SJM's Slant on the CSI 8-ball Scandal

CJRackley

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I still say this decision isn't a big deal, and it's mostly the anti-Shane, anti-CSI people stirring the pot, or just people who like to see pot's get stirred in general.

That said, if Ko was actually told he would not be paid if he forfeit his match AFTER Ralf had been paid for his forfeit, that is a horse of another color.
 
Has it been long enough for CSI to make a statement/apology. I would think it's in their best interest to. We have 5 negative threads here. AzB must have 90% of their ppv audience. So to leave questions unanswered is bad business. A contrite apology is warranted.
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The Sham Itself
The event had reached the single elimination stage so if a player doesn't show up for a match, that's a forfeit. Ko Pin-Yi should have advanced to the final when Souquet, who chose to make his flight to Asia instead, didn't show. Yes, we'd have yet another Ko vs. Ko final, but they earned it. Taiwan's players were simply phenomenal and dominant, with both Ko's reaching the 10-ball final and JL Chang running 6 racks and out to beat Orcullo in their 9-ball challenge match. Taiwan was going to win the 8-ball, too, having the last two players remaining in the field, until Mark Griffin decided that an already eliminated player would get a second life and compete in the semifinals, a terrible decision and one that smelled.

Assuring the pay-per-view purchasers a match should not have even been a consideration. If he felt guilty, then after the Ko vs. Ko final, perhaps Mark could have had Shane play a short challenge match against Darren Appleton or Mike Dechaine, both of whom, like Shane, had gone 2-1 but had been eliminated. Although none of these three should have ever been considered for the life-after-death treatment that Van Boening was ultimately given, Mike and Darren were every bit as worthy of a semifinal spot as Shane.
++1 Agree. Clearly CSI made a boo boo bad decision.
Let us see what they have to say when they are ready to respond
Will they
1) give the usual standard official diplomatic responses OR
2) give my way or highway (it is our money and we will do as we see fit) tough stance OR
3) own up to bad decision ??




Two-stage event, 4 players from the first stage are slotted to fill up the bracket in the second stage, one from each group, no byes. First place forfeits, so you go to second place. That's how every multi-stage event works, including the World Nine-ball tourney in Qatar that just concluded.

This was not the same as an elimination-style tournament where one player forfeits and you bring back an already-eliminated player. That would have been wrong, and that's the way some of you are making it sound. But that's not what happened here.

Two. Stage. Event. First-stage: Rankings. Second stage: No byes, fill all brackets.
The key disagreement is whether this should be Forfeiture/walkover rule or Replacement by next ranking player rule. A number including yourself essentially posited that this 8 ball event is a 2 stage event and so should follow the replacement rule like in WPC2014 (eg. Kiamco as replacement in last 64)

But strictly speaking, this 8 ball event is 1 stage NOT 2 stage
CSI 8 ball= 1 stage= Forfeiture/walkover
WPC2014=3 stage=Replacement by next ranking player

Why? Because from start to finish, this 8 ball event is continous from group all way to final and does not require "organizer (human) interference" . For eg, There was no need for organizer to step in at any time to do a draw.
Brackets are all set up and from final results in group, the group winners know who they will play in the knockout and the tourney runs its natural course. Just cos, they are named as two parts "Round Robin" and "Knockout" does not make it 2 stage. In substance and in spirit, it is 1 stage event.
The WPC2014 on other hand is a 3 stage event (or 3 tournaments in 1). The key difference between WPC2014 and this 8 ball event is "organizer (human) interference". Meaning in WPC2014, at each stage the WPA/organizer comes in and changes composition of players or runs a draw to deteremine matches or performs some process to reorganize. In this 8 ball event there was no such thing. In WPC2014, 1st stage was qualifiers and 16 winners of qualifiers join 2nd stage. 2nd stage, 112 invited/qualified players are waiting and together with the 16 qualifier winners from 1st stage, they make up the 128 players for 2nd stage tournament proper. The 3rd stage was also separate cos the top 2 winners from each group totalling 64 players seeded and redrawn by organizer/WPA so the 32 matches are determined. At each stage new players may be added or withdrawn like in stage 3 last 64 , Kiamco and another player was added. Each stage was like new tournament so there were no forfeits at start of each stage and guys like Kiamco were added as replacements to last 64. In WPC2014, the winners of each stage do not know who they will meet after end of previous stage.
Now in case of this 8 ball event, there was no draw necessary to determine who the 4 group winners will play, there was no need for "organizer interference" (until CSI decided to step in and disallow a forfeit and replace Ralf with Shane).
Since this 8 ball event is a 1 stage event, it follows that Ralf should be forfeited NOT replaced with another player and Ko should be awarded a walkover.

