There will be blood

[cardiac kid]

lynn would you mind clarifying something ?

when you say SAME LEAGUE SYSTEM do you mean the same league that he has to play out of the same league that particular team plays out of ? or can he come from one of the other lo's league in the same town?

i believe mr stuckart only has what i call one division and that is the wed night in house league that this particular team plays in.

i pulled up some interesting stats about mr stuckarts league while ago.

1. the player in qi=uestion is listed on mr. stuckarts team but also listed as a house sub. the thing that puzzles me is this players stats shows 14 weeks played on mr stuckarts team and this players individual stats also show 14 weeks played.

now mr stuckart admitted in his letter he used a player that did not have enough weeks in. mr griffin mentioned this player was a couple of weeks shy of being eligible which would mean he played about 6 weeks.

it just dont add up.

i found some more interesting facts.

last session mr stuckart had 14 teams and 37 house subs listed for his league.

this session which the site shows 4 weeks played so far shows 3 less teams and 30 less house subs from last session.

according to those stats it seems like quite a few people decided to drop out of his league all at once .

i wonder why he would have a chit load of players drop out all of a sudden ?

oh yea and one of those players that is not listed for the new session just so happens to be the ineligible player this thread is about.

As I mentioned, I'm really familiar with the rules regarding team formation. The rule states that TWO players MUST be from the original team. The rest of the team can be any sanctioned players from the SAME league operators SYSTEM including ONE Advanced player. As an example, Monday night was eight ball on big tables. Tuesday night was eight ball on small tables. Wednesday night was nine ball on the small tables. All three nights were listed under the same BCAPL / ACS number. As all three were the same number, we were able to take two guys from our "core" team (who played every round from the first round to the finals) and five additional players from the rest of the league and formed a single team to compete at Nationals. Know for sure our team was scrutinized heavily by Bill S and BCAPL before we were allowed to play. We didn't bend the rules. We did exactly what the rules told us we could do! And yes, all seven of us had at least eight weeks of competition on the nights we qualified on.

I do have one question. How was JS able to change the leaguesys numbers? Thought the stats were supposed to be entered every week. If this John P was listed as having played and didn't, how did the numbers get there for ALL the weeks he supposedly played?

Lyn

lowrider, go to the main page of the BCAPL website. Under Leagues, use to drop down and go to League Policies. The rule I'm referring to was updated on June 1, 2011 and is still in force.

 

[lorider]

As I mentioned, I'm really familiar with the rules regarding team formation. The rule states that TWO players MUST be from the original team. The rest of the team can be any sanctioned players from the SAME league operators SYSTEM including ONE Advanced player. As an example, Monday night was eight ball on big tables. Tuesday night was eight ball on small tables. Wednesday night was nine ball on the small tables. All three nights were listed under the same BCAPL / ACS number. As all three were the same number, we were able to take two guys from our "core" team (who played every round from the first round to the finals) and five additional players from the rest of the league and formed a single team to compete at Nationals. Know for sure our team was scrutinized heavily by Bill S and BCAPL before we were allowed to play. We didn't bend the rules. We did exactly what the rules told us we could do! And yes, all seven of us had at least eight weeks of competition on the nights we qualified on.

I do have one question. How was JS able to change the leaguesys numbers? Thought the stats were supposed to be entered every week. If this John P was listed as having played and didn't, how did the numbers get there for ALL the weeks he supposedly played?

Lyn

lowrider, go to the main page of the BCAPL website. Under Leagues, use to drop down and go to League Policies. The rule I'm referring to was updated on June 1, 2011 and is still in force.

thanks for telling me how to pull up bcapl rules lynn.

according to the rules the player in question was eligible if and a big if ..he had enough matches in.

well mr stuckart and mr griffin stated the player did not have enough matches in. then you have players that do play in that league stating they never saw him there .....ever.

although i have not been a member of bcapl for a number of years and have only been a member here for a few years my opinion may not mean diddly squat about this situation ... but i am gonna give it anyway.:grin-square:

after reading mr griffin posts on here for a couple of years, reading other posts about what he has done for the pool community, noting how he handled the taiwanese situation which i applauded, noting how he handled the 2 bcapl players who were on the apa dq'ed team which i also applauded on here i have always thought mr griffin a man who's character was above reproach.i still kinda think that way but i must admit how he has handled this situation so far has disappointed me.

i will admit i do not know the facts, actually i do not think any one who has posted on here including the op know the facts. the only people who know the facts are the people who were on that team.

i will agree that it really is none of my business what really happened as i was not involved.... but it just seems like instead of mr. griffin cleaning house he just swept the mess under the rug so to speak regarding this situation.

