Jay Helfert resigned as Tourney Director at the US Open

[JD_Hogg]

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

I think what BB did was the wrong choice, but i don't think he has malicious intent.

and yes i call fouls on myself

I've been in tourney's where i had a bye when the chart was posted, then not after someone else showed up. Ya i was a little pissed, but not to the point where i'd berate the TD over that choice.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Good points.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that BB strong armed or "forced" Mr. Lee Steelman out of the bracket????

I bet you that Mr. Steelman was totally cool with letting a 2 time US Open champ take his spot.

I have no idea, really, but this would be my guess.

Exaaactly. Would be my guess too.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'm lost because if they're all in a tournament to donate, why would it matter? I know I think way differently than a lot of people and believe me -- I KNOOOOOW I'm in the smallest of the small minority with my posts in this thread. As crazy as I know I sound to the masses, I promise I'm not trolling and actually believe my nonsense wholeheartedly.

The majority of that field isn't there for the experience, they are there trying to cash and make money and they have a legitimate chance to cash (not necessarily to win, but to cash). For many or possibly most in this field this is their job, this isn't fun time. And for some who are just there to donate it would still be unacceptable to some of them on principle. I do believe you are sincere, but because of your bias (feelings about certain things) you just flat out aren't using logic on this one. Happens to all of us sometimes.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The majority of that field isn't there for the experience, they are there trying to cash and make money and they have a legitimate chance to cash (not necessarily to win, but to cash). And for some who are just there to donate it would still be unacceptable to some of them on principle. I do believe you are sincere, but because of your bias (feelings about certain things) you just flat out aren't using logic on this one. Happens to all of us sometimes.

Logic to me is if you wanna do something to MAKE money, the US Open is like the very last thing in the Milky Way you wanna enter as a good bet.

My opinion is based on the fact that a HUGE % of players are WAY <50% to cash regardless of the draw, regardless of what they think (they prob just don't know it or aren't honest with themselves). Therefore, if you're not going into that event to either "WIN IT" or "HAVE A GREAT TIME AND GET SOME EXPERIENCE" then, I'm sorry -- but you can prob do a landscaping job for your neighbor and do better $-wise, statistically speaking.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Logic to me is if you wanna do something to MAKE money, the US Open is like the very last thing in the Milky Way you wanna enter as a good bet.

My opinion is based on the fact that a HUGE % of players are WAY <50% to cash regardless of the draw, regardless of what they think (they prob just don't know it or aren't honest with themselves). Therefore, if you're not going into that event to either "WIN IT" or "HAVE A GREAT TIME AND GET SOME EXPERIENCE" than, I'm sorry -- but you can prob do a landscaping job for your neighbor and do better $-wise, statistically speaking.

I don't disagree that pool is a dumb career choice for most people. None the less that is the primary money maker for probably the majority of this field, and I think the majority actually have a legitimate chance to cash. Regardless though, whether it is because of money or principle, most don't want events where it looks like cheating is taking place, or where cheating can actually take place because of "special exceptions".

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I don't disagree that pool is a dumb career choice for most people. None the less that is the primary money maker for probably the majority of this field, and I think the majority actually have a legitimate chance to cash. Regardless though, whether it is because of money or principle, most don't want events where it looks like cheating is taking place, or where cheating can actually take place because of "special exceptions".

Most people also want major tournaments to pay and leave with their checks too, right? This thread is like picking fly shit out of pepper. With the past 5 Opens, this "issue" isn't even top-5 in the "WTF IS GOING WRONG AT THE OPEN" list.

 

[BmoreMoney]

Am I looking at this too abstractly or are others looking at this too literally? If any player were too drop out for any reason BEFORE their first round match was played would it not be proper protocol to go to the alternate list to replace them? Even if it were due to an oversight would a former champion not be on the top of that list automatically due to the fact that they are indisputably be at the top of that list since they are GARUNTEED entry for life - every year even before the first paid entrant gets his money in? Mistake was made but how is it cheating? Replacing a slot before the first round match was played should be of no consequence to anyone that I can see, and I certainly do not understand all the talk about redraws and everything. The only issue that I see as being relevant here is if Mr Steelman was forced to give up his spot, and as of yet I've heard nothing of the sort.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

off topic....removed

 

[justadub]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't they stop offering free entries to all past champions a couple years ago?

