Another CSI decision thread

[Wags]

Ok, what is so difficult here? You have the rock, the hard place, and CSI in between. So what if there wasn't a rule in place. So some of the finest heads in pool made a tough call. They have now put in place a ruling that will be the guideline for the future. The US Supreme Court does that all the time.

For those that suggested putting in players from other groups...Did you not get the concept of this invitation only tournament?

It's this kind of junk and attacks and stupidity that keeps me at my 50 posts per year limit.

 

[Icon of Sin]

You should make it 49 a year. We don't need another thread on this.

 

[itsfroze]

1) They made it a tough call.

2) Normally a player withdraws --> issue forfeit --> issue bye --> simple, nothing tough !



If they picked option #2 (what's normally done)

1) No uproar
2) nobody upset
3) Ko wouldn't have been screwed
4) PPV would have 1 less match for whole week ( will be used --> butnot even a good excuse) $3.00 difference

 

[Wags]

You should make it 49 a year. We don't need another thread on this.

I hear you but didn't know which one to post in.

 

[itsfroze]

======Duplicate=======

 

[ChicagoJoe]

1) They made it a tough call.

2) Normally a player withdraws --> issue forfeit --> issue bye --> simple, nothing tough !



If they picked option #2 (what's normally done)

1) No uproar
2) nobody upset
3) Ko wouldn't have been screwed
4) PPV would have 1 less match for whole week ( will be used --> butnot even a good excuse) $3.00 difference

You have a link to a tournament where a player forfeited his first match of the elimination rounds?

 

[BJTyler]

You have a link to a tournament where a player forfeited his first match of the elimination rounds?

After a reasonable effort I've found the following:

By and large, there are generally three distinct stages of a multiple stage tournament.

A. a qualifying (preliminary) stage
B. a round robin (group) stage
C. an elimination (knockout) stage

There are numerous examples (WPA, FIFA, UEFA) where a player or team is unable to proceed from stage A to stage B. In these scenarios, almost without exception the practice has been to advance another player or team into stage B. On some occasions, that player or team will be selected from the same region or group as the player/team who was unable to advance (FIFA, UEFA). However, on other occasions, the player/team is drawn from the entire qualifying pool at large (WPA). In either case, the decision is usually made upon the player or team's record during the qualifying stage.

I have only found 2 examples where a player/team was unable to proceed from stage B to stage C. Those two are the 2014 CSI 8-ball invitationals (and we all know what happened there) and the 2012 Women's Olympic Badminton tournament in London.

During the 2012 Women's Olympic Badminton tournament, 4 qualifying teams (2 from group A and 2 from group C) were disqualified after suspicions of attempting to dump their final group stage match in order to avoid having to play the top rated Chinese team in the first round of the the knockout stage.

The top 2 teams from group A (Korea & China) along with the top 2 teams from group C (Korea & Indonesia) were disqualified after the round robin stage and the bottom 2 teams from both groups (Russia & Canada in group A, Australia & South Africa in group C) were allowed to advance into the knockout stage.

Finally, if a player/team is unable to continue a stage AFTER that particular stage has already begun, the generally accepted practice is to give a bye to the remaining player(s) that would have faced that player/team.

If anyone has examples to the contrary, I would be genuinely interested in hearing about them.

I think one interesting side note is that due to the format of round robin tournaments, they seem to perpetuate and fuel a lot tournament shenanigans.

 

[zpele]

God I wish this forum would go back to talking about the actual game of pool and not politics.

 

[Banks]

God I wish this forum would go back to talking about the actual game of pool and not politics.

Why's that? Sometimes I think half of them don't play(anymore) anyways.

Just out of the kindness(imitation kindness) of my own heart, I shall now wrap up most threads into a statement:

Use a Kamui tip on a Jacoby sneaky, kept in a Barton Bag(non-trademarked), play only 1-pocket on 4"-pocketed Diamond tables, never play league and do get a job.