To reaffirm that this is a forfeit NOT replacement case, read point 6 of site account at the event by "reporter" banditgrrr http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4823623&postcount=64
6. Words directly from Mark's mouth was "we made a decision to put Shane in that spot because the people paying for the stream paid to watch matches and we're not going to have a forfeit." Based on the several threads here, I believe the people he thought he was trying to make happy are the people that are most dissatisfied with his decision.

From Mark's alleged statement above, he admits that it is a forfeit case but they basically evoke their "organizer discretion/power" to override and use Replacement rule to replace Ralf with Shane. And as sjm reported most at the venue also agree that this should be forfeit case.

:D
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Certainly blame can be put on Ralf for bailing out, but what happened subsequently is squarely on Mark's shoulders. It wasn't Ralf who choose not to issue a bye, which was the correct thing to do. It wasn't Ralf who choose to bring back a player who was already eliminated (which is unheard of) all these things were done by Mark, and Mark only. I fail to see why people are so ready to lay all this at Ralf's feet. Yes Ralf handled things poorly in the way he withdrew, but all subsequent actions were Mark's actions.
Which Ralf had neither say in nor part of.

In other words if Ralf withdrew in the same way, but Mark choose to do the right thing and issue a forfeit to Ralf and a bye to KO, then the only discussion (and it would be small) would be why did Ralf withdraw. Let's lay blame at the feet of whom it belongs.
++1 Yep.
Fact that Ralf flight is 7pm same time as final is just unthinkable. The schedule and time was known long time before so why would he book flight before tourney is over?
Whether it is cos he wants to let Shane play cos or Orcollo thing, there is no question Ralf is to blame to triggerring this off. But the subsequent bad decisions by CSI is solely CSI responsibility they cannot pass that to Ralf

1)

3) THIS WAS A 2 STAGE EVENT - In other 2 stage events this has been the norm to fill the final bracket.
Wrong. This 8 ball event is 1 stage NOT 2 stage:grin:
 

BRussell

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Good summary spartan. I think you laid it out well, representing the walkover side, while acknowledging that there is another way to view the event, something that most have failed to do.

In my view, CSI probably considered both possibilities and tried to make the right decision. It's fair to disagree with CSI of course, but what bothers me is when people say that their decision was obviously corrupt or unethical, without even acknowledging that it could have a legitimate basis.
 

itsfroze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.


Yes I am aware of that and have mentioned it in a post. I am not okay with that either.
Are you aware that Jay said in a post that actually there was a thousand dollar difference for
Dennis if he lost or won his match with Ralf. Do you think Dennis makes so much that he is willing to
throw away a thousand dollars so Shane doesn't advance. Of coarse in saying all that we don't know
who or what kind of bets could have been made.

What I also mentioned in the post where I acknowledged people were saying it looked like Dennis may
have helped push Ralf over the finish line, was that I didn't see the match so I couldn't say if I thought he did or not.

I don't think any of this should have any bearing on whether Ko got the bye he deserved, when Ralf withdrew however.

If the format of a tournament leaves openings for things like you speak of to happen
then I think steps should be taken to tweak the formats to eliminate this.
 
Last edited:

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.
That was mentioned by a source but interestingly the prizemoney for 8 ball event still not added to AZB after many days . Hmmm
http://www.azbilliards.com/people/682-ralf-souquet/
http://www.azbilliards.com/people/1164-darren-appleton/

From what I've read, Ralf could have booked a later flight to China after the 8-ball event and still would have been there in time to participate in the World Team event. According to posts here, he tried to change his flight but didn't want to pay the extra expense of changing his flight at such short notice.

But wouldn't you think that the extra prize money for 1st place would cover those additional costs?
Probably that the flight thing is excuse - unlikely someone like Ralf would boo boo and book flight 7pm same time as the 7pm final :smile:

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.

For sake of argument if your theory about Orcollo dumping was right, and in reality Dennis should have won and Shane should have advanced and it will be Shane v Ko
Now then question is would CSI allow Ko to quit and forfeit and still pay Ko his prizemoney ? cos they were not willing to let Ko quit when Ralf quit and threatened not to pay Ko if he quits.
:D
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I just got home from ten days at the Rio.

