SJM's Slant on the CSI 8-ball Scandal

[sjm]

Mr P, you state a strong case and you're playing real good, however, it was only an invitational which is a compromised tournament to begin with, which was evident in how it was handled. Taken to court you would clearly win the morality battle on how it was handled, however, on the decision to advance Shane, is imo in the 'grey' area. Just that point alone should give Mark the leverage to make such a decision, in spite of it's ugliness. It's on that point alone that I would give Mark a pass, all the other stuff that was mentioned ..i'm stayin out of. I'm sure that things will work out well, CSI is bringing to us what we only dream of watching, we should give it a chance to 'blossom' and allow things to work themselves out. Sometimes loosing a little dignity..is a fair trade off.:smile:

Bill Incardona

Very well said, Billy. Maybe that is the bigger picture here. CSI is a wonderful organization and, as I made clear in the opening lines of my post, I continue to view Mark Griffin as one of our sport's true treasures. Good seeing you and I'm glad we had ample opportunities to converse in Vegas.

 

[BeiberLvr]

But wouldn't you think that the extra prize money for 1st place would cover those additional costs?

I think Ralph is a great player, but he was not winning.

 

[gxman]

The posted brackets at the Rio had Ko vs Souquet and Baby Ko vs Hohmann]

Brackets were made, Ralph forfeited, thus Ko wins. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

If Ralph really was cut a check and Ko was threaten to have his check withheld, then CSI should really be ashamed.

With that said, I still think CSI is great for the sport, and hope they put on CSI invitational tournament next yr. Just need a few added tweaks and this could turn into a great event.

 

[jsp]

In case anyone cares, I can see both sides to the debate. I see how this 8-ball event can be considered 'multi-stage'. But as sjm pointed out, the format isn't exactly identical to the WPC event where not everyone starts on equal footing, so it's not as clear-cut. So there's definitely some grey area. Even though I definitely lean more to the side that Ko should have automatically advanced to finals, I still can see some logic/reasoning behind the decision to advance Shane.

What is clear, however, is that Ralf didn't earn 3rd/4th place prize money. Does anyone know for sure? I read one post somewhere that he picked up his 3rd place check before he left for the airport. If that were the case, then that be a clear injustice.

 

[BRussell]

Still, if Mark is empowered to make the rules, why did he give Shane, who did not outperform Dechaine or Appleton in the round robin section of the event, the berth in the semis.

Shane was ranked second in his group. One player from each group was supposed to advance.

 

[chevybob20]

No. Ralf being in the wrong is the only non-debatable thing throughout this entire fiasco, provided Ralf knew well in advance that there would be a scheduling conflict. Ralf voluntarily backed out on a commitment to play. It's as simple as that.

If those are the facts. He could have chosen not to reschedule due to the questionable Dennis O match.

Like I stated before, there might be more than meets the eye.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

 

[BRussell]

In case anyone cares, I can see both sides to the debate. I see how this 8-ball event can be considered 'multi-stage'. But as sjm pointed out, the format isn't exactly identical to the WPC event where not everyone starts on equal footing, so it's not as clear-cut. So there's definitely some grey area. Even though I definitely lean more to the side that Ko should have automatically advanced to finals, I still can see some logic/reasoning behind the decision to advance Shane.

What is clear, however, is that Ralf didn't earn 3rd/4th place prize money. Does anyone know for sure? I read one post somewhere that he picked up his 3rd place check before he left for the airport. If that were the case, then that be a clear injustice.

I think that's fair. I've been pretty strong in giving the pro-CSI side, but what bothers me is when people say that there's no possible way that advancing the 2nd- place player could be seen as fair or ethical. At the least it was a grey area and they had to make a decision one way or another.

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

1st, I know sjm to a decent extent. I've learned that when he speaks,
I listen. He's THE iconic pool consumer enthusiast, and a voice of reason. We were at Mosconi 2013 together. We saw what we saw and it smelled too, on MANY levels. He nudged me to be "conservative" in what I divulged.

I've NEVER seen sjm be so outspoken and divulging of info on AZ! But I'll still wait for more player and promoter input... If in fact, Ko was given a "no play no pay strong arm" in the absence of prior full forfeiture disclosure - that ruffles my moral feathers. Did Dennis choose Ralf over Shane? Did Ralf feel it was unjust to SVB and approach CSI? So many puzzle pieces we don't have.

I, and many here, would sure like to hear from the Ko's, Ralf, SVB - in addition to Mark, Ozzy - and perhaps JCIN's unfiltered 2 cents . I'll hold my breath on all that . In the age of social media, I've yet to hear of much chatter.

But this, as in most other saber rattling controversies, will surely conclude in clouded water as some get half the puzzle pieces, some get 3/4's, no one gets them all, and 90% draw empirical conclusions. Damn frustrating and unfortunate situation all around.

 

[punter]

If those are the facts. He could have chosen not to reschedule due to the questionable Dennis O match.

Like I stated before, there might be more than meets the eye.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

Exactly, and if that is the case, then what he did got the same result that sjm suggests Shane should have done(dump). That is, it assured that a dump didn't decide who advanced.