 

[Roger Long]

As I mentioned, I'm really familiar with the rules regarding team formation. The rule states that TWO players MUST be from the original team. The rest of the team can be any sanctioned players from the SAME league operators SYSTEM including ONE Advanced player. As an example, Monday night was eight ball on big tables. Tuesday night was eight ball on small tables. Wednesday night was nine ball on the small tables. All three nights were listed under the same BCAPL / ACS number. As all three were the same number, we were able to take two guys from our "core" team (who played every round from the first round to the finals) and five additional players from the rest of the league and formed a single team to compete at Nationals. Know for sure our team was scrutinized heavily by Bill S and BCAPL before we were allowed to play. We didn't bend the rules. We did exactly what the rules told us we could do! And yes, all seven of us had at least eight weeks of competition on the nights we qualified on.

I do have one question. How was JS able to change the leaguesys numbers? Thought the stats were supposed to be entered every week. If this John P was listed as having played and didn't, how did the numbers get there for ALL the weeks he supposedly played?

Lyn

lowrider, go to the main page of the BCAPL website. Under Leagues, use to drop down and go to League Policies. The rule I'm referring to was updated on June 1, 2011 and is still in force.

It's been reported locally that the numbers showing on the website belong to John W, a man who did play 14 weeks in that league, but also a man whose name somehow disappeared from the standings when all this went down.. I have known John W for many years, so I could call him for verification of this, if necessary. And according to a person who came into my shop just today, and one who knows John P, he said John P never played a single night in that league.

Jerry has already received the punishment that the BCAPL deemed warranted, and there's nothing any of us can do to change anything we might not agree with in this matter. However, everyone here, including myself, is curious as to whether this instance was just a one-time negligent mistake, or whether it was a blatant forgery of official records. If it was just a one-time mistake, maybe Jerry should not have received any punishment at all.

Roger

 

[lorider]

It's been reported locally that the numbers showing on the website belong to John W, a man who did play 14 weeks in that league, but also a man whose name somehow disappeared from the standings when all this went down.. I have known John W for many years, so I could call him for verification of this, if necessary. And according to a person who came into my shop just today, and one who knows John P, he said John P never played a single night in that league.

Jerry has already received the punishment that the BCAPL deemed warranted, and there's nothing any of us can do to change anything we might not agree with in this matter. However, everyone here, including myself, is curious as to whether this instance was just a one-time negligent mistake, or whether it was a blatant forgery of official records. If it was just a one-time mistake, maybe Jerry should not have received any punishment at all.

Roger

i like your level headed response here after reading your 1st post where you shared your experience about your match vs his team 3 years ago.

i saw where john w did not have any stats but there were stats for john p but i did not bother bringing it up because i honestly dont know if such a person exists. i just commented on the number of weeks i saw for john p. which i still find puzzling because the number of matches shown is more than enough to be qualified. yet you have mr. stuckart and mr. griffin admitting the player did not have enough matches played.

mr stuckart in his letter stated a lot of people were out to get him. mr stock in his 1st post even stated he knew the op and others in the area did not like mr stuckart.

is it even plausible for the op and apparently a lot of other people in that area to get together and make up a story claiming mr stuckart knowingly played some one who was not eligible? then mr stuckart admits he did that but it was a clerical error ?

no matter what any one thinks it seems like all the higher ups could do was go by what was actually shown on the stats not what people say. i would say the decision they made was very , very hard for them to make.

 

[tatcat2000]

As I mentioned, I'm really familiar with the rules regarding team formation. The rule states that TWO players MUST be from the original team. The rest of the team can be any sanctioned players from the SAME league operators SYSTEM...

The following information may or may not be relevant to the situation, but a few slight clarifications is are order here:

The actual words used are "same league". You have added the word "system", which does not appear in the literature you drew the information from, and which may cause confusion. In fact, if by "system" you mean multiple leagues with discrete BCAPL numbers operated by the same League operator, then in the Mixed/Open division a player from a differently numbered league is not eligible.

