Tournament debaucle, what’s your opinion?

[CocoboloCowboy]

The person who was not apprenly treated fairly should tell everyone his side of story, boycott venue, boycott venue, and last encourage people to do same.

This is just another reason pool
Is looked down upon this type nonsense.

 

[pt109]

I know the player that won. Tons of integrity. Would never continue on if there was any issue.

I think he’s missing a few pounds of integrity now.

 

[pt109]

I don’t know exactly how it went down, but whatever happened and however it was decided ultimately is the result of a judgement by the tournament director.

The wrong ruling of the tournament director doesn’t make it right.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think he’s missing a few pounds of integrity now.

Well, maybe, but I wonder how most people would react if the TD said to them, "Hey, Steve, the guy who just beat you, Joe, has to go. He said you should take his place in the tournament. You play Fred next." Maybe that's how it was. Maybe not.

In the case of the OP, we don't really know what happened. We just have bits and pieces of how it went and mostly about the aftermath.

I do agree though that the TD made a major mistake. It's reminiscent of a double elimination tournament I played in where the TD ignored the chart on the losers' side and just matched up any losers who were waiting around to play. It's hard to find good help.

 

[spartan]

So this is double punch to hot seat player
First he should have won by forfeit but TD screwed him
Then if this is not true double elimination, it meant the TD/organiser screwed him again giving him only 1 life while the player who won got 3 lives.
Damn even zombies don't get 3 lives

I know the player that won. Tons of integrity. Would never continue on if there was any issue.

Geez, you mean he didn't think there was any issue to continue playing after "dying" twice. Maybe his "integrity" is the flexible type

 

[pt109]

Well, maybe, but I wonder how most people would react if the TD said to them, "Hey, Steve, the guy who just beat you, Joe, has to go. He said you should take his place in the tournament. You play Fred next." Maybe that's how it was. Maybe not.

In the case of the OP, we don't really know what happened. We just have bits and pieces of how it went and mostly about the aftermath.

I do agree though that the TD made a major mistake. It's reminiscent of a double elimination tournament I played in where the TD ignored the chart on the losers' side and just matched up any losers who were waiting around to play. It's hard to find good help.

I ran a lot of six red tournaments in the 80s. I’ve had that happen. The loser wanted to play when the winner had to leave. I raked the balls when the next match started. Both guys wanted to play it.
I told them they couldn’t play with their own set of rules. I told them the toughest meanest player in the tournament has to play with the same rules you do….it was like that on a tie game also..many would want to play a full game….it was ‘re-spotted black’ for everybody.

The tournament became very popular….had one 93 field on a Monday night…usually in the 70s in the winter….
…because a fair deal was expected.

 

[Bob Jewett]

So this is double punch to hot seat player
First he should have won by forfeit but TD screwed him
...

Not in this case. The OP said "this happened with 3 more opponents to play to win the whole thing." It was towards the end of the tournament but not as late as the finals.

 

[buckshotshoey]

We still don't have enough information. Maybe the guy that won and forfeited did not tell the tournament director that they even played. He just might have walked up and said "I have to forfeit".

It is possible that the tournament director didn't know any of the games were played, some of the games were played, or all of them were played.

There's a whole bunch of people here on AZ that should just say no to jury duty. They don't even have to know all the facts before they make a conviction.

 

[easy-e]

We still don't have enough information. Maybe the guy that won and forfeited did not tell the tournament director that they even played. He just might have walked up and said "I have to forfeit".

It is possible that the tournament director didn't know any of the games were played, some of the games were played, or all of them were played.

There's a whole bunch of people here on AZ that should just say no to jury duty. They don't even have to know all the facts before they make a conviction.

Fair point, but if the defense attorney is asking for our opinion by only giving us pieces of the story, what are we to do?

 

[benjaminwah]

We still don't have enough information. Maybe the guy that won and forfeited did not tell the tournament director that they even played. He just might have walked up and said "I have to forfeit".

It is possible that the tournament director didn't know any of the games were played, some of the games were played, or all of them were played.

