong-armed the decision into what it is now, for even those who agreed with it like yourself, does the end really justify the means? From many others' perspective, who do not agree with that decision, it's a double-whammy as the decision was forced down our throat by the threat of money. This tournament wasn't cheap for the Taiwan team, 4 players is 8k of entry, plus travel expenses and it is easily 13-14k...
Anyways, I have no beef in this fight, I'm just helping a good friend who, when relaying what happened to me was in near tears. Obviously all was better once baby ko won, but I still feel a little justice and perhaps an apology is owed to the Taiwan team.
I believe he had another beef to pick and felt he was justified in playing, but it had little to do with the decision and more to do with how the Ralf/Dennis match went. That is a whole separate discussion that I'm not qualified to comment. :boring2:
Logic at it's finest. Green to you, sir.
Oh, you sure are qualified to blabber on about Mark and his "true colors" and how the event was run so poorly and how it was disgusting to see...but you're not qualified to discuss improper behavior by the players?
Yes, because I spoke with the people directly involved with Mark and got affect by his decision. I did not however talk to Dennis or Ralf, and have no knowledge on whether the match was thrown or not.
I think I'm going to bow out now, at this point it is pretty clear where most people on this forum lean and I'm not likely to convince anyone on the internet... I'm just going to leave this final scenario out there for people to ponder:
BJTyler is right, there is almost no precedent of a team or player forfeiting after getting out of group stage and into an elimination round. However, when a decision must be made to set that precedent you have to consider some extreme scenarios, so lets consider an extreme case.
Let's say Group A winner was Shane and he is waiting on Group B winner.
Group B potential winners are Big Ko and Warren, if they both win Ko get's through, but if only Warren wins he does. Warren wins and somehow Ko loses...
Shane is licking his chops, he knows he's got Warren's number and Warren knows it too. However, Warren knows that if he forfeits Ko get's through and Ko has been beating up on Shane lately, so he goes to Ko and works out a deal. He then goes to the tournament and says he forfeits because his dog is sick, or his flight changed, or he can't change his flight... something like that...
Shane goes from playing his standard USA punching bag to his nemesis in Ko, all because a forfeit opponent can bring back an eliminated player. I have a feeling many would be singing a different tune if that were to occur.
Hell, they'd be screaming BYE even more!
but Mark Griffin would still make the same call.
How about this scenario ---
Let's say that both Big Ko and Lil Ko also had flights that were booked at an ill advised time. And Holman did the same. Ralf already had his flight wrong as well as we all know. So then the finals would be empty of all players. I guess then, in your mind, the players just do a four way chop and get on the plane?