APA Down East Rant

ssbn610g said:
So, why have rules if they are not going to be followed. If the rule says it is up to the discretion of the LO. Fine. Either you have rules and follow them or it becomes a complete mess and people will feel discriminated against. Why do I have follow rules when the LO doesn't?

Al
Click to expand...

The primary purpose of the ID rule (it is the longest rule in the LTC set, by the way) is verification of identity. Because it's not always possible to verify identity any other way, the rule is strongly worded and strictly enforced at the National tournament.

HOWEVER, the rule also clearly states that the ID issue must be handled prior to the lag of the match in question, or the non-offending team may have to live with the result, even if the player was an impostor. In this case, the player was not an impostor. Even the OP admits that there was never a question of identity.

So, you tell me, who didn't follow the rules? It's pretty clear to me that the OP's team is trying to "win on a technicality".
 
APA Operator said:
The primary purpose of the ID rule (it is the longest rule in the LTC set, by the way) is verification of identity. Because it's not always possible to verify identity any other way, the rule is strongly worded and strictly enforced at the National tournament.

HOWEVER, the rule also clearly states that the ID issue must be handled prior to the lag of the match in question, or the non-offending team may have to live with the result, even if the player was an impostor. In this case, the player was not an impostor. Even the OP admits that there was never a question of identity.

So, you tell me, who didn't follow the rules? It's pretty clear to me that the OP's team is trying to "win on a technicality".
Click to expand...

We all saw how strictly enforced it was at the NTC a couple of years ago in the 9 Ball Tournament. I'll have to re read this thread but I thought the OP said they didn't know the other team and the player in question said "nawh, dat stuff is at mah gurls house" or something like that, bit I could be mistaken.
If there is a player in question that can't present ID - prior to the lag - what then is the duty of the team asking for ID?
 
I do feel there are more problems in the APA than in other leagues. My theory on this is you more often get people who don't really care about Pool in the apa. They don't care about improving...they don't care learning about the game.

They are happy with being a '3', '4', or '5' and are actually proud of themselves the lower their sl is.

This is usually one of two of people

1.) They like the popularity in terms of teams wanting them and the chance at vegas 2.) They are very much the term 'apa lawyers' and they get way too in pulling a fast or finding an obscure rule know even knows about as opposed to getting better.

In terms of the game of pool, they just don't seem to care. They don't care about winning on the table.
 
APA Operator said:
The primary purpose of the ID rule (it is the longest rule in the LTC set, by the way) is verification of identity. Because it's not always possible to verify identity any other way, the rule is strongly worded and strictly enforced at the National tournament.

HOWEVER, the rule also clearly states that the ID issue must be handled prior to the lag of the match in question, or the non-offending team may have to live with the result, even if the player was an impostor. In this case, the player was not an impostor. Even the OP admits that there was never a question of identity.

So, you tell me, who didn't follow the rules? It's pretty clear to me that the OP's team is trying to "win on a technicality".
Click to expand...

Winning our match wasn't the intention behind us challenging that rule. We had many opportunities to earn a victory, but for whatever reasons we just couldn't capitalize. The opposing team played better than us when it counted. That's all there is to it.

Whether it is true or not, my LO told us that we could address the issue of ID at any time throughout the entire match if we so desired.
 
Celophanewrap said:
We all saw how strictly enforced it was at the NTC a couple of years ago in the 9 Ball Tournament. I'll have to re read this thread but I thought the OP said they didn't know the other team and the player in question said "nawh, dat stuff is at mah gurls house" or something like that, bit I could be mistaken.
If there is a player in question that can't present ID - prior to the lag - what then is the duty of the team asking for ID?
Click to expand...

Actually, you should read the rule. The responsibility for checking ID falls on the opposing team. At that 9-Ball NTC, the impostor player was never asked for an ID in five matches.

The OP replied to my initial response, stating that they weren't really questioning the guy's identity. So why push the ID issue so hard if not to verify identity?

The team asking for the ID should escalate the issue and refuse to start the match if the ID is not presented. If you can't present ID prior to the lag, you can't play and your team forfeits that match. Personally, I think that's a little harsh for LTC's. At NTC, sure, but at LTC it should be a lot easier to verify a player's identity.
 
APA Operator said:
Actually, you should read the rule. The responsibility for checking ID falls on the opposing team. At that 9-Ball NTC, the impostor player was never asked for an ID in five matches.