There's a whole bunch of people here on AZ that should just say no to jury duty. They don't even have to know all the facts before they make a conviction.

The scores are posted on the bracket.

 

[spartan]

Not in this case. The OP said "this happened with 3 more opponents to play to win the whole thing." It was towards the end of the tournament but not as late as the finals.

Oops My bad. Did not read subsequent "facts" that OP released thriller style episode by episode

 

[buckshotshoey]

The scores are posted on the bracket.

Wouldn't that have been relevant information that you should have posted in your very first post? That kind of changes things doesn't it?

 

[buckshotshoey]

Fair point, but if the defense attorney is asking for our opinion by only giving us pieces of the story, what are we to do?

I'd be firing that defense attorney

 

[benjaminwah]

I made the original post at 7 am, sorry.

 

[KissedOut]

We still don't have enough information. Maybe the guy that won and forfeited did not tell the tournament director that they even played. He just might have walked up and said "I have to forfeit".

It is possible that the tournament director didn't know any of the games were played, some of the games were played, or all of them were played.

There's a whole bunch of people here on AZ that should just say no to jury duty. They don't even have to know all the facts before they make a conviction.

A jury has to make their decision based on the evidence put before them. If you want a better decision, provide more facts and evidence. OP clearly wants agreement and his "evidence" skews that way.

 

[philly]

your 'tons of integrity' friend is an idiot then. he knew he was out when he lost his second match. time to go.

I didn't want to say that but I agree wholeheartedly.
I think the Tournament Director either had skin in the game or has no clue.

 

[philly]

You don't win a match until the score is turned in. If he didn't tell the TD that he won, he forfeited THAT match, not the next match..

Jaden

Good point.
Would love to hear from the guy that won the match and eliminated the other guy.
Why did he forfeit.
Just dumb shit.
The other guy lost two.
Tournament is over for him.
Would love to hear from he guy in the hot seat about this debacle also.
Wonder if the guy that already lost two matches had to double dip him.

 

[decent dennis]

I played in a tournament Saturday and scenario came up. Lost my first match in a double
elimination format. Second match is called so i go to the assigned table, theother players not there yet so i start hitting balls.
After about five minutes i tell the tournament director he hasn't shown yet.
He calls him again, another five goes by. No show. Calls him againg letting him know he's on the clock.
Come to find out he also lost his first match and he left. "Oh yeah he does this all the time if he loses his first one"
I'm told by another player. The big deal is he was the first blind bid in the calcutta for around 250. The guy that bought him was not happy.

 

[benjaminwah]

A jury has to make their decision based on the evidence put before them. If you want a better decision, provide more facts and evidence. OP clearly wants agreement and his "evidence" skews that way.

I literally don’t know some facts. I can assume some things from what I’m seeing but haven’t heard back from my friend who is in the middle of all of this.

The fact that I think is most important is did the last 3 know the situation and play anyway?

If so they can’t cry over it.

As for my friend continuing I don’t know if that was established before they played? However that was handled is just bad. I have been in plenty of tournaments where my opponent said they had to leave and would give me the match regardless, and I have done the same with no issue.

 

[boogieman]

A friend just won a tournament, or at least they thought they did.
They were in the one loss side. Lost again but opponent decided to drop out, so they continued and ended up winning the whole thing.
Now opponents, who at the time knew what had happened and still allowed this to happen, are crying sour grapes after the fact.
At the time the tournament director allowed them to continue on. Now they want to invalidate the win after the fact?
In my opinion the win should stand since the powers that be allowed them to continue. If any fault is assessed it should pay solely on the shoulders of the people that chose to allow the matches to continue.

If they lost twice they are toast, even if the opponent drops out at a later date. It's shitty, but that's always how I've seen it done. I've also seen people forfeit a match so a better player plays their opponent then they split the winnings. This can happen if you're in the top 3 with one loss playing opponents with no losses. They hit you with the stronger opponent then first and second split the winnings. Shitty but it happens.