CSI-Mark Griffin First Response
- Thread starter Mark Griffin
- Start date
- Status
.....thanks
First ABR episode that I listened to its full length. Mark and Ozzy provided several facts:
1) Ralf informed CSI less than a hour before the 5pm semi-final match that he has a 7pm flight to catch and have to leave.
2) CSI, in a hurry, mistakenly drew a check for Ralf for 3/4 place prize when he should get 5-8 place prize. That was the error Mark referred in his first response.
3) Ko's manager complained and asked what if Ko quit the semi-final match, Ozzy answered that were he withdraw the match like Ralf did, he will only be paid 5-8 place money, which will be 1k less than what will be guaranted if he play the semi-final.
4) Mark defines Ralf's action as "withdraw" not "forfeit" since the match haven't started yet. And it would be written into next vesion of the CSI invitational event rules.
that's what I remembered.
Last edited:
Was it that Ralf was paid in error, or did CSI just change their mind? The evidence most supports that CSI initially was going to pay Ralf 3rd, and issue a bye in his place giving Ko a bye straight into the finals. Then for whatever reason they changed their mind after Ralf was already gone and then of course come match time they have to tell Ko that Ralf is being replaced by Shane, and Ko either has to play the match or he is going to be replaced by the second place finisher in his group just as they subsequently decided to do with Ralf.
I think it was SJM that overheard CSI officials saying that they could not be without that match for the pay per view live stream, so that could have been the motivation to change their mind on the format. Or maybe after more thought they just decided it was more fair or logical in their eyes or perhaps it was simply just more to their personal preference to go ahead and go with the format of moving the second place finisher in the group up to replace Ralf. Or maybe it was a combination of all of these things.
I am not saying this is what occurred. There just isn't any way to know anything for sure. Only that it seems to be the most logical thing to believe based on the evidence at hand. And depending on a number of factors, I don't necessarily think it is unreasonable to change your mind on a previous ruling in some circumstances (I don't have enough information to know if this is one of those reasonable circumstances or not).
I don't really have a dog in the fight as I see strong logic for both formats and don't think anyone would have really had too much problem with either one as long as it was made known in advance. What makes this situation so unique is that the players were never told in advance which of the two formats would be used. So the real question here is not which is the best or most logical format, because they both have merit. The real question is which was the most fair and logical format to use under the circumstances of the players never having been made aware in advance. And the two answers could be very different.
good summary. I didn't hear mark say "complain" with my convo with him but then again I didn't listen to the ABR broadcast.
So interesting even with the podcast ppl are not listening to it to get info from the horses mouth. That's how much of this was blown out of proportion to begin with. When the horses mouth in question speaks, we should listen to him speak, and not someone else's interpretation.
I don't think the evidence supports that. It just as easily supports that they originally decided to bump up the 2nd place player in the group as Ozzy said happened, thought that paying Ralph as having lost the semi-final was the correct decision, and later realized that that would mean there would be 3 semi-final losers rather than 2.
That is incorrect/false.
Case in point about listening to the horse himself. The podcast acknowledged that the other single elim match had started, but the ralf/big ko match had not.
Just got done listening to the broadcast. Not that my observations or opinions matter to anyone, especially Mark G and Ozzy, but I will include my name, Natalie Plumley so as not to be accused of hiding behind a screen name. I would call you directly, but after listening to the broadcast it seems to me that you are on the defense and while you say you don't like to be attacked, you sir are on the attack mode right along with so many of the AZ members.
I can appreciate that a quick decision had to be made. I can also appreciate you standing behind the decision you made under the circumstance. However I can also understand how some people would think some unfairness to Ko and the position he was put in. He could not advance thru a forfeit/withdraw, but isn't that how Shane advanced?
My husband and I own a business. We here complaining from time to time from our customers. Behind close doors we may discuss how if they don't like it they can kiss our A**. But publicly we remain respectful to them while continuing to go on about our business. After all, we are in business because of the customers, it will do us no good to tell them to go kick rocks if they don't like it.
I heard something recently that seems to apply to this situation on both sides of the fence.
Re: Conflict
When confronting somebody:
#1 Must be done with a tender heart.
#2 you must be ready to forgive
#3 you must be willing to hear and accept your part in it.
Lastly in my opinion, the Passion we have for this game is what makes the responses we have towards it so intense.