There, that oughta tide you over for a while! :thumbup:

 

[mark187]

Ok, what is so difficult here? You have the rock, the hard place, and CSI in between. So what if there wasn't a rule in place. So some of the finest heads in pool made a tough call. They have now put in place a ruling that will be the guideline for the future. The US Supreme Court does that all the time.

For those that suggested putting in players from other groups...Did you not get the concept of this invitation only tournament?

It's this kind of junk and attacks and stupidity that keeps me at my 50 posts per year limit.

Done to death. We need a late spring clean on this board. Ultimately, no one really cares. CSI will continue streaming and all the involved players have probably put this behind them. I'd understand if this has happened at the US Open, the World Championships or a high stakes event, but it wasn't. From the sounds of it, it qas a cobbled together event and this approach has had an expected outcome.

Anyway, for viewers it's about entertainment. For the top players it was about making some pocket money and keeping their game up to scratch competitively. No one has really been hurt.

To put things in perspective, Earl Strickland made $1,000,000 in one game in 1996. The game should be aiming ro get to that level again. CSI are at the start of a journey to try to increase pool's profile. Yes, their have been problems, but let's not blow this up otherwise they're going to be reluctant arranging future events. People on this board bemoan the current state of pool, whilst firmly kicking any promise straight into the gutter.

 

[Danktrees]

After a reasonable effort I've found the following:

By and large, there are generally three distinct stages of a multiple stage tournament.

A. a qualifying (preliminary) stage
B. a round robin (group) stage
C. an elimination (knockout) stage

There are numerous examples (WPA, FIFA, UEFA) where a player or team is unable to proceed from stage A to stage B. In these scenarios, almost without exception the practice has been to advance another player or team into stage B. On some occasions, that player or team will be selected from the same region or group as the player/team who was unable to advance (FIFA, UEFA). However, on other occasions, the player/team is drawn from the entire qualifying pool at large (WPA). In either case, the decision is usually made upon the player or team's record during the qualifying stage.

I have only found 2 examples where a player/team was unable to proceed from stage B to stage C. Those two are the 2014 CSI 8-ball invitationals (and we all know what happened there) and the 2012 Women's Olympic Badminton tournament in London.

During the 2012 Women's Olympic Badminton tournament, 4 qualifying teams (2 from group A and 2 from group C) were disqualified after suspicions of attempting to dump their final group stage match in order to avoid having to play the top rated Chinese team in the first round of the the knockout stage.

The top 2 teams from group A (Korea & China) along with the top 2 teams from group C (Korea & Indonesia) were disqualified after the round robin stage and the bottom 2 teams from both groups (Russia & Canada in group A, Australia & South Africa in group C) were allowed to advance into the knockout stage.

Finally, if a player/team is unable to continue a stage AFTER that particular stage has already begun, the generally accepted practice is to give a bye to the remaining player(s) that would have faced that player/team.

If anyone has examples to the contrary, I would be genuinely interested in hearing about them.

I think one interesting side note is that due to the format of round robin tournaments, they seem to perpetuate and fuel a lot tournament shenanigans.

did any of those teams have to pay to participate in the tournament? cuz ko had to. and if i had to pay for a tournament and my opponent forfeits, i should win that match by default. also (if this is true) if ralf is allowed to quit and get paid, why was ko threatened to have his guaranteed money being held if he refused to play? it's cool if you ran into a problem and need to come up with a solution on the fly, but you cant have a double standard like that. basically ralf got his money even though he was the one who messed the whole situation up. and ko was punished and forced to play even though he did nothing wrong.

you guys can call this an invitational all you want, but if there is an entry fee then none of this invitational bs matters. it's a tournament at that point.

 

[zpele]

Why's that? Sometimes I think half of them don't play(anymore) anyways.

Just out of the kindness(imitation kindness) of my own heart, I shall now wrap up most threads into a statement:

Use a Kamui tip on a Jacoby sneaky, kept in a Barton Bag(non-trademarked), play only 1-pocket on 4"-pocketed Diamond tables, never play league and do get a job.

There, that oughta tide you over for a while! :thumbup:

It's like watching low level league players play. They constantly look for rule violations instead of actually playing the game.