The definitive document is not the "league policies" tab of the website, but rather the Tournament Regulations for the BCAPL Nationals, which are also available for download from the BCAPL website. They are more specific. The eligibility chart in tournament regulation E-5-5-c specifies in the footnotes:

“Same league" means the same distinctly numbered BCAPL league. Multiple numbered leagues operated by the same League Operator are not considered as the same league.

Again, I don't know if that is applicable to the situation here. I just wanted to clarify that the information quoted earlier was not complete.

Buddy

 

[Azsandshark]

Just clarifying a couple things

"lorider;4347900mr stuckart in his letter stated a lot of people were out to get him. mr stock in his 1st post even stated he knew the op and others in the area did not like mr stuckart."

Bill S never mentioned an Operator in this statement earlier in the post, he said "Shame on you Tres! I know that you and others are generally against Jerry to begin with." All the people that were later attacked in a post by JS had multiple people post here and attest to their long standing character in this billiard community. Noone is out to get him, his players simply said, "This is wrong"!

"lorider;4347900is it even plausible for the op and apparently a lot of other people in that area to get together and make up a story claiming mr stuckart knowingly played some one who was not eligible? then mr stuckart admits he did that but it was a clerical error ?"

LOL, plausible! He he he. Let me say again, I had NOTHING to do with this. The operators own players came forward in Las Vegas and brought this out. MANY players. I run a separate league, played on a fun team at the Nationals, and was on vacation enjoying myself. We are not competitors. If I had a competitor here in Phx it would be the APA but they are not. The couple (Doug and Gina) that run their league in Phx are outstanding at what they do, bring a ton of new players into the sport and have a huge and successful league. Most of all, they are respected by everybody. They are friends of mine and I respect them both.

 

[lorider]

"lorider;4347900mr stuckart in his letter stated a lot of people were out to get him. mr stock in his 1st post even stated he knew the op and others in the area did not like mr stuckart."

Bill S never mentioned an Operator in this statement earlier in the post, he said "Shame on you Tres! I know that you and others are generally against Jerry to begin with." All the people that were later attacked in a post by JS had multiple people post here and attest to their long standing character in this billiard community. Noone is out to get him, his players simply said, "This is wrong"!

"lorider;4347900is it even plausible for the op and apparently a lot of other people in that area to get together and make up a story claiming mr stuckart knowingly played some one who was not eligible? then mr stuckart admits he did that but it was a clerical error ?"

LOL, plausible! He he he. Let me say again, I had NOTHING to do with this. The operators own players came forward in Las Vegas and brought this out. MANY players. I run a separate league, played on a fun team at the Nationals, and was on vacation enjoying myself. We are not competitors. If I had a competitor here in Phx it would be the APA but they are not. The couple (Doug and Gina) that run their league in Phx are outstanding at what they do, bring a ton of new players into the sport and have a huge and successful league. Most of all, they are respected by everybody. They are friends of mine and I respect them both.

i think it is safe to assume the jerry the op complained about and the jerry mr. stock mentioned are one and the same.

i dont doubt the character of you , the op, roger long, or az house pro at all. at for the plausability comment . i wa just throwing that at the wall to see if it stuck....it dont ok ?

i do not know who the all mr stock talked to before the decision was made. apparently not you, mr long az house pro or others who have come forward on here .

one thing mr griffin is correct about is you have to make a decision on facts, not heresy.

the heresy is several people state the player did not play at all. the fact is records do show he played. now somewhere in between is the truth.

i can see where a light sentence was handed down in this situation. i think everybody can agree mr stuckart pulled a fast one here but the bottom line is without proof what do you do ?

 

[Roger Long]

i think it is safe to assume the jerry the op complained about and the jerry mr. stock mentioned are one and the same.

i dont doubt the character of you , the op, roger long, or az house pro at all. at for the plausability comment . i wa just throwing that at the wall to see if it stuck....it dont ok ?

i do not know who the all mr stock talked to before the decision was made. apparently not you, mr long az house pro or others who have come forward on here .

one thing mr griffin is correct about is you have to make a decision on facts, not heresy.

the heresy is several people state the player did not play at all. the fact is records do show he played. now somewhere in between is the truth.

i can see where a light sentence was handed down in this situation. i think everybody can agree mr stuckart pulled a fast one here but the bottom line is without proof what do you do ?

