Jay Helfert resigned as Tourney Director at the US Open

allen_jr said:
So, a player wins the US Open - twice - earning free entry for life.

For the 40th anniversary, the promoter of the event calls and personally invites said player to come and play. At the same time, the promoter requests that said player present an honorary award - since that player is one of the only ones that competed in the early years, and nearly every year of the event.

Player makes travel plans and arrives, only to find his name is not on board - as expected. Apparently some sort of miscommunication has occurred, and promoter tries to handle things to remedy situation.

As often happens - some sort of mistake has occurred. It's never pleasant, and everyone wants an easy solution - of which, one does not normally exist.

Of course, i'm biased in this discussion - but I know full well that all types of things happen in the course of promoting a big event. Miscommunications occur. You can never make everyone happy - someone will always feel slighted. Any player - at any level - would expect to play in an event that they were personally invited to and made travel plans and incurred expenses to play in. There is seldom an easy solution.

I think it's a far stretch to think this was some sort of "cheat" move to help the player (my father, if that's not obvious yet) advance ... It was merely an attempt to rectify an oversight - one that the event promoter wanted to personally fix.

In fact, it could have been seen (again, I'm biased) as an opportunity to allow the crowd to watch a former champion and hall of famer compete once again.

But instead, everyone is so quick to cry foul and act like the event is rigged or something. A mistake was made and a remedy attempted. It's life, it happens. You can never please everyone, no matter what you do.

Since all previous champions are invited to play for free - for life (to my understanding) wouldn't such a revered tournament director be sure to include those names first on the enrolled list? Or at least double check with his boss, the promoter? I personally handle the "registered players" list for our events every year, and I know the previous year's champion is always first enrolled - until otherwise notified.

And I also know that mistakes happen, and the perils of rectifying them to make everyone happy.
Click to expand...

Now comes the truth. Thanks for sharing this with the forum. I agree, 100 percent, that Allen Sr. is an innocent bystander in this debacle. Further, he is very deserving of respect in the pool world for his accomplishments not only on the table, but behind the scenes. Allen Hopkins Sr. is, indeed, one of the good guys in pool, always has been and always will.:cool:
 
allen_jr said:
So, a player wins the US Open - twice - earning free entry for life.

For the 40th anniversary, the promoter of the event calls and personally invites said player to come and play. At the same time, the promoter requests that said player present an honorary award - since that player is one of the only ones that competed in the early years, and nearly every year of the event.

Player makes travel plans and arrives, only to find his name is not on board - as expected. Apparently some sort of miscommunication has occurred, and promoter tries to handle things to remedy situation.

As often happens - some sort of mistake has occurred. It's never pleasant, and everyone wants an easy solution - of which, one does not normally exist.

Of course, i'm biased in this discussion - but I know full well that all types of things happen in the course of promoting a big event. Miscommunications occur. You can never make everyone happy - someone will always feel slighted. Any player - at any level - would expect to play in an event that they were personally invited to and made travel plans and incurred expenses to play in. There is seldom an easy solution.

I think it's a far stretch to think this was some sort of "cheat" move to help the player (my father, if that's not obvious yet) advance ... It was merely an attempt to rectify an oversight - one that the event promoter wanted to personally fix.

In fact, it could have been seen (again, I'm biased) as an opportunity to allow the crowd to watch a former champion and hall of famer compete once again.

But instead, everyone is so quick to cry foul and act like the event is rigged or something. A mistake was made and a remedy attempted. It's life, it happens. You can never please everyone, no matter what you do.

Since all previous champions are invited to play for free - for life (to my understanding) wouldn't such a revered tournament director be sure to include those names first on the enrolled list? Or at least double check with his boss, the promoter? I personally handle the "registered players" list for our events every year, and I know the previous year's champion is always first enrolled - until otherwise notified.

And I also know that mistakes happen, and the perils of rectifying them to make everyone happy.
Click to expand...


Sure, mistakes happen.