 

[BJTyler]

did any of those teams have to pay to participate in the tournament? cuz ko had to. and if i had to pay for a tournament and my opponent forfeits, i should win that match by default. also (if this is true) if ralf is allowed to quit and get paid, why was ko threatened to have his guaranteed money being held if he refused to play? it's cool if you ran into a problem and need to come up with a solution on the fly, but you cant have a double standard like that. basically ralf got his money even though he was the one who messed the whole situation up. and ko was punished and forced to play even though he did nothing wrong.

you guys can call this an invitational all you want, but if there is an entry fee then none of this invitational bs matters. it's a tournament at that point.

Did the badminton players have to pay? perhaps not directly, but I guarantee you that the monies invested by the players & national federations in getting a team qualified into the Olympic games combined with the travel expenses and potential rewards of medaling DWARF those of playing in the CSI 8-ball invitational.


Please re-read my comment, you are making a critical leap in logic by assuming that any forfeit => a bye, as I stated, this has NOT been the case in between stages of a multi-stage tournament.


The rest of your post is speculative without evidence, but I generally agree that there should not be double standards.

 

[Banks]

It's like watching low level league players play. They constantly look for rule violations instead of actually playing the game.

Now I'm guessing you've never played league either.

If any of the constant whiners on this board ever did anything for pool, somebody should make a note of it and submit it to the NY Times or something. Still not sure if any of them play pool.

I'm going back to entering invoices, because that's more interesting right now.

 

[zpele]

Now I'm guessing you've never played league either.

If any of the constant whiners on this board ever did anything for pool, somebody should make a note of it and submit it to the NY Times or something. Still not sure if any of them play pool.

I'm going back to entering invoices, because that's more interesting right now.

Nope I have played pretty extensively in leagues both locally and nationally but i agree this board has gotten boring lately.

 

[boogeyman]

Ok, what is so difficult here? You have the rock, the hard place, and CSI in between. So what if there wasn't a rule in place. So some of the finest heads in pool made a tough call. They have now put in place a ruling that will be the guideline for the future. The US Supreme Court does that all the time.

For those that suggested putting in players from other groups...Did you not get the concept of this invitation only tournament?

It's this kind of junk and attacks and stupidity that keeps me at my 50 posts per year limit.

Mark presented a product (a service) with the money he garnered.
If we chose to patronize that service, there is only one caveat emptor:

so long as the basic service you paid for is rendered,
none of us should complain as to HOW that service was rendered.

That is up to the owner (Mark). It's his product, It's his business.
If we can't run our own businesses in this country,
then what good is it to invest our resources to get that business??!!

I now see the fallacy of anyone pointing fingers at Mark.
Let him run his business the way he chooses!!!!!!!
THIS IS AMERICA!!

End of story!

 

[Inaction]

Has anyone bothered to go over to Pool, who is sitting in the corner crying, and give it a big hug?

 

[3RAILKICK]

Reminds me of being married...whatever I did, for the best reasons and intentions, I was usually still wrong.

And still married.

Prison did not seem to be the answer.

Here, you can vote with your patronage and dollars in the future if you feel wronged.

In the other, with a divorce lawyer.

It's surely a face palm situation..JCIN might say..what could possibly go wrong?

In real time, a decision had to be made..you can't do nothing. Hindsight will be available to pick reasoning apart...always has.

 

[lfigueroa]

Has anyone bothered to go over to Pool, who is sitting in the corner crying, and give it a big hug?

lol

Lou Figueroa
actually did
make me
laugh out loud

 

[lfigueroa]

Reminds me of being married...whatever I did, for the best reasons and intentions, I was usually still wrong.

And still married.

Prison did not seem to be the answer.

Here, you can vote with your patronage and dollars in the future if you feel wronged.

In the other, with a divorce lawyer.

It's surely a face palm situation..JCIN might say..what could possibly go wrong?

In real time, a decision had to be made..you can't do nothing. Hindsight will be available to pick reasoning apart...always has.

The only thing with marriage is that after a while you just automatically plead guilty and hope for a reduced sentence.

Lou Figueroa