The bottom line is that it is all speculation until Ralf and Mark decide to put out the real story.

 

[killerstroke]

Lost money on side bets

First I will admit I skimmed over a few but not all of the threads. This may have been brought up before. I apologize if it was. Was Shane left back in because there was money to be won back because of his earlier losses?
Personally I do not agree with the decision, especially if we add this possibility to the mix.

 

[sjm]

.....By not advising CSI as he should have, Ralf did great damage to the CSI 8-ball event, and his unprofessional conduct put Mark Griffin in a difficult spot.....

Mark Griffin just called me on the phone.

I'm quoting my own post above to re-emphasize that CSI was backed into a corner by Souquet's failure to handle this matter with due professionalism.

Mark Griffin was blindsided here, forced to make a difficult decision without sufficient time to consider the matter at length. As I also noted in my original post, Ralf knew of his schedule conflict well before the tournament began but kept it to himself, obstructing discussion of the potential problem in the player's meeting. I have further speculated that his motive was fear of being disallowed to play in the CSI 8-ball event.

Mark was justifiably upset with me for my use of the word "scandal" in my thread title, and for that I offered him my apology. Mark felt that the use of the word implied corruption, but in fact, I was only referring to the undeniable smell of impropriety that has many agitated. In fairness, it must now be noted that no such impropriety has been established.

In and around the arena at the Rio, dozens of us chatted while this controversy was playing out, and not even one person I spoke to agreed with how the matter was handled, but the fact remains is that Mark made a decision on the fly that he believed to be the right one.

Perhaps Mark was unlucky that the beneficiary of his decision was the player most closely associated with CSI, a hometown hero of American pool. The only thing we know for sure is that Mark is an enduring credit to pro pool here in America.

I'll always disagree with the decision that was made, but thanks to Mark's phone call, I have a deeper understanding of just how little time Mark had to make this clearly controversial and difficult decision. I'll stick to the conclusion I reached in my original post that Souquet is the one at greatest fault in this matter.

As Billy Incardona quite properly took note of, the bottom line is that, thanks to CSI, two new events were born and they were wonderful events. These events will continue to blossom and we're lucky that we can be part of it.

Thanks for your call, Mark, and thanks for everything you do for our sport.

 

[itsfroze]

Shane was ranked second in his group. One player from each group was supposed to advance.

You can't read into it what you want, the winner of each group (not one player, that you're making up)
is the player who advances. That player did advance it was Souquet, his name was put in the semi-final
bracket across from Big Ko.

He then withdrew, thus he should have been issued a forfeit and Ko issued a bye. This is what they do all
the time in the BCAPL tournaments, it's a no brainer. There's nothing to think over or ponder, a no show is
issued a forfeit and a bye is issued. The only time it becomes a difficult decision is if one has an agenda and
the Ko brothers being in the finals of both events isn't part of it.

 

[punter]

You can't read into it what you want, the winner of each group is the player who advances. That player did advance it was Souquet, his name was put in the semi-final bracket across from Big Ko.

He then withdrew, thus he should have been issued a forfeit and Ko
issued a bye. This is what they do all the time in the BCAPL tournaments, it's a no
brainer. There's nothing to think over or ponder, a no show is issued a forfeit and a bye is issued. The only time it becomes a difficult decision is if one has an agenda and
the Ko brothers being in the finals of both events isn't part of it.

You apparently either haven't heard of, or give no credence to the possibility that Ralf was bothered by the way Dennis O. seemed to give him their match. I know that is speculation, but if something like that happened, are you fine with an action like that determing who advances? Is it OK to lose on purpose, once you know you can't advance, to influence who does advance?

Also, if this had been anyone except SVB that got the benefit, the complaining would have been considerably less, IMO.

 

[bmsclayton]

spot

Pool is always in a tough spot and prob always will be. CSI makes money off pay per views. As a fan I watched about 4 days of action as I had to work the other days but followed closely on AZ.

We also had significant action on all of these matches. We ended up letting all Ralph S. betters off the hook yet were still stuck with everyone who bet Shane. Luckily it did not cost us much. We made hedges and side bets as the tournament progressed which could have cost us a lot. So now we have to evaluate taking action based on the decisions made. Obviously we and others who bet on the matches may not have purchased to watch without action. This could all hurt CSI and pool in the future.

Ralph is certainly largely at fault and I can only guess will not be invited back. CSI gets to deal with the aftermath. Owning and or managing a company is almost all about making good decisions. I don't think they made a good one here for all concerned.

I did love the pol action for the week though it was great to watch and read about.

Thanks for putting on this event.

 

[PINKLADY]

Mark Griffin just called me on the phone.

I'm quoting my own post above to re-emphasize that CSI was backed into a corner by Souquet's failure to handle this matter with due professionalism.

Mark Griffin was blindsided here, forced to make a difficult decision without sufficient time to consider the matter at length. As I also noted in my original post, Ralf knew of his schedule conflict well before the tournament began but kept it to himself, obstructing discussion of the potential problem in the player's meeting. I have further speculated that his motive was fear of being disallowed to play in the CSI 8-ball event.

