imo none of the shit, some of which is decades old, factored into the coarse of action J took...integrity of the game did
Jay Helfert resigned as Tourney Director at the US Open
- Thread starter bfdlad
- Start date
imo none of the shit, some of which is decades old, factored into the coarse of action J took...integrity of the game did
I agree. I think Jay did the right thing. It showed integrity.
I also think it would have shown integrity to stay. By staying and putting the issue to rest for the time being, could have allowed Jay to be a voice in ongoing procedural and ethical issues. Even though his opinions may have fallen on deaf ears, a strong message would have been conveyed showing a commitment to the players, a loyalty to the sport, and an unwavering dedication to the concept of a U.S. Open. There is no doubt that Jay holds these values. Our sport needs his presence.
Paul.. I think we all agree that Jay did the right thing. Dealing with Barry must be a real bit@h, and i think that if it had just been Barry that he had to deal with he may have stayed on as TD.
But i think Jay was pushed over the edge (my opinion) when Allen Hopkins accepted the spot in the field after saying he didn't care if he played or not.
All Allen did was add fuel to the fire by accepting Barry's juggling of the brackets.
I honestly think Jay will have much more respect (as if he needed more) by holding the line. Jay's presence in our sport will be there in the future. And the players will all know that when Jay is TD things will always be run fairly.
Don
Nice write....tho hangin' around for Jay just ran its inevitable course. Barry was fun to be around years ago and playing in his event was invigorating. The game and society no longer want to be embarrassed or held back. Barry please ''do it for the game''. Step away gracefully, the men you admire and love to see compete will all benefit as will the sport overall. Step down....
Jay not only made the right decision, it was his only course of action. Unless I missed something here, Jay posted Barry fired him! End of story. When the owner fires you , you are done, out, AMF.
As for Allen, who is a well respected icon in the game...I am surprised he played under the circumstances. What if by chance he won? He would be a tarnished champion before ihe left the podium. At this stage in his live, he should not need to be part of something like this.
As for Allen, who is a well respected icon in the game...I am surprised he played under the circumstances. What if by chance he won? He would be a tarnished champion before ihe left the podium. At this stage in his live, he should not need to be part of something like this.
To be fair -- the brackets were not juggled. One player was replaced with another.
I really think most people in this thread are letting their personal biases determine how they view what went down here.
For a moment let's just pretend that Jay made the following announcement:
"U.S. Open Players can I have your attention for one minute please. We have run into a minor issue. Here's what happened: Allen Hopkins was guaranteed a spot in the tournament because he is on the select list of former U.S. Open Champions but due to a miscommunication his name was not put on the chart. After some careful deliberation we have found a volunteer to withdraw from the tournament and Allen is going to be put in his place. I've spoken with Allen's 1st round opponent and he does not have a problem with this proposed resolution. If there are any players in the room that take issue with this resolution please come to the tournament directors area immediately to discuss.
This is Jay Helfert -- Thank you."
You think any players would have had a problem with this?
More importantly, would any of you REALLY had a problem with this resolution had Jay decided to go this route? I know I wouldn't.
Hindsight makes it so easy to fabricate a solution for Jay to solve this situation.
I still contend that he objected to the way Allen would be brought into the tournament and did not want to participate in that decision.
Jay did the right and honorable thing. If you can't understand it, perhaps you should examine your own values.
I still contend that he objected to the way Allen would be brought into the tournament and did not want to participate in that decision.
Jay did the right and honorable thing. If you can't understand it, perhaps you should examine your own values.
I understand his decision just fine and I'm constantly examining my own values but thanks for the reminder.
Since you didn't actually answer how you would respond to my hypothetical solution, or even how you think others would have responded I'll just assume you wouldn't have had a problem with this resolution. If that's the case, then the ethical and moral dilemmas associated with this whole saga aren't really what they appear to be.
My point is, we often draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Jay leaving this job behind was fueled by having a boss that he couldn't work with, not because he was being asked to do something so immoral or unethical.