The OP replied to my initial response, stating that they weren't really questioning the guy's identity. So why push the ID issue so hard if not to verify identity?

The team asking for the ID should escalate the issue and refuse to start the match if the ID is not presented. If you can't present ID prior to the lag, you can't play and your team forfeits that match. Personally, I think that's a little harsh for LTC's. At NTC, sure, but at LTC it should be a lot easier to verify a player's identity.
Click to expand...

So the enforcement falls to the opposing team?
I must have mis-read the op, I was under the impression that he'd asked for ID, then asked for them to wait while he got the LO. Upon returning with the LO the first game was almost complete.
My bad

So if I understand you correctly, at the NTC the fault lies with the opposing team for failing to check for valid ID
 
Last edited:
APA Operator said:
Actually, you should read the rule. The responsibility for checking ID falls on the opposing team. At that 9-Ball NTC, the impostor player was never asked for an ID in five matches.

The OP replied to my initial response, stating that they weren't really questioning the guy's identity. So why push the ID issue so hard if not to verify identity?

The team asking for the ID should escalate the issue and refuse to start the match if the ID is not presented. If you can't present ID prior to the lag, you can't play and your team forfeits that match. Personally, I think that's a little harsh for LTC's. At NTC, sure, but at LTC it should be a lot easier to verify a player's identity.
Click to expand...

We pressed the issue bc the rules are in place for good reason. Some of them we may dislike or completely disagree with, but they still have to be followed.

I'll use an example of timeouts. During regular session play a SL2 is allotted 2 timeouts per rack. That seems fair enough to me. However, during LTC's and Nationals that same player is only permitted 1 timeout per rack. I don't agree with that rule, but I have to abide by it. Just bc it goes against my belief doesn't mean that I will have that player use 2 timeouts during a rack. It would be against the rules to do that, just as it is against the rules for someone without a valid ID and their APA card to shoot in the event.
 
APA Operator,
Actually, to be fair, I do have to agree, at the NTC the fault, to a point, does lie with the opposing teams that failed to check ID. But there is plenty go around and at least some does have to lie with the APA itself, also with the offending team's LO, and with any player from that area or familiar with that team that saw that team and knew something was up. If it's incumbant on us as APA members to keep score correctly and mark correct innings and defensive shots and the like, I believe it would also be up to us if we were to witness an "error in judgement" to report it, just as we report the correct amount of defensive shots and innings.

To our current situation here, I realize that we are only getting one side, but if in fact the account is truthful and correct my thought is that what transpired is the responsibility of a very weak LO that will ignore this and hope it eventually goes away and everyone just continues to pay their weekly dues and keep their mouths shut.

You won't finad a bigger fan of the APA than me, except for maybe dub and lo, but sometime the group in authority needs to be called out and they need to accept blame where it lies when it fall on them. What happened at the OP's LTC was total BS (love those acronyms), the real problem is that it's all to common, issues like this, and some of those in authority don't usually seem to care much
 
Last edited:
The point to remember with the apa is they will never enforce and/or penalize anyone if it's like that old adage 'if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to see it, does it fall'. This is bit of an exaggeration cause usually at least one or two people see it...but if the apa weighs everything based on spin control - not what is right or wrong. They will never side with anyone based on anything but out of spin control and their interest. If they know a lie by an LO or whoever can be gotten away with, they will side with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PoloBob said:
We pressed the issue bc the rules are in place for good reason. Some of them we may dislike or completely disagree with, but they still have to be followed.
Click to expand...

And the good reason that the ID rule is in place is to make sure that the players who play are the players on the roster. That's it, period, end of story. Once that question is resolved there's no reason to push for ID.

There's also a good reason why the rule states that the ID must be verified prior to the lag of the match in question. It's so that the whole ID issue doesn't become a sharking tactic or a way for a team to try to steal a match that they legitimately lost.

Let me ask you this. If you're not questioning the player's identity, what is it that you hope to have done as a resolution to your issue? What do you think the operator should have done differently with regard to the ID issue, and why?
 
Celophanewrap said:
To our current situation here, I realize that we are only getting one side, but if in fact the account is truthful and correct my thought is that what transpired is the responsibility of a very weak LO that will ignore this and hope it eventually goes away and everyone just continues to pay their weekly dues and keep their mouths shut.

