Another CSI decision thread

Wags

Wags

2 pocket-one pocket table
Silver Member
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.
 
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
 
itsfroze said:
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
Click to expand...

You have a link to a tournament where a player forfeited his first match of the elimination rounds?
 
ChicagoJoe said:
You have a link to a tournament where a player forfeited his first match of the elimination rounds?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
God I wish this forum would go back to talking about the actual game of pool and not politics.
 
zpele said:
God I wish this forum would go back to talking about the actual game of pool and not politics.
Click to expand...

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:
 
BJTyler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Banks said:
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:
Click to expand...

It's like watching low level league players play. They constantly look for rule violations instead of actually playing the game.
 
Danktrees said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
zpele said:
It's like watching low level league players play. They constantly look for rule violations instead of actually playing the game.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Banks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope I have played pretty extensively in leagues both locally and nationally but i agree this board has gotten boring lately.
 
Wags said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Has anyone bothered to go over to Pool, who is sitting in the corner crying, and give it a big hug?
 
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.:eek:
 
3RAILKICK said:
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.:eek:
Click to expand...


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

Lou Figueroa
 
BJTyler said:
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.
Click to expand...

that doesnt change the fact that he played in a tournament. we're talking about whether or not this is simply just an invitational and i'm saying that it's not because there was an entry fee. what those badminton players did to qualify is irrelevant as are the amounts of money they may or may not have put in to get to their level of proficiency. i'm specifically asking if they had to pay for play in the invitational. ko did so it wasn't simply just an invitational. he had to actually pay money to play in it. travel expense etc. are not the point as getting an invitation and showing up do not get you in the tournament. you have to pay to play.



BJTyler said:
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.
Click to expand...

and you should re-read my comments. i am stating that because they had to pay to play, then a forfeit should be a bye. you are comparing a multi stage tournament with no entry fee to one that has entry fees where the participant has to pay to play. furthermore those tournaments have specific rules and guidelines that stipulates what happens in these situations whereas this one clearly did not so it's unfair for ko to be forced to play. now if that's what the director considered is the best decision then it is what it is. but this was clearly something that should have been part of the tournament rules. guys showing up late, not showing up etc. is not unheard of. if anything instead of forcing ko to play they should have forced souquet to play and held his money if he refused.

to your point, if souquet forfeited then that means the match is over i.e. ko wins 12-0 or whatever the race is. it's registered as an official win which means ko goes to the finals. if souquet didn't forfeit then he didnt officially finish the tournament so he shouldnt have gotten paid since he had no finishing position. you can't have a forfeit and give him money for finishing but then say his match never occurred and send shane in there to take his place. you dont run into this problem in normal tournaments cuz there's no entry fee or prize money, but in this case it's pretty clear to me that you can't do it both ways. either souquet takes the loss and gets money or he didn't play/finish and doesnt get the money in which case shane can take his spot.


BJTyler said:
The rest of your post is speculative without evidence, but I generally agree that there should not be double standards
Click to expand...
that's why i qualified it by saying if that story is true. although considering some people that were there have said that he was forced to play it seems that something did happen that prevented ko from being able to refuse to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top