Mark was justifiably upset with me for my use of the word "scandal" in my thread title, and for that I offered him my apology. Mark felt that the use of the word implied corruption, but in fact, I was only referring to the undeniable smell of impropriety that has many agitated. In fairness, it must now be noted that no such impropriety has been established.

In and around the arena at the Rio, dozens of us chatted while this controversy was playing out, and not even one person I spoke to agreed with how the matter was handled, but the fact remains is that Mark made a decision on the fly that he believed to be the right one.

Perhaps Mark was unlucky that the beneficiary of his decision was the player most closely associated with CSI, a hometown hero of American pool. The only thing we know for sure is that Mark is an enduring credit to pro pool here in America.

I'll always disagree with the decision that was made, but thanks to Mark's phone call, I have a deeper understanding of just how little time Mark had to make this clearly controversial and difficult decision. I'll stick to the conclusion I reached in my original post that Souquet is the one at greatest fault in this matter.

As Billy Incardona quite properly took note of, the bottom line is that, thanks to CSI, two new events were born and they were wonderful events. These events will continue to blossom and we're lucky that we can be part of it.

Thanks for your call, Mark, and thanks for everything you do for our sport.

well yáll just BLEW my whole theory - thanks Stu & Mark!

Ralf Souquet is stand-up. if Dennis had won, Shane advanced. if Dennis lost, Ralf advanced. Dennis's game was apparently questionnable. Ralf went to MG cause he was uncomfortable with the Win & forfeited, (cause he would never dump). MG un-did the whole mess & made things right as they should have been - Shane vs Ko.

and the whole "plane thing", was BS.

 

[xplor]

This was an exhibition of pool. Mark had a card to fill. Should he have refunded everyones money when Ralph dropped out ? What he did was find a suitable replacement. All of the players except Ralph stood by with cue in hand ready to fill in. That's what you do when invited to an event.

 

[pookster]

Welcome to the pool world! Unbelievable

 

[Lonestar_jim]

Mark Griffin just called me on the phone.

I'm quoting my own post above to re-emphasize that CSI was backed into a corner by Souquet's failure to handle this matter with due professionalism.

Mark Griffin was blindsided here, forced to make a difficult decision without sufficient time to consider the matter at length. As I also noted in my original post, Ralf knew of his schedule conflict well before the tournament began but kept it to himself, obstructing discussion of the potential problem in the player's meeting. I have further speculated that his motive was fear of being disallowed to play in the CSI 8-ball event.

Mark was justifiably upset with me for my use of the word "scandal" in my thread title, and for that I offered him my apology. Mark felt that the use of the word implied corruption, but in fact, I was only referring to the undeniable smell of impropriety that has many agitated. In fairness, it must now be noted that no such impropriety has been established.

In and around the arena at the Rio, dozens of us chatted while this controversy was playing out, and not even one person I spoke to agreed with how the matter was handled, but the fact remains is that Mark made a decision on the fly that he believed to be the right one.

Perhaps Mark was unlucky that the beneficiary of his decision was the player most closely associated with CSI, a hometown hero of American pool. The only thing we know for sure is that Mark is an enduring credit to pro pool here in America.

I'll always disagree with the decision that was made, but thanks to Mark's phone call, I have a deeper understanding of just how little time Mark had to make this clearly controversial and difficult decision. I'll stick to the conclusion I reached in my original post that Souquet is the one at greatest fault in this matter.

As Billy Incardona quite properly took note of, the bottom line is that, thanks to CSI, two new events were born and they were wonderful events. These events will continue to blossom and we're lucky that we can be part of it.

Thanks for your call, Mark, and thanks for everything you do for our sport.

As I recall the hearsay among eyewitnesses included telling Big Ko he would forfeit some of his winnings if he did not play SVB. Pressure was put on SVB to play, etc. etc.

Billy Incardona also said that some of the other areas of this controversy/scandal he wasn't touching with a 10 foot pole.

Is that your position too on the strong arm areas ? Or did they not occur ?

I'm a nobody so I wouldn't blame you if care to leave it be.

When can we expect a public statement from CSI, sir ?

 

[MitchDAZB]

Shane..., in my opinion, he should have... dumped to ensure the success of the deserving.

Might that have made a bad situation worse?

There might have been a way for Shane to rise above all this. Each time after breaking, he could've just picked up the cue ball and given it to Ko. In that way, Shane could've "ensured the success of the deserving", without sacrificing any integrity.

IMO, Shane missed an opportunity to do the right thing here.

 

[sjm]

As I recall the hearsay among eyewitnesses included telling Big Ko he would forfeit some of his winnings if he did not play SVB. Pressure was put on SVB to play, etc. etc.

Billy Incardona also said that some of the other areas of this controversy/scandal he wasn't touching with a 10 foot pole.

Is that your position too on the strong arm areas ? Or did they not occur ?

I'm a nobody so I wouldn't blame you if care to leave it be.

When can we expect a public statement from CSI, sir ?

You're not a nobody. On this forum, we're all equals united by our devotion to pool.

I touched on the Ko issue in my original post and have nothing to add. As for when or whether CSI will make a statement, I can't say, but it's quite likely that a public statement is forthcoming shortly.