This is not an easy thread for me because I am forced to take a dim view of the actions of two good friends who are two of the jewels in our sport. They are two gentlemen who must still be judged on their full bodies of work, which are outstanding. I would do just about anything to support Mark Griffin and Ralf Souquet who, despite the truly disturbing events at the just completed CSI 8-ball event, remain two of the great men of our sport. That said, the events of July 25 at the Rio in the CSI 8-ball invitational merit comment, if only for the prospect of the betterment of our sport.

Though there were others involved on the periphery, the players in this melodrama were Ralf Souquet, Ko Pin-Yi, Shane Van Boening and Mark Griffin.

Ralf Souquet is one of my all-time favorite players and one of the most professional in his behavior among all the pros I've ever seen, but he acted with a complete lack of professionalism here, and without naming names, some of his fellow pros with whom I spoke are quite offended by the way he handled this, which compromised the event itself.

Similarly, Mark Griffin is my favorite American promoter, the very model of excellence in event production in America and a great visionary in our sport. The pro events he put together at the Rio brought most of the greats of Europe, North America and Asia together, producing a breathtaking lineup of superstars that delighted all who had the honor of watching the matches. I don't recall ever disagreeing with any of Mark's actions, but today's the day, for he allowed an already eliminated player to re-enter a tournament and strong-armed a player who had earned his spot in the semifinal into playing a semifinal against a player who had not earned the right to play.

Who was most at fault in what happened here? That's a close call, but it's probably Souquet.

Plenty of Notice Concerning the Match Schedule
The fact that the second of the pro events would end on the evening of July 25 was known months ago. The exact match schedule was known on Wednesday, July 16, almost a week before the 8-ball event even began. Ralf, therefore, knew that a potential conflict existed and that he would be unavailable to play in the 8-ball event if he was one of the last four. My view is that it was Ralf's duty to inform CSI of the situation immediately. Ralf was not blindsided with regard to the tournament schedule.

Did Ralf Fear He'd Not Be Permitted to Play?
Now I'll speculate, for I don't know whether this is so, but I'd guess that Ralf feared that he might be replaced if he advised CSI ahead of the event that he'd be unavailable to play should he be one of the last four. There were, indeed, some other top pros present at the Rio, Oscar Dominguez and Jason Klatt among them, so replacing Ralf was certainly easily accomplished if CSI wished to do so. One must presume that either Dominguez or Klatt would have been delighted to play.

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, one that, sadly, Mark handled as poorly as was humanly possible.

Bringing an already eliminated player back into a tournament is not something I'd seen even once in my 38 years of travelling to hundreds of pro pool tournaments, and it really rubbed me the wrong way. I was so upset, I chose not to even watch the final, despite the fact that I had purchased a ringside seat for the entire ten days of pro pool, the first nine of which were nothing less than glorious, and I will recount them in a trip report thread soon. But then came the tenth day, when the CSI 8-ball event became, in my view, a complete sham.

The Sham Itself
The event had reached the single elimination stage so if a player doesn't show up for a match, that's a forfeit. Ko Pin-Yi should have advanced to the final when Souquet, who chose to make his flight to Asia instead, didn't show. Yes, we'd have yet another Ko vs. Ko final, but they earned it. Taiwan's players were simply phenomenal and dominant, with both Ko's reaching the 10-ball final and JL Chang running 6 racks and out to beat Orcullo in their 9-ball challenge match. Taiwan was going to win the 8-ball, too, having the last two players remaining in the field, until Mark Griffin decided that an already eliminated player would get a second life and compete in the semifinals, a terrible decision and one that smelled.

Assuring the pay-per-view purchasers a match should not have even been a consideration. If he felt guilty, then after the Ko vs. Ko final, perhaps Mark could have had Shane play a short challenge match against Darren Appleton or Mike Dechaine, both of whom, like Shane, had gone 2-1 but had been eliminated. Although none of these three should have ever been considered for the life-after-death treatment that Van Boening was ultimately given, Mike and Darren were every bit as worthy of a semifinal spot as Shane.

Ko Pin-Yi
We must now include Ko Pin-YI in the conversation of who is the world's best player. Perhaps he is the best. His composure was truly remarkable all week but Mark Griffin found a way to break it by asking him to play a semifinal against an already eliminated player. Ko, greatly to his credit, refused. Why would he have done otherwise? It was only when he was strong-armed, arguably blackmailed, with the threat of non-payment of his prize money, that he chose to play. In short, they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. One can only imagine what kind of mood he was in once forced to play, and Van Boening's win against the greatly agitated, and arguably furious, Ko was a joke. Let's hope that Ko Pin-YI is not so demoralized that he chooses not to play in America, for surely this looked like American favoritism to him and his fellow Taiwanese pros.

