| |
BGonline.org Forums
CA State Champion*/LA Calcutta {long, boring}
Posted By: Jason Lee In Response To: CA State Champion*/LA Calcutta {long, boring} (Coolrey)
Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2009, at 4:51 p.m.
I feel the need to post, because I was there for part of this, and I want to clear up some things that I think Ray mischaracterized.
First, I want to note that I have a lot of respect for Joe... I've only known him for a short while, but he's always been very nice to me, and have never heard even the slightest hint of controversy, except in these matches with Ray. Also, I've recorded all three matches I've played against Joe, and forget about results... he's completely crushed me on ER or whatever you want all three times. In my (admittedly limited) view, "world champion" is a good appellation, in all ways.
As to the situation at hand. I arrived right as the controversy started brewing, just before Patrick was called over to rule. There were four spectators: Bob Glass, Stepan Nuniyants, Richard Armbruster, and Norm Wiggins. When Patrick asked them, Bob, Stepan, and Richard could not or did not want to render an opinion, and Norm stated (pretty clearly) that 65 was the opening roll.
I think the reason that three out of the four kibitzers didn't say anything was that it was late... it was after midnight on a long day of BG. When Richard said, "I don't really want to say," I interpreted that as meaning he just wasn't sure, and didn't feel right about commenting. I have no doubt that Bob Glass felt the same way, and I just can't imagine that there's any other reason for it.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH players (Joe & Ray) didn't seem terribly sure about what had happened. During the entire time that Patrick was at the table, Ray occasionally said things like, "I guess that's possible" and "I'm not really sure," both of which are quite plausible given how late it was and how tired everybody had to have been.
I'm of the opinion that Patrick did not make the right ruling, because Norm Wiggins seemed pretty sure of what had transpired. I sure hope Ray isn't going to now call Patrick's character into question. Now, I may not agree with Patrick's ruling, but I'm not sure it's wrong either... and just because I disagree with Patrick doesn't mean I agree with Ray.
Ray, I think you are way too quick to cast aspersions on people's characters when something happens that you don't agree with. You're a champion, and you should act like it. Sometimes you are hypocritical about a lot of things. I was there when you lost to Carter Mattig in Las Vegas, and your little temper tantrum afterwards, slamming fists and upending chairs, was unbecoming of a champion, and disappointing to see. It's disappointing because you've done a lot of great things for backgammon over the years, and to see a champion act like a petulant child after losing is horrible for the game, and you know it. You know it because you're critical of that kind of behavior yourself.
In Las Vegas, one of the rookie players from our local club cashed in the intermediate division, and when he won his key match, he celebrated with a very unsportsmanlike touchdown celebration. I counseled him afterwards, and advised him that celebrations like that might make people see him as a jerk. My words can't carry much weight with him if the ABT Champion tips over chairs when he loses.
Some of Pat Gibson's clocks were sensitive and at least one had had this same problem in previous matches, so I doubt it was intentional. However, I was not going to miss a chance to gain a psychological edge on Joe, so I said: "Anything to get an advantage, huh Joe"?
I'm not sure how this is OK at all. You have a moral obligation to act like a gentleman even when everybody else around you is acting like a total asshole. In response to something you readily admit was probably not intentional, you try to push for some psychological edge.
JLee
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.