I'm pretty sure both of those possibilities aren't mutually exclusive. I'm also pretty sure you can't speak for what may or may not be immoral/unethical to Jay.
I agree they are not both mutually exclusive.
I also believe it is my moral and ethical duty to question other people's decisions in life. So what basis do you have for questioning my morals and ethics?
My final takeaway:
I think Jay stood up to a boss that was undermining his authority as the Tournament Director. That's all it really was.
Most everyone in this thread has been congratulating him on something other than this. They think he made some great moral stance about changing the board after it was drawn. I can't think of a single law or philosophy written by God, nature, or man that would preclude a tournament director from changing a bracket under extenuating circumstances.
It's called ethics, and it's a common legal, business, and personal practice that impropriety and/or even the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided. In some professions, like judges, lawyers, or men of the cloth, it is also required in one's personal life.
Whatever motivated Jay's actions is his concern, but they were indeed ethical.
Question his decision and the reason he made it all you want. Just don't claim you know the answer to the question.
You are entitled to your opinion, but in the end, that's all it is.
Why does it bother you so much that everyone else believes him, and commends him for it?
If a rule, "law or philosophy" did exist, then there would be no decision or judgement call to make. There's also no "law or philosophy" that says a player should be let in the tournament after the brackets are drawn, even under extenuating circumstances.
It is not unreasonable to believe Jay's side of the story, and that this did go against his morals/ethics. If that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with people commending him for it.
I can see that avoiding the appearance of impropriety is and should be a legitimate concern but it shouldn't be the principle that trumps all others. It could have easily been dealt with simply by being transparent.
I never hinted that Jay's actions were not ethical but I also believe that there were other solutions that could have been viewed as ethical as well.
If you (or any of us) can think of such a scenario then maybe we should question what real principles were really in play. I think Jay deserves to be congratulated for standing up for himself and if there's anything unethical that went on here it was a promoter that undermined his authority. Generally speaking, I don't think there should be this rule that under no circumstances should a bracket ever be changed once the tournament starts.
If we take anything away from this discussion is should be that tournament directors should be very clear about how and why players would ever be moved in or out of a bracket. A very simple statement such as the following would suffice:
Or if a tournament promoter/director determine that no changes will ever be made to the chart after it is written they should say so.
If I ran a tournament my goal would be to have as many players that really want to be in it as possible. Having an arbitrary rule where "No changes can ever be made to the chart" once it's drawn up leaves players that want to play on the sidelines while there are potentially open slots available. In a dying sport is this the direction we should go all because we are worried about the appearance of impropriety?
Last edited:
I guess you're a relativist and I'm not. I'm not sure what I am exactly but it's not that. If someone is standing up for their deeply held convictions -- that in and of itself is not worthy of commendation.
So if I'm going to commend someone for something I want to know what it is I'm commending them for.
Ethics are always relative... Every culture, organization, individual, etc. all view things differently, There is no absolute truth when it comes to ethics and morals.
As far as this pool tournament goes, a common set of ethics can only be achieved through the written rules. In this scenario, no such rule existed, so it required a judgment call by the TD. An experienced TD made a tough call based on his experience and ethical code, and he stood by it. That's what deserves praise.
Whether or not it was the "right" decision is a matter of opinion, but it certainly wasn't ridiculous or unfounded.
EDIT: At this point I'm confused about what point you are trying to make. First you were attacking Jay's motive for making the decision, and now you're attacking the decision itself. You seem extremely biased, or maybe you just enjoy playing devil's advocate to everything.
Last edited:
We can easily expand your "rule" to include additional, or even fewer, "exceptions", perhaps a published "announcement" posted in a prominent place within a specified time frame, a right of withdrawal for the players, an addition late fee for the new entrant, and maybe even create a "board" to decide on the areas of dispute when they occur, and they will. :smile:
Point is, there is no such rule currently in effect, and Jay made what I believe was a honorable decision.
J
I think Barry should purchase the venue from Barry and let's get on with it. Quarterly pro qualifiers with points. BB gets what he want$$$$$ and BH gets control of the US Open 9 ball venue.