You're absolutely right with that, lorider. I think the BCAPL did all they could do based on the information they had to go on. The fact that there are qualifying stats shown online for John P is all of the actual proof that exists. But if John P was to testify that those were not his stats, and John W was to testify that they were actually his stats, then those testimonies would negate that former "proof."

When my team had our experience in Jerry's league, we all knew that the player used against us in the playoffs had been listed all season as a regular on the 1st place team, and never once was listed as a "house sub" at the bottom of the standings with the rest of the actual house subs. After protesting that player's use on Jerry's team, we went back online and found that the player's name had been added to the list of house subs. There were never any hard copies of the standings issued, so proof of our claim was forever gone. All we could do was walk away.

This most-recent incident is very unfortunate, not only for the BCAPL, but for all of pool. It comes at a time when we are all struggling to keep our sport alive and healthy. This incident, along with those from other amateur and pro leagues, are distractions that take us all away from doing just that. This particular incident is a bad one for me because it adversely affects so many good pool people in my immediate area.

I'll finish with this: I honestly think that Mark Griffin and Bill Stock have handled this matter in the best way possible. I think the BCAPL is still the best league system for me. CSI is doing great things for our sport, and I want to continue being one of their players.

Roger Long

 

[Lonestar_jim]

AZ ratings committee

Roger,

What is the purpose for the ratings committee in AZ. Tournaments only ? There are a lot of gradients from what I've seen posted (9 or 10). A friend of mine who ran a good tournament had about 6 ranks, which seemed about right to me. Thanks.

Jim

 

[Roger Long]

Roger,

What is the purpose for the ratings committee in AZ. Tournaments only ? There are a lot of gradients from what I've seen posted (9 or 10). A friend of mine who ran a good tournament had about 6 ranks, which seemed about right to me. Thanks.

Jim

Basically, yes, the AZ ratings were developed over 20 years ago and were first developed for use in 9-ball tournaments. Since then, there have been a several changes in the rating structure, and also in the way they are used in tournaments. Their biggest use these days are in scotch-doubles tournaments that have a cap on the combined rating that the teams can use. There are still some singles tournaments around that use the ratings to determine games-on-the-wire handicaps, but not very many.

The difficult thing here is that the BCAPL accepts AZ ratings in determining if an Arizona player should be classified as Open, Advanced, or Master in BCAPL events. This really get sticky sometimes because many people on the ratings committee are also active players in BCAPL pool leagues and BCAPL events.

Roger

 

[thebark]

Lorider says " the heresy ( I believe he meant hearsay) is the league members who say John P. didn't play and the records that say he did. The truth lies somewhere in between."

If his bank told him that his checking account was empty and it was only his hearsay that he thought there was still $2000, would the answer lie somewhere in the middle? only they control the access to the records and only Jerry controlled access to the league computer and therefore the record.

The FACT is John P. never played in that league and the records were deliberately forged to make it appear he did. If you want records get John P.'s time cards from the restaurant that he worked every Wednesday night that the league played. The rest of the story is plausible deniability to mitigate the seriousness of the League Operator's actions.

The BCAPL has made their ruling. Jerry has apologized in print to the Arizona Pool Community. There was blood.

But please don't confuse the facts.

 

[BRKNRUN]

There was blood

LOL!....There was blood....LOL...Good thing there was a Fireman in da house to hose that chit down!....errrrr well retired anyway...

I think they need to review my stats...I think someone forgot a circle a couple times...I should have had 23 ROs!!!!!

Now you see why I am so anti-social and just on the phone looking at (Smoking) Meat Porn all the time......Goose

 

[lorider]

Lorider says " the heresy ( I believe he meant hearsay) is the league members who say John P. didn't play and the records that say he did. The truth lies somewhere in between."

If his bank told him that his checking account was empty and it was only his hearsay that he thought there was still $2000, would the answer lie somewhere in the middle? only they control the access to the records and only Jerry controlled access to the league computer and therefore the record.