You won't finad a bigger fan of the APA than me, except for maybe dub and lo, but sometime the group in authority needs to be called out and they need to accept blame where it lies when it fall on them. What happened at the OP's LTC was total BS (love those acronyms), the real problem is that it's all to common, issues like this, and some of those in authority don't usually seem to care much
Click to expand...

In looking back at the original two posts, I see five issues mentioned. First, an outburst over stopping a player to get a referee. The net of this issue is that apparently the wrong player was warned. Then the ID issue, which to me becomes a non-issue if there's no question of identity. Then an apparent bad call on a double-hit that cost a 6 one game in a match he lost 3-1. Then a player who took nearly a minute on one shot (which isn't even outside the rules if he also took five seconds on three other shots) and was a bit of a smart-ass when called on it. This one took care of itself when the player missed. Finally, the issue of sharking and the threat that followed. The player who made the threat was warned, and while this may be the right thing to do, I might have also told the guy who sharked that if he did it again I might be the one breaking the stick over his head.

Here's what I'm getting at. These are all things that come up in the course of every tournament, except the ID thing. Each was handled and play continued. The only issue that really affected the outcome of a match was the sharking issue, and I'm not sure by how much. If the team score was 5-4 in favor of team B and team B won hill-hill, wouldn't the score then be 7-5 and not 6-6 as the OP presented it? If the sharking hadn't occurred and Team A's player had made that 8-Ball, then it would be 6-5 in favor of Team A, the win in the first game of Sudden Death would make it 7-6 in favor of Team B, and it would be over unless Team A had won two of the first three matches, in which case they would play one more game, winner take all.

If these were the worst things that happened at my LTC, I would consider it a success. But someone puts up two long posts on this message board and it becomes total BS.
 
APA Operator said:
In looking back at the original two posts, I see five issues mentioned. First, an outburst over stopping a player to get a referee. The net of this issue is that apparently the wrong player was warned. Then the ID issue, which to me becomes a non-issue if there's no question of identity. Then an apparent bad call on a double-hit that cost a 6 one game in a match he lost 3-1. Then a player who took nearly a minute on one shot (which isn't even outside the rules if he also took five seconds on three other shots) and was a bit of a smart-ass when called on it. This one took care of itself when the player missed. Finally, the issue of sharking and the threat that followed. The player who made the threat was warned, and while this may be the right thing to do, I might have also told the guy who sharked that if he did it again I might be the one breaking the stick over his head.

Here's what I'm getting at. These are all things that come up in the course of every tournament, except the ID thing. Each was handled and play continued. The only issue that really affected the outcome of a match was the sharking issue, and I'm not sure by how much. If the team score was 5-4 in favor of team B and team B won hill-hill, wouldn't the score then be 7-5 and not 6-6 as the OP presented it? If the sharking hadn't occurred and Team A's player had made that 8-Ball, then it would be 6-5 in favor of Team A, the win in the first game of Sudden Death would make it 7-6 in favor of Team B, and it would be over unless Team A had won two of the first three matches, in which case they would play one more game, winner take all.

If these were the worst things that happened at my LTC, I would consider it a success. But someone puts up two long posts on this message board and it becomes total BS.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry that you feel my two long winded posts describing the culmination of a year's work is petty. We shall just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the insight you provided earlier in the thread.

I don't know what the proper recourse would be. I don't what I would want done. If you're trying to get me to say that I hope the team that won it gets disqualified, I won't. They played the best over the weekend when it counted, they deserve it. I hope they do well at NTC's and perhaps can bring some positive recognition to our small area.

When my original two posts were created, my initial feeling was disappointment. I couldn't believe as many issues that I thought at the time were cut and dry could have so much room for interpretation. I was absolutely baffled that an old business card could be substituted for proper ID. The sportsmanship issues in the other semi's match would have been handled much differently if I happened to run a league, especially considering how deep in the tournament it was. I don't stand for any kind of sharking, threatening, or anything else related to cheating in the slightest, so there would have been no tolerance for any of that.
 
Dude don't get to upset at what he said. Consider the source. He's an Apa operator who has a franchise he paid good money for so of course it's in his best interest to turn shit into rainbows when it comes to the Apa. Not all lo are bad. You requested his id and when he couldn't come up with it he shouldn't have been aloud to play. Your lo made a bad decision.. Is he a bad operator? Not necessarily. He just mad a bad decision in this instance.