Shane Van Boening
It was a lost week for Shane, who'd lost his challenge match to Ko Pin-YI, lost to Ko Pin-YI in the match that determined who would advance to the 10-ball semifinal, and was eliminated in the round robin stage of the 8-ball event. I'm sure he found the unexpected invitation to come back from the dead a godsend, but, in my opinion, he should have declined the invitation or dumped to ensure the success of the deserving. Still, I'm inclined to give him a free pass here for it wasn't easy to do the right thing. Shane's a great player, but he doesn't seem to get it done when all the top Asians are in an event in which he participates, and while his blindly devoted fans will find a way to defend his right to have come back from the dead in the event, this was a serious miscarriage of justice, and it's a safe bet that Shane knew it as well as anyone.

Conclusion
What happened was disgraceful but I'm not a zero tolerance kind of guy. To me, both Ralf Souquet and Mark Griffin botched this badly, but I have to blame Ralf more than Mark for this sad episode, because it was Ralf that placed Mark in this difficult position. These guys, who remain two of our sport's most valued people, will learn from what happened on July 25 at the Rio, and will come out of it wiser.

As for me, it's the first time in my life that I walked out during a final. I hope it's the last.


Stu, I think you make some good points. But I don't believe use of the word "scandal" is appropriate.

Mark is my friend too and I have openly disagreed with some of his decisions before. But always with the respect he deserves as a person and what he does for pool. His heart is always in the right place.

And so regardless of whether his eventual explanation makes people happy or not, I would hope they would show a modicum of respect, as you have, in voicing their disagreement.

Lou Figueroa
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
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 :rolleyes:. 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.

Well put.

Folks, I think you all ought to place a hold on your crucifixions, at least until you hear from all the parties involved, especially Mark Griffin. He has already stated that he will have a statement addressing the whole thing in a few days (and that was a couple days ago) due to the fact that the BCA stuff was still going on. I believe that he deserves that.

I admit that I'm not thrilled with many of the observations that have been made, but I don't have all the facts. Probably most commenting here don't have enough of the facts, either. Yet its still rather easy to come here on AZB and start firing away...regardless of letting the facts get in the way. Just wait for Mark. Plenty of time to be as outraged as you want, then.
 

klockdoc

ughhhhhhhhhh
Silver Member
And that is why the Taiwanese players don't like to come to the US to play. The language barrier makes them easy to manipulate. On the other hand, most of the Asian countries treat the Taiwanese players like celebrities when they go play in their country.

What reasoning makes you state this?
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That and everything else sounds fair Frozen One. Trouble is, try and explain the Lucky Loser scenario and how it works to a Taiwanese player who most likely has never heard of anything close before.

All he knows is, "Forfeit, I win". And why should he know anything else unless it was originally in the rules and they were explained to him at the start.

He feels Ripped Off and no amount of explanations are going to make any sense to him.

He sees it as, Whats good for the goose is good for the gander".

So if Mark knew about Ralph's travel plans before hand, he would or should have been ready for it. To me anyway, it sounds like Ralph laid this on Mark at the last minute.

I will put the majority of blame on Ralph until I read different.


Ralph did indeed inform Mark at the last moment and minutes later was gone.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
From what I've read, Ralf could have booked a later flight to China after the 8-ball event and still would have been there in time to participate in the World Team event. According to posts here, he tried to change his flight but didn't want to pay the extra expense of changing his flight at such short notice.

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


Yes, but who knows how much wear and tear a last minute flight reschedule would have taken on him. Bad flight times, long layovers? It's an 18 hour flight over 15 time zones. Plus he would have had to eat the cost of the original ticket, which was probably over a thousand, and then paid for the new ticket. With decent times and connections that could have easily been another couple of thousand.

For me the bottom-line is that he shouldn't have booked his original flight the way he did and played in the event and then dropped the "I gotta go" bomb on CSI at the very last moment.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK guys
There is
Ralph Lauren
Ralph Nader
Ralph Macchio
Ralph Fiennes
Wreck It Ralph
King Ralph

There is no Ralph Souquet. There is a Ralf Souquet

His ratings is down cos of his screwup this time
But he is still one of my favorite players

It is Ralf NOT Ralph

Thank you. Carry on :grin-square:
 

prewarhero

guess my avatar
Silver Member
I don't understand that some people are blaming Ralf for the actions taken by CSI, they are not mutually exclusive. Ralf made a poor choice and forfited. CSI had the opportunity to effectuate the situation in a number of ways. They chose wrong and showed very poor judgement. The actions of both Ralf and Mark should be viewed and judged regardless of the other. IMHO the actions by mark and the treatment to Ko are inexcusable and a HUGE black stain on CSI and US pool. Shame.

