The reason officials watch certain players is because the scoresheets don't tell the whole story sometimes and there is nothing lime the good old eyeball test in determining exactly how well some one is playing.
After skunking my first opponent in vegas i had an observer watching every one of my matches the next 3 rounds before we were put out. It did not bother me at all to have some one watching .
But if it's an objective formula it doesn't matter what observers think.
We've been told competing things in this thread:
1) They were raised because the formula said they should be raised
2) They were watched and judges determined they should be raised
Which is true?
Is the formula accurate and objective or not?
I played in a tournament one time. I told the TD I should be a 10 (out of 12). The pockets were really, really tight (3 7/8"). So I only tried to run out if I had a very easy out and let my opponent tangle with it if there was any trouble.
I won 4 matches before I lost. Single elimination.
The TD after the tournament told me no way I was a 10. He's seen 10s play and I play too poorly to be a 10...etc...
But I beat 2 other 10s in the 4 matches I won...
But if I had lost shooting at everything and making some hero shots while eventually getting out of line or missing...he probably would have thought I was a 10 even if I lost. Ironically that's what I let the 10s I played do. I had many, many 2 and 3 ball outs for wins.
The point is, no matter how experienced a judge humans are notoriously bad at assessing skill levels in games like pool. If we were better at it gambling wouldn't really exist.
So. Is it a system or is it people?