PoloBob said:
I'm sorry that you feel my two long winded posts describing the culmination of a year's work is petty. We shall just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the insight you provided earlier in the thread.

I don't know what the proper recourse would be. I don't what I would want done. If you're trying to get me to say that I hope the team that won it gets disqualified, I won't. They played the best over the weekend when it counted, they deserve it. I hope they do well at NTC's and perhaps can bring some positive recognition to our small area.

When my original two posts were created, my initial feeling was disappointment. I couldn't believe as many issues that I thought at the time were cut and dry could have so much room for interpretation. I was absolutely baffled that an old business card could be substituted for proper ID. The sportsmanship issues in the other semi's match would have been handled much differently if I happened to run a league, especially considering how deep in the tournament it was. I don't stand for any kind of sharking, threatening, or anything else related to cheating in the slightest, so there would have been no tolerance for any of that.
Click to expand...
 
trob said:
Dude don't get to upset at what he said. Consider the source. He's an Apa operator who has a franchise he paid good money for so of course it's in his best interest to turn shit into rainbows when it comes to the Apa. Not all lo are bad. You requested his id and when he couldn't come up with it he shouldn't have been aloud to play. Your lo made a bad decision.. Is he a bad operator? Not necessarily. He just mad a bad decision in this instance.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was upset with his ruling, but it's over and done with. Next session.
 
PoloBob said:
You're right. I was upset with his ruling, but it's over and done with. Next session.
Click to expand...

as i stated way back in post 12 ...you can expect some drama in higher level playoffs. its just human nature.

we had the same sorta drama last year in our ltc...no cussing but a whole lot of complaining. i think your lo could have handled the sportsmanship a lil differently...he should have given the team captain a warning also.

as for the id issue, well ... i am gonna have to side with the lo on that one.you told your captain to wait for you to get the lo for a ruling ...your captain did not wait. imo your captain accepted that player for who he claimed to be and started the match. i agree with your lo and see no reason he should have stopped the match.it is kinda hard to undo what is already done.

i see no reason to not believe your lo called some one.if it was determined after the match was over that he was not that person that team would have been disqualified as for the apa card . you do not have to have one on your possession even at vegas.

we have our ltc in 2 weeks and i will probably start a thread complaining about shit also. i started one last year complaining also.:D oh yea i even started one complaining about a 3 beating me in vegas after i skunked a 5 20-0 and beat another 5 18-2 lol.
 
lorider said:
as i stated way back in post 12 ...you can expect some drama in higher level playoffs. its just human nature.

we had the same sorta drama last year in our ltc...no cussing but a whole lot of complaining. i think your lo could have handled the sportsmanship a lil differently...he should have given the team captain a warning also.

as for the id issue, well ... i am gonna have to side with the lo on that one.you told your captain to wait for you to get the lo for a ruling ...your captain did not wait. imo your captain accepted that player for who he claimed to be and started the match. i agree with your lo and see no reason he should have stopped the match.it is kinda hard to undo what is already done.

i see no reason to not believe your lo called some one.if it was determined after the match was over that he was not that person that team would have been disqualified as for the apa card . you do not have to have one on your possession even at vegas.

we have our ltc in 2 weeks and i will probably start a thread complaining about shit also. i started one last year complaining also.:D oh yea i even started one complaining about a 3 beating me in vegas after i skunked a 5 20-0 and beat another 5 18-2 lol.
Click to expand...

I dont get that. If an APA card is not required, and as you say, "even at Vegas", then I guess I have to ask.....why the hell do they waste the time, effort, and money to issue them in the first place? Its a complete waste of plastic. I'm asking because I really don't know the answer. I goes against all forms of common sense.
 
buckshotshoey said:
I dont get that. If an APA card is not required, and as you say, "even at Vegas", then I guess I have to ask.....why the hell do they waste the time, effort, and money to issue them in the first place? Its a complete waste of plastic. I'm asking because I really don't know the answer. I goes against all forms of common sense.
Click to expand...

I dont know either. Guess all its good for is discounrticipating vendors. I asked the question at vegas last year. I was told they already had every ones info of all players on scoresheets. I as told if a players name is on the scoresheet hey are eligible.

I was also told its my responsibility to check ids

At napa now. Respond with more later
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top