But whatever the solution ends up being it should not be a morally and ethically corrupt solution.

Lou Figueroa
 
I believe Jay did the right thing. I do not believe you make special accommodations after the brackets are finalized and posted.

I am disappointed that Allen played, given that he runs such a prestigious event himself, though I fall short of "blaming" him. It is a shame that the agreement between him and BB wasn't accounted for in an appropriate time frame, but that is on BB, not on Jay (or Pat).

BB is the one at fault here, as is usual. It really is amazing that he comes up with a way to screw the pooch every year, and yet the tourney still survives. For how long....?
 
lfigueroa said:
Sure, mistakes happen.

But whatever the solution ends up being it should not be a morally and ethically corrupt solution.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...



Man, ur Cold...its just a tournament bud... he's not fixing the presidential election
 
JD_Hogg said:
Man, ur Cold...its just a tournament bud... he's not fixing the presidential election
Click to expand...


Yes, it's just a tournament.

So in your world, does that mean it's OK for the promoter and/or TD to be unethical when it comes to changes to the tournament board?

If it's just a match between you and another guy for small money is it OK to cheat?

Do you call a foul on yourself when you're the only one who knows?

Lou Figueroa
 
justadub said:
I believe Jay did the right thing. I do not believe you make special accommodations after the brackets are finalized and posted.

I am disappointed that Allen played, given that he runs such a prestigious event himself, though I fall short of "blaming" him. It is a shame that the agreement between him and BB wasn't accounted for in an appropriate time frame, but that is on BB, not on Jay (or Pat).

BB is the one at fault here, as is usual. It really is amazing that he comes up with a way to screw the pooch every year, and yet the tourney still survives. For how long....?
Click to expand...


I think part of the problem is that this kind of stuff has been going on so long that many don't see how and why it's wrong. It's the old boy, old school, what's the big deal, it's been going on forever, you came to play anyway kind of thinking.

It's one of the reasons pool is where it is. Maybe one day it will change. Certainly Jay's decision is not a bad start.

Lou Figueroa
 
watchez said:
- well, this all is a perfect example of why pool hasn't progressed in the past 40 years and now in 2015 has $10,000 - $15,000 added events that are deemed 'Pro' events.
Click to expand...

I was starting to wonder when the "This is what's wrong with pool" would pop out.


Since there are many unsolicited .02 opinions going around, and I don't think BB is the reincarnation of Pol Pot, I'll add mine:


I'm on the same side as Fran on this one.
 
haystj said:
I was starting to wonder when the "This is what's wrong with pool" would pop out.


Since there are many unsolicited .02 opinions going around, and I don't think BB is the reincarnation of Pol Pot, I'll add mine:


I'm on the same side as Fran on this one.
Click to expand...


Don't believe anyone is comparing him to Pol Pot, Dada Idi Amin, or Vlad the Impaler.

BB is in a class by himself ;-)

Lou Figueroa
 
You are all blaming Barry for doing the wrong thing, but if Jay had stayed on and helped try to find a workable solution that works for everyone in the tournament, things might have worked out. Barry will always be Barry.

And who knows.... maybe things wouldn't have worked out, but at least all the people involved would have given it their best effort to at least try to work it out. But we know that's not what happened.
 
gregcantrall said:
It is preserving integrity not reputation. Thumb up to Jay, thumbs down to Allen.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm sure Allen knew something was not right when they put him in.

All Allen had to do was say 'thanks for the offer to play but the brackets are set and I will sit this one out".
 
EDIT 2 : I just read Jay's reply to the thread. The way this went down is ridiculous. Jay definitely made the right decision.
EDIT : I wasn't very clear on that point, but it seems the matches had already begun when the draw was modified (I didn't know that part, didn't bother to read much), which is definitely a no-go. Yeah that was a bad decision.

Call me crazy, but I think that modifying the draw was the right thing to do here.