The FACT is John P. never played in that league and the records were deliberately forged to make it appear he did. If you want records get John P.'s time cards from the restaurant that he worked every Wednesday night that the league played. The rest of the story is plausible deniability to mitigate the seriousness of the League Operator's actions.

The BCAPL has made their ruling. Jerry has apologized in print to the Arizona Pool Community. There was blood.

But please don't confuse the facts.

tres, may i call you tres? thanks for pointing out my spelling error. yes i meant hearsay.

when you quote a few sentences please quote all of the sentence so it will not be taken out of context.. yes i did state that what the players said was hearsay, which is what mr griffin was alluding to. the next sentence i stated it was a "Fact" that the team standings showed john p playing 14 matches. so somewhere in between those 2 sentences is the truth. i hope that makes better sense to you.

you just mentioned something mighty interesting, john p works on wed nights. that is the 1st time it is mentioned in this thread. kinda hard to be in 2 places at the same time huh ?

as far as anybody looking at his time sheets i really doubt that will happen. heck cops cant even do that without a warrant.

it appears you were fixated on a couple of sentences and ignored the rest of my post.
did you bother reading where i said i thought he was guilty ? but i dont know that for a fact , so no i am not confusing facts with what i believe happened. i hope you now understand the difference.

mr long stated jerry pulled the same stunt against his team 3 years ago , i believe him just like i believe you but as mr. long also stated he had no evidence and so far it appears you do not either.

i would really like to see someone come up with facts as mr griffin asked for and see this lo get his just dues.

 

[lorider]

You're absolutely right with that, lorider. I think the BCAPL did all they could do based on the information they had to go on. The fact that there are qualifying stats shown online for John P is all of the actual proof that exists. But if John P was to testify that those were not his stats, and John W was to testify that they were actually his stats, then those testimonies would negate that former "proof."

When my team had our experience in Jerry's league, we all knew that the player used against us in the playoffs had been listed all season as a regular on the 1st place team, and never once was listed as a "house sub" at the bottom of the standings with the rest of the actual house subs. After protesting that player's use on Jerry's team, we went back online and found that the player's name had been added to the list of house subs. There were never any hard copies of the standings issued, so proof of our claim was forever gone. All we could do was walk away.

This most-recent incident is very unfortunate, not only for the BCAPL, but for all of pool. It comes at a time when we are all struggling to keep our sport alive and healthy. This incident, along with those from other amateur and pro leagues, are distractions that take us all away from doing just that. This particular incident is a bad one for me because it adversely affects so many good pool people in my immediate area.

I'll finish with this: I honestly think that Mark Griffin and Bill Stock have handled this matter in the best way possible. I think the BCAPL is still the best league system for me. CSI is doing great things for our sport, and I want to continue being one of their players.

Roger Long

i forgot to mention last time i replied to your post that i also think csi and mr griffin have done great things for the pool community.

as i stated earlier in this thread though i think bcapl should change their rule allowing lo's to play on teams. at the national level particularly. it would negate the monetary incentive for lo's to pull such stunts as jerry apparently has.

take apa for example. lo's are allowed to play on teams at the local level only. i think it is great for a lo to play at the local , it gives him a chance to mingle and play with and against a lot of his league members. that way it gives every one a chance to get to know him on a more personal level than being just a business man only interested in collecting your fees every week. i have played on the same team as our lo a couple of times and enjoyed it very much.

but the lo is forbidden to play on a team once the regular session is over. he is not allowed to play in any playoffs, tri cups , cities or at the national level. that removes any monetary incentive to see any team he played on advance in any playoff picture once the regular session is over.

i think if bcapl had such a rule there would be no need for this thread to even exist.

 

[CantEverWin]

Can people please learn what hearsay is?
A witness to an event stating what they saw is not hearsay.

On another note, I have no side here as I do not know anyone in the situation.

However, someone not remembering a person being somewhere is not proof that the person was not there.
It is really tough to prove a negative. If someone recalled seeing a person in a bar, that would be strong evidence that person was in the bar. However, if a person doesn't recall seeing someone in a bar, that evidence is extremely weak that they were not in the bar.
As humans we just miss so much more than we take in.