I can appreciate that a quick decision had to be made. I can also appreciate you standing behind the decision you made under the circumstance. However I can also understand how some people would think some unfairness to Ko and the position he was put in. He could not advance thru a forfeit/withdraw, but isn't that how Shane advanced?
My husband and I own a business. We here complaining from time to time from our customers. Behind close doors we may discuss how if they don't like it they can kiss our A**. But publicly we remain respectful to them while continuing to go on about our business. After all, we are in business because of the customers, it will do us no good to tell them to go kick rocks if they don't like it.
I heard something recently that seems to apply to this situation on both sides of the fence.
Re: Conflict
When confronting somebody:
#1 Must be done with a tender heart.
#2 you must be ready to forgive
#3 you must be willing to hear and accept your part in it.
Lastly in my opinion, the Passion we have for this game is what makes the responses we have towards it so intense.
Last edited:
As I said, both are possible and I am not making a definitive accusation or anything like that. But the evidence very clearly supports one being much more likely. If you are intending to replace Ralf with another player, you already know at the time you are cutting Ralf the 3rd/4th place check that there are still going to be two semi-final matches taking place, and obviously two semi-final matches means there are going to be two more 3rd/4th place finishers besides Ralf. It just makes no sense whatsoever for them not to realize that two more semi-final matches would leave two more 3rd/4th place finishers. What does actually make sense is that at the time they paid Ralf they weren't planning for one of the semi-final matches to happen (because Ralf was already being considered the loser of that match with no plans to have that match played by anyone else and was being paid accordingly) and only one other semi-final match meant only one other 3rd/4th place finisher.
Plus they were apparently later overheard saying that they couldn't be without one of the semi-final matches to put on the live stream. If their plan from the very start was to move the 2nd place finisher up to replace Ralf, then there was always going to be two semi-final matches. And if there was always going to be two semi-final matches, then there would be no reason for them to lament the repercussions of not having one of the semi-final matches for the live stream because of the bye as SJM claims he heard. That conversation would have never occurred because it would have never been a possibility in your version. If you think their first and only plan was to replace Ralf and have two semi-final matches then you pretty much have to believe that SJM is flat out lying and making up his story about hearing them talk about not having the match for the live stream because of the bye. I'm certainly not prepared to call SJM a liar here. Are you?
Last edited:
^^^^^ This. If someone has time to care enough to post on the matter, I'd think they'd have time, if not an obligation to listen to the broadcast. The broadcast has a scroll bar (with pause) so you can choose to listen to any segment you want. The CSI segment isn't that long and starts @ 10 minutes in.
I don't know sjm to accuse him of lying, but I know people claimed to have eavesdropped on a conversation about the decision and I know Mark acknowledged it on ABR, so there's no question on that point anyway. If you want me to accuse sjm of something, I will say that I believe he made very unfair claims that were effectively accusations of corruption against Mark.
But that has no bearing at all on how the decision was made. Someone was questioning Mark on the decision he had made, he said that it had been made to retain the integrity of the tournament and the brackets, and the PPV streams were a part of that - according to Mark, a small part. So what? It does not follow at all that it was a changed decision.
Mark and Ozzy claimed that they made the decision and later realized they had paid Ralph too much. I'm certainly not prepared to call Mark and Ozzy a liar here. Are you?
Last edited:
So the sides/lines are drawn. Mark and Ozzy or SJM?
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Or... whoever wrote the check made a mistake and gave him the wrong one.
It's pretty far-fetched, I know, but I've heard that people sometimes f*** up. :shrug:
Of course the Ralf/Ko match had not started yet. That was the second semi final.
What I bolded in the quote IS incorrect.
If we are going to discuss this we might as well stick with pure facts.
I'm prepared to say exactly what I already said. The evidence overwhelmingly points to someone at CSI initially deciding to consider the match a forfeit with no replacement player and no match to be played, proceeded accordingly and paid Ralf accordingly, and then later CSI changed their mind and decided to go with the different format of having a replacement player for Ralf and playing the match. There is a chance it occurred a different way, but that isn't what all the evidence overwhelmingly points to.
All the accusations of corruption and bad faith and lack of integrity etc is another topic entirely that I did not participate in and are not claims that I made. My post was solely addressing someone's comment that paying Ralf 3rd was done in error, and my point is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to it not being an error, but just changing their mind about which format to proceed under. And as I said, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to change your mind depending on the reasons.
Besides cutting a check for 3rd place, what other concrete evidence is there?
- Status