I didn't read the whole thread but unless I'm missing something here, there were 2 options :

1) Don't change the draw, send the guy back home / give him tickets to watch or something at least
2) Change the draw and get the guy to play

Did option 2 actually happen after the matchs started? Was it such a huge disruption that many players in the tournament were actually upset about this? (as in, participants, not the office chair warriors that we have here).

The way I see it. If the matches hadn't already begun, I don't see a problem with modifying the draw to fix a (most likely) honest mistake. Sure, it's annoying, it moves some matchs around and some guys got told "oh actually you are gonna play X instead of Y at Z instead of W", but those things happen and I think that having some people slightly annoyed is better than someone being very much let down.

Let's say it happened to you, how would you react to being told that you can't play?

And it seems the tournament is going along just fine with that modification!
 
Last edited:
Nice job Jay.
It was nice to meet you Sun. Prob when all this was going on. I didn't know about it yet you were very nice to my wife
and myself. Thanks.
Great job.
 
FranCrimi said:
You are all blaming Barry for doing the wrong thing, but if Jay had stayed on and helped try to find a workable solution that works for everyone in the tournament, things might have worked out. Barry will always be Barry.

And who knows.... maybe things wouldn't have worked out, but at least all the people involved would have given it their best effort to at least try to work it out. But we know that's not what happened.
Click to expand...


According to Jay's post it was a fait accompli. BB had manipulated the board. Done deal.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
Yes, it's just a tournament.

So in your world, does that mean it's OK for the promoter and/or TD to be unethical when it comes to changes to the tournament board?

If it's just a match between you and another guy for small money is it OK to cheat?

Do you call a foul on yourself when you're the only one who knows?

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

You do not know anything was done unethically. No one here has interviewed the guy who was removed. Maybe that guy voluntarily stepped down? Maybe he got his money back plus-some?

Who gives a shit if Warren plays Allen or the other guy?? It doesn't matter one iota because to win the event, you gotta beat the other guy eventually, whoever the other guy is.

Barry screwed up, sure -- but unless I missed something, where's the unethical BS? What's the difference if the player "GOT SICK" and pulled out before his match and they put Allen in?

Give me a break.

This is the US Open... who gives a shit WHO you're playing?!?! If you give a living shit who you're playing in any round, you're in the WRONG fuggin' tournament, son.
 
Last edited:
SamLambert said:
I should've included more clearly that if the tournament had already begun, the draw should have been kept as is.
Click to expand...

It is not about whether the tournament has begun, but whether the brackets has been made public yet. Most players who have been around understand that once the bracket is posted it is set in stone and they understand why it has to be that way. See the post below for an example of one reason it is not allowed, and if you make an exception it undermines the integrity of the event because it creates the perception of cheating or favoritism etc.

watchez said:
I have an idea - next year lets have it setup with 5 players willing to back out. Then SVB can come in late, look over the board and see where he would have the easiest draw. He can swap out for one of the players and the tourney can go on. I'm sure no one will mind.
Click to expand...
 
Poolplaya9 said:
It is not about whether the tournament has begun, but whether the brackets has been made public yet. Most players who have been around understand that once the bracket is posted it is set in stone and they understand why it has to be that way. See the post below for an example of one reason it is not allowed, and if you make an exception it undermines the integrity of the event because it creates the perception of cheating or favoritism etc.
Click to expand...

Unless once again I'm missing something because I didn't read enough of the issue, it was a mistake that occured and they forgot to include him in the draw, rather than him arriving late? Or is it both?

If it's only the mistake part and he was actually on time (and for some reason he didn't mention the problem before the matches started?), then I don't think your cited example applies.
 
SamLambert said:
Unless once again I'm missing something because I didn't read enough of the issue, it was a mistake that occured and they forgot to include him in the draw, rather than him arriving late? Or is it both?

If it's only the mistake part and he was actually on time (and for some reason he didn't mention the problem before the matches started?), then I don't think your cited example applies.
Click to expand...

Go read post 58, page 4. That is Jay's direct explanation.

Then you will be far more caught up on what actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top