I only hope ego and pride does not manage to impact and minimize the apology and retribution owed to fix this.
 

itsfroze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You know with Lou making a post that he talked with Mark and SJM now saying that he talked to Mark. Let me say what I think is happening with all this.
This is a fishing expedition.

Mark messed up period and what he is doing now is testing the waters through things
he is saying to others and when the posts appear Mark gets to watch the reactions
but not be held accountable for what is said in case it still doesn't fly.
It still doesn’t fly.

This line in particular strikes me as pure rubbish.

"Mark Griffin was blindsided here, forced to make a difficult decision without sufficient time to consider the matter at length”


How was Mark blindsided anymore with this withdrawal than with hundreds of others
he's been blindsided with before ? -----> Answer, he wasn't.

Why is this considered a difficult decision ? Answer, it wasn't. No show = Forfeit =Bye
Always has.

Why wasn't there sufficient time ? --------> Answer, there was this is something that he's done a hundred times.

Conclusion, the line in quotes above is designed only to give Mark wiggle room
in an instance where he was clearly wrong.

Let's say Mark did feel all the pressure of being blindsided and forced to decide on the clock so to speak to make difficult a decision.

What does one do in this instance ? -------> Answer, they fall back on their past experience.

If you're a player, that would be your practice.
If you're the guy running things Mark, you would fall back on practices you have used
through out the years running tournaments.
Which is ————> NO SHOW = FORFEIT = BYE

By by "reporter” banditgrrr

Words directly from Mark's mouth was "we made a decision to put Shane in that spot because the people paying for the stream paid to watch matches and we're not going to have a forfeit."

In this statement Mark is stating that it should have been a forfeit, so he knew what should have been done, but he was going to do what he wanted.
Simply wrong. This still smells.

============
 
Last edited:

bmsclayton

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
baseball

This reminds me of the 2002 allstar game that ended in a tie. Selig had to make a crappy decision and ended the game. If it was a true professional contest not an exhibition he could not have done that. What if Vegas was taking bets on this like pool was a professional sport / game. (we did and took additional losses because of not collecting on Ralf to be fair)

One problem running a exhibition type tourney like that is it can be compromised. In any other professional setting a player wouldn't consider doing something like that for fear of losing status. Status means very little in the pool world as no governing body to support discipline.

It is a shame CSI even had to deal with this considering the effort and great event they attempted to put on.
 

Colormegone2002

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
As far as I see it,it is all of the negativity that is the
problem with pool these days.We seen lots of GREAT
pool this past week and someone always has to find
the negative side of it.If anyone thinks they can d better
reach in your pocket and get after it.
Thanks for the live stream it was enjoyable and you can't
please everyone all the time
 

carolina_8ball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If CSI was "looking after their boy" Shane... Then why was he in the same group as Dennis Orcollo (who is arguably the best pool player in the world) to begin with? They would have put him in an easier group.

Instead of firing bullets for the outcome, we should applaud Mark for pushing the envelope and trying something new. Instead of dwelling on the past, offer up some ideas and some support for next year. Let's move on people, we can't change what has happened.

Maybe next year have the four groups set by country/region. I.E. group A (4 players from Taiwan/Asia) group B (4 players from Philipines) group C (4 players from Europe) group D (4 players from N. America). Ensuring a representative from each region in the semi-finals. And in the event of a forfeit in the semi-finals, then his spot will be filled the next finisher in THAT group.

If your gonna strong arm players for some reason (as has been suggested), then force them to ensure availability for entire tournament. Or don't extend an invite.

Decisions were made in a hastily fashion and not everyone is gonna agree with them. They never do. Whether the decisions made in handling the situation were correct or not is irrelevant now, as it has happened and cannot be changed. All that can be changed now is the future, and how future endeavors will be handled.

This was a great tournament that had its integrity put to question by an unforeseen and unfortunate happening, And should be used again in the future.

Hats off to Mark and CSI for trying to advance the world of pool to what it deserves to be.
 

usendme

Registered
Quick question - has Ralf forfeited his match with Dennis wouldn't Shane have advanced and none of the controversy occurred? If so what was his rational for playing the match then other than for extra money? Given Ralf's rep it doesn't add up
 
Top