Questions CSI should answer about 25July2014 Ko Pin Yi-Ralf Souquet 8ball semifinal

Wow, lots of vitriol over this insignificant event.

If I was responsible for this tournament and someone demanded "answers" for things I did, I would tell that individual to go F*@k themselves. I don't owe you anything and please don't bother to participate in my future events.

All the *****ing is what is really bad for pool, not "who" plays in a semi-final.

LOL talk about vitriol.
vitrol and cussing like what you are posting is bad for this forum .
That is real crass :grin:
 
Regarding #5, imo, it would not be fair at all to offer it to someone not in that group. Maybe one group is tougher than another so you can't compare records fairly. If they decide to replace Ralf (which of course they did) the replacement should be the second best record from that group, which was Shane.

Agreed... IMHO the situation was handled pretty much the way it needed to be handled.

Guy wins his group, can't play for whatever reason (flight snafu, broken arm, wife giving birth, whatever...) then the guy who placed 2nd in that group moves up and plays. Seems simple enough to me.

IMHO, some people just have WAAAAYYYYY too much time on their hands. Good for you to not have enough REAL problems to worry about.
 
Mark did nothing wrong here, and he owes no one an apology.
Exactly how may of you people complaining were actually at the Rio participating in the BCA and watching these events?

There was 1 and only 1 choice to replace Ralf, that was the runner up in the group, whom was SVB. This was a round robin format, so a player from each group plays in the Semi finals, it's that easy.
 
Last edited:
Mark did nothing wrong here, and he owes no one an apology.
Exactly how may of you people complaining were actually at the Rio participating in the BCA and watching these events?

There was 1 and only 1 choice to replace Ralf, that was the runner up in the group, whom was SVB. This was a round robin format, so a player from each group plays in the Semi finals, it's that easy.

He could have just as easily chosen to issue a forfeit, and issued a bye.
Then this thread wouldn't be here and Ko wouldn't have gotten screwed.
 
Wow, lots of vitriol over this insignificant event.

If I was responsible for this tournament and someone demanded "answers" for things I did, I would tell that individual to go F*@k themselves. I don't owe you anything and please don't bother to participate in my future events.

All the *****ing is what is really bad for pool, not "who" plays in a semi-final.

They have already done similar in the past ,, and just why do you think they make the turny's invitational in the first place ,,,

If you really cared about pool and you know all this xyz is bad for pool wouldn't you try to limit that ,


1
 
I really think this is all crazy and out of hand.

I was there, but busy working in the booth as well as playing in the open teams so I didn't get to see any of this go down.

Here's how I see things.

It doesn't really matter how or why Ralph could not play. All that matters is that he couldn't. Whether or not he got paid, or what he got paid is his business and is between him and the tournament. The same thing goes for Shane, and all the other players.

It was a tiered round robin format. In that format, each lower tier group advances one player to the next tiered group. In the event the top finisher backs out, the second finisher takes his place. This is normal in tiered round robin formats and is the right way to do it. Altering that or doing anything else would be going from right to wrong. I believe that Shane was the #2 player in his group, and if that is correct, then he should have been the one to advance when the #1 player could not.

I don't really think this is about the stream. I believe that Mark and Ozzy would do the right thing regardless of whether or not it affected the stream. Don't get me wrong, if it did affect the stream not only would there be people wanting a refund, but there would be people expecting to get a full refund even though they still watched all the other matches.

I know Mark Griffin personally, and I can tell you that he loves pool and pool players. Both amateur and professional. He has also given tremendously to the game and both groups of players. And I mean given from his own pocket. Sure, he'd like to make a profit, but quite often he doesn't or at least makes very little. Certainly not what you would expect given the expense and the risk. There are many who seem to think that promoters are walking away with tons of cash when in reality it's a very risky proposition just to make a little.

So, if you like pool, and like to see the best players in the world matched up. Then you need guys like Mark and Ozzy . Other than CSI, there aren't very many people out there who are willing to risk so much for so little in return, and still get blasted by so many who don't really know anything about what it takes to do what he does.

Cut Mark and Ozzy some slack. They are the good guys, and are willing to take on significant personal risk to help pool.

Royce

tap tap...well said and I agree 100%. I enjoyed every minute of the stream. Not often you get to see top notch pros playing 8 ball; my favorite game. The stream was flawless (except for some mic volume issues) and I enjoyed not only the stream but the commentary as well. Feel like I learned a couple things watching it all. It was depressing though watching them run out so much.....:)
 
When are people going to realize this was not a sanctioned tournament but an invitational. The money was put up by Mark Griffin and Mark determines who is invited, who is banned, and by what rules he conducts his business. This is the free enterprise system.
There is no body of elected officials he answers to but the IRS.
You dont like it as the consumer. Organize a boycott. Or dont purchase his products.
He does what he does that is best for his business. If that conflicts with your goals and beliefs then thats the nature of the business and can be resolved one way or the other.
But stop whining about it.

it's not just an invitational if there's an entry fee.
 