Regardless, this smacks of favoritism. Of making special deals for friends of the promoter.

You can't have the appearance of impropriety in what is supposed to be the most prestigious pool event in this country.

Jay was right. As usual.

 

[Ken_4fun]

Am I looking at this too abstractly or are others looking at this too literally? If any player were too drop out for any reason BEFORE their first round match was played would it not be proper protocol to go to the alternate list to replace them? Even if it were due to an oversight would a former champion not be on the top of that list automatically due to the fact that they are indisputably be at the top of that list since they are GARUNTEED entry for life - every year even before the first paid entrant gets his money in? Mistake was made but how is it cheating? Replacing a slot before the first round match was played should be of no consequence to anyone that I can see, and I certainly do not understand all the talk about redraws and everything. The only issue that I see as being relevant here is if Mr Steelman was forced to give up his spot, and as of yet I've heard nothing of the sort.

Its kinda like Jeanette Lee looking at the draw before she decides if she wants to get her 50% in on the calcutta.

Once Jeanette gets to the finals or quarterfinals then tells the guy that bought her in the calcutta she would take her half.

After the board is posted, it should be locked in place.

Jay was right, and Watchez, IMO, has never been wrong in any of his comments.

Ken

 

[BmoreMoney]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't they stop offering free entries to all past champions a couple years ago?

Regardless, this smacks of favoritism. Of making special deals for friends of the promoter.

You can't have the appearance of impropriety in what is supposed to be the most prestigious pool event in this country.

Jay was right. As usual.

I'm just going off the countless posts on here talking about the " added money " specifically about Barry putting up the money for the past champions playing.

 

[BmoreMoney]

Its kinda like Jeanette Lee looking at the draw before she decides if she wants to get her 50% in on the calcutta.

Once Jeanette gets to the finals or quarterfinals then tells the guy that bought her in the calcutta she would take her half.

After the board is posted, it should be locked in place.

Jay was right, and Watchez, IMO, has never been wrong in any of his comments.

Ken

But once again this did not happen in the finals, the quarter finals, 4th, 3rd, or even 2nd round. It happened before the 1st round match. Also, as I mentioned if Steelman fell down and broke his leg on the way to the table to play Warren would it be wrong to replace him with an alternate?

 

[lfigueroa]

According to Jay it was a clear case of quid pro quo -- you do this for me and I will do this for you.

"It turns out that Barry and Allan made a back room deal that if Allan brings a plaque honoring Barry's 40 years, he will get a spot in the Open." JH

Lou Figueroa

 

[BmoreMoney]

According to Jay it was a clear case of quid pro quo -- you do this for me and I will do this for you.

"It turns out that Barry and Allan made a back room deal that if Allan brings a plaque honoring Barry's 40 years, he will get a spot in the Open." JH

Lou Figueroa

That very well may be true, but would Allen not have been garunteed a spot even without the plaque or anything else?

 

[jay helfert]

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.

I hadn't planned on posting again on this thread because I already made my position quite clear that putting your father into the event after the fact was wrong in every way, shape and form. Your dad called me last night upset at this thread, telling me that he and Barry had no "deal" regarding the plaque that he had brought to award Barry. He said that Barry had told him that he was in the tournament and he just assumed that to be the case. We all know what happens when you "assume" something and don't bother to check the facts, especially since a players list had been posted online in multiple locations for months, none of them having the name Allen Hopkins on it.

Barry had a responsibility to inform Pat Fleming to put Allen's name in the field and failed to do so. Allen had a responsibility to check and make sure that happened and failed to do so. That much is a certainty. I also called your father early Sunday morning and told him that he could not play in the event since we had not drawn for him and his name was never on the players list. He agreed that it was a mistake and I thought he understood my position. I had made it very clear, telling him that he would have to wait until next year to play. He then said okay and that he didn't care if he played or not.