 

[CantEverWin]

After reading this thread I have come to realize why the APA has "more" people breaking and being scandalous than the bca. It seems like the bca pretty much lets you do whatever you want. Seems like you can pretty much add whomever you want to your roster whenever you like.
What the hell is the thought behind a "house sub?"
As long as you have 2 "core players" you can add whoever you want?
I could just imagine the 49ers when going to the Super Bowl adding Adrian Peterson, and megatron to their team.
I guess I do get the concept though. People don't need to break rules, if the rules let you pretty much do what you want anyhow.

 

[lorider]

Can people please learn what hearsay is?
A witness to an event stating what they saw is not hearsay.

On another note, I have no side here as I do not know anyone in the situation.

However, someone not remembering a person being somewhere is not proof that the person was not there.
It is really tough to prove a negative. If someone recalled seeing a person in a bar, that would be strong evidence that person was in the bar. However, if a person doesn't recall seeing someone in a bar, that evidence is extremely weak that they were not in the bar.
As humans we just miss so much more than we take in.

you are correct i was using the term rather loosely. after learning the definition it seems as though i used it correctly when i stated the op heard from friends that an unqualified player was on a team. once the op relayed the what he heard to mr stock his testimony could be used to substatiate what the witnesses saw as a fact..

thanks for the correction :thumbup:

 

[lorider]

After reading this thread I have come to realize why the APA has "more" people breaking and being scandalous than the bca. It seems like the bca pretty much lets you do whatever you want. Seems like you can pretty much add whomever you want to your roster whenever you like.
What the hell is the thought behind a "house sub?"
As long as you have 2 "core players" you can add whoever you want?
I could just imagine the 49ers when going to the Super Bowl adding Adrian Peterson, and megatron to their team.
I guess I do get the concept though. People don't need to break rules, if the rules let you pretty much do what you want anyhow.

that is what i have said several times on this forum but you broke it down on a point by point basis better than i ever did. thumbs up to you.

 

[justadub]

that is what i have said several times on this forum but you broke it down on a point by point basis better than i ever did. thumbs up to you.

Yeah, I'm going to tri cup tomorrow with only 4 players (due to prior commitments for the other 4 team members).....can I get a house sub?



Nope.

Sorry, don't really mean to derail. It just struck me as funny.

I always respect how Mark and his people handle things. It appears that this isn't as cut and dried as some may think, and its always tough to sort the truth from the rest.

That having been said, it seems to me that the simplest answer is to ask the captains of the teams that played against the LO's team during that session. I would think that they would know if this John P played or not. From what I've read, he appears to be a known entity there.

Maybe it ain't that simple. But I can certainly tell you if someone played against my team or not.

 

[Maniac]

as i stated earlier in this thread though i think bcapl should change their rule allowing lo's to play on teams. at the national level particularly. it would negate the monetary incentive for lo's to pull such stunts as jerry apparently has.

take apa for example. lo's are allowed to play on teams at the local level only. i think it is great for a lo to play at the local , it gives him a chance to mingle and play with and against a lot of his league members. that way it gives every one a chance to get to know him on a more personal level than being just a business man only interested in collecting your fees every week. i have played on the same team as our lo a couple of times and enjoyed it very much.

but the lo is forbidden to play on a team once the regular session is over. he is not allowed to play in any playoffs, tri cups , cities or at the national level. that removes any monetary incentive to see any team he played on advance in any playoff picture once the regular session is over.

lorider,

I usually agree with much of your postings, but this is one subject that I cannot, through personal experience, agree on. I do not think LO's in any league system (BCA, APA, etc.) should be allowed to play on a team in their OWN league structure, not even during the regular session. I've seen more than once a LO playing on a team that had questionable things happen for players on his/her team that were beneficial for their teams. It wouldn't matter by the time playoffs came around that the LO couldn't play in them because the damage would have ALREADY been done. As far as "mingling" with other players, well, they should be doing that anyway, whether they play of not. You state that you played on a team with your LO and enjoyed it very much. Well that's all well and good because you apparently have an honest LO. I've been around a couple, one was just plain dishonest and the other did some things that were highly questionable, and they did things FOR their team. This disgusted me to the point of not playing in those leagues anymore. This is why I do not feel it appropriate to allow LO's to play within their own league system.

Shoot 'em well, my friend!!!

Maniac