Ok, we all know what happened on 25July2014 evening 2nd semifinal of CSi 8 ball Invitational. In short, [...]

You guys are so dramatic.

CSI has a format to generate four players from 16 to battle it off at the venue of a major amateur event, and a wrinkle appears when one of the advancing players backs out. They respond with the reasonable action of advancing the next player from the group.....

Go back to talking about CTE aiming....
 
You guys are so dramatic.

CSI has a format to generate four players from 16 to battle it off at the venue of a major amateur event, and a wrinkle appears when one of the advancing players backs out. They respond with the reasonable action of advancing the next player from the group.....

Go back to talking about CTE aiming....

Reasonable would have been to issue Ko a bye.
Then, no threads, no outrage, no one screwed.

Speaking of aiming, it's always good to aim for fairness !!!
 
Mark did nothing wrong here, and he owes no one an apology.
Exactly how may of you people complaining were actually at the Rio participating in the BCA and watching these events?

There was 1 and only 1 choice to replace Ralf, that was the runner up in the group, whom was SVB. This was a round robin format, so a player from each group plays in the Semi finals, it's that easy.


No I did not go to Rio ..only watched the stream. So I am not qualified to comment? LOL



You guys are so dramatic.

CSI has a format to generate four players from 16 to battle it off at the venue of a major amateur event, and a wrinkle appears when one of the advancing players backs out. They respond with the reasonable action of advancing the next player from the group.....

Go back to talking about CTE aiming....

LOL i don't like that CTE aiming which jamming up this forum more than CSI threads :D
But I am tired of even justifying why it should be forfeit/walkover rather than replacement of Ralf
Cos for everyone here who agrees with CSI decision there one who disagrees so it is probably 50:50 Don't believe me Just read the responses and threads and some poll done recently. It is down the line 50% either way give or take few %
Elsewhere like on this facebook account https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152327261017621&id=64361417620 there is probably bigger % who disagree
So it is not a minority or few guys who disagree. Rest assured those who disagree are not the lynching mob. :D
 
You want the truth?
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    15.1 KB · Views: 490
You guys are so dramatic.

CSI has a format to generate four players from 16 to battle it off at the venue of a major amateur event, and a wrinkle appears when one of the advancing players backs out. They respond with the reasonable action of advancing the next player from the group.....

Go back to talking about CTE aiming....


No.

Please.

Anything but that.

Lou Figueroa
 
Reasonable would have been to issue Ko a bye.
Then, no threads, no outrage, no one screwed.

Speaking of aiming, it's always good to aim for fairness !!!

lol. "Outrage."

?!

Ha, ha. Stop it. You're killin' me.

Lou Figueroa
like maybe two guys
have their panties in a wad
 
Last edited:
You've already heard the truth.

Unless, that is, you weren't listening.

Royce

LOL you must have been hearing voices from CSI
Sounds like you are confusing TV series CSI with pool's CSI
The amount of comedian content here would put Conan O Brien to shame :D
 
Here's a question for them.


Ask them about this ???

Repost:
Originally Posted by NlceGuy
Not only is it true, it was not the first time either. The same threat was uttered when they didn't want to do the mandatory FREE lessons for hour a day, after paying entry fee and flight to attend this 'invitational'.

Overall, it was a badly run event and really showed Mark and CSI's true colors. The threat of money was used on more then the Taiwanese, there were those involved in the broadcast staff that didn't like the decision either and received similar threats. Even if this event were to ever happen again, without some major changes to the format/money, at least half the field here will likely not be back.

At this point, its all over and the results speak for themselves. Not even the last minute 'no jump cue' rule could stop big and little ko from steamrolling the 10 ball event. And little ko showed a lot of heart to not get distracted and play near perfect pool to win the 8 ball finals. Despite everything, we did get to witness some great pool.
 
Last edited:
When are people going to realize this was not a sanctioned tournament but an invitational. The money was put up by Mark Griffin and Mark determines who is invited, who is banned, and by what rules he conducts his business. This is the free enterprise system.
There is no body of elected officials he answers to but the IRS.
You dont like it as the consumer. Organize a boycott. Or dont purchase his products.
He does what he does that is best for his business. If that conflicts with your goals and beliefs then thats the nature of the business and can be resolved one way or the other.
But stop whining about it.

I hereby declare this is THE best answer to the dilemma.
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!
 
CSI has a format to generate four players from 16 to battle it off at the venue of a major amateur event, and a wrinkle appears when one of the advancing players backs out. They respond with the reasonable action of advancing the next player from the group.....
The action can no longer be regarded as 'reasonable' considering Souquet was paid 3rd place, as stated by sjm here. Therefore, the action resulted in a breach somewhere in the agreed upon payouts. There would be no such conflict if Ko automatically advanced to the finals.

As sjm posted, Souquet getting paid 3rd place is a very significant point that cannot be ignored. If CSI wants to justify their actions without any breaches in agreements, then they must strip Ralf of his 3rd place finish and prize money. Otherwise, CSI has essentially committed a breach of contract, which should not sit well with anyone in the pool community.
 
Back
Top