By agreeing to play anyway after Barry pulled his shenanigans, that makes your father complicit in this. He never called me to ask me if I was okay with what was going on. In fact not one time did I see your father and now I wonder if he was purposely avoiding me. He could have refused to play and he chose not to, circumventing me as the tournament director. Last night your father said that since I worked for Barry I had to do what he said, whether I agreed or not. I told Allen that he was incorrect. That in my capacity as the TD, it was my call and not Barry's. That is the job he hired me to do.

I could say more about the very uncomfortable phone call I had with your dad but you can ask him what he also said to me. Let's just say it was unpleasant and leave it at that.

 

[justadub]

That very well may be true, but would Allen not have been garunteed a spot even without the plaque or anything else?

Which goes back to my point/question about all past champions no longer being automatically guaranteed a spot.

 

[haystj]

Regardless, this smacks of favoritism. Of making special deals for friends of the promoter.

You can't have the appearance of impropriety in what is supposed to be the most prestigious pool event in this country.

I'll be the first to admit that in the past I have been in mental left field on some of the issues discussed on AZ.

However, I am not seeing the big impropriety in this case.

Allen was mistakenly omitted from the original draw.

They obviously found someone to volunteer their spot for Allen.

Allen was put in the draw and he played. It isn't like they matched him up against a nobody for an easy win for the next round.

They matched him up against someone who is a legitimate threat to win the Open.

Where is the impropriety? I am not trolling, I truly don't see it.

 

[BmoreMoney]

Which goes back to my point/question about all past champions no longer being automatically guaranteed a spot.

Wasn't it clearly discussed on here in regards to this years open as to where exactly the money was coming from / applied to for the past champions countless times?

 

[JLange]

Good points.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that BB strong armed or "forced" Mr. Lee Steelman out of the bracket????

I bet you that Mr. Steelman was totally cool with letting a 2 time US Open champ take his spot.

I have no idea, really, but this would be my guess.

It should not have even come down to BB asking any player including Mr. Lee Steelman to withdraw from the tournament so that Allan or any player could take his spot.
It's the principal of the whole thing and its wrong now, and it was wrong then based on the post by Jay on how the events transpired.
The draw was already made , play started and oh did I forget there was a w8 list already for players who signed up outside the 128 field draw.

Allen could have confirmed his name was included in the field, it was posted many days before the event. I think Allen should be ashamed that he took the spot of another player that was asked to withdraw so he could get in. I don't care if it's John Doe and he can't play a lick. He paid or qualified for the US Open and was included in the draw and may I remind you already scheduled to play Mr. Kamiko.

Allen allegedly said he did not care if he played or not, he had every opportunity to just say I have to decline based on the situation which would have been the correct thing to do.

It's not Allen's fault and Allen should have taken it up with Barry to see that any costs he had were recovered and his stay for the week was on Barry.
Just my 2 cents of course but I see all kinds of issues with what took place.

 

[justadub]

I'll be the first to admit that in the past I have been in mental left field on some of the issues discussed on AZ.

However, I am not seeing the big impropriety in this case.

Allen was mistakenly omitted from the original draw.

They obviously found someone to volunteer their spot for Allen.

Allen was put in the draw and he played. It isn't like they matched him up against a nobody for an easy win for the next round.

They matched him up against someone who is a legitimate threat to win the Open.

Where is the impropriety? I am not trolling, I truly don't see it.

The impropriety is that once the brackets are set and posted, they are set. The promoter doesn't get to come in and change things, because someone forgot something.

And it is the impression of impropriety, the possibility of it, that HAS to be avoided, in order to maintain integrity. (Which I realize fully well doesn't appear to be a priority with BB.) Again, this is supposed to be the most prominent tournament in the US, not the weekly tourney at QMasters.