New handbook - big joke - group rankings

View previous topic View next topic Go down

New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Admin on Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:03 pm

Final group positions are determined as follows:
1. Number of points won.
2. Most individual wins.
3. Goal difference.
4. Most goals scored.
5. Result of the direct match
6. Best position in FISTF ranking
So if a group of 3, all games end on 0-0.
-> current situation: we play a shout-out between the 3 players
-> new situation: the best player int he FISTF ranking is 1st of the group?

Sorry but this is a huge joke...

_________________
Top links:
http://waspa-circuit.blogspot.com/
http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/
http://fbfts-bstvb.blogspot.com/
http://hongkongsubbuteo.blogspot.com/
http://subbuteo-australia.blogspot.com/
http://subbuteo-canada.blogspot.com/
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1330
Join date : 2010-04-21
Age : 42
Location : Somewhere in Belgium

View user profile http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  von K. on Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:02 pm

It practically means that the worse player has to try to win at all costs, and the better (richer, with more ability to travel, with better location to participate more etc...) player can just play for a draw. Nice.

For some weird reason I find it more logical to reward the worse player for such an achievement, if anyone is to be rewarded outside the competition and table.

Why not use a lottery like in football. It's much more fair (and equal...).

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:02 pm

In combination with the other chapters (which also should be mentioned) the rule is ok, of course you can discuss if it should be the worst ranked player or the better ranked player. Looking in the WR there are also many bad ranked players who are playing on a very good level, because they don't play many events during the season. In such a situation I would understand it if the player who spend more money would take the benefit of a better ranking. In the situation, when a player of lower level manage it to bring a big surprise, I would agree on it that the better ranked player should be out.
For the time table that solution is better than shoot outs. The situation of total equality shouldn't happen often anymore, because there is another chapter, which says that groups of 3 should only be used in exceptional situations, so in future we should see mostly groups of 4 or even 5 at the events instead of groups of 3.

von K. wrote:It practically means that the worse player has to try to win at all costs, and the better (richer, with more ability to travel, with better location to participate more etc...) player can just play for a draw. Nice.

For some weird reason I find it more logical to reward the worse player for such an achievement, if anyone is to be rewarded outside the competition and table.

Why not use a lottery like in football. It's much more fair (and equal...).

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  von K. on Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:55 pm

Heinz, this idea is extremely stupid for the reason you mentioned. The ranking outside the absolute top tells us nothing about anything. So it really can't be used for this. It is unequal lottery. Also, there will always be tournaments with smaller groups, and even the groups of 4 are problematic if they have 2 better players and 2 worse, because it will be 5-0 in the other games and a draw in the "big" game. And if the big game is the last one, the lower ranked player is forced to play for a win as the other one can play for a draw. That's not very sporting, is it?

What I don't understand is why it is not a lottery, as it is equal to everyone. Lottery is even used in football World Cups, so why not here?

And how much time it really takes to have shoot outs? Not a lot, in reality.

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Janus_Gersie on Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:43 am

As long as players meet in tournaments for sportive competition we should avoid non-sportive decisions (like rankings) for qualifying to the next round. Shoot-outs after the group stages don't take that much time ....
avatar
Janus_Gersie
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 331
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Frankfurt area

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:45 pm

every shoot-out takes at least 10 minutes.
30 seconds per shoot, you have 10, with preparations you can take about 10 minutes.
worst case 3 equal draws in the group, means 3 shoot outs, which can't be done at the same time, means about 30 minutes (a whole round) you loose.

Maybe the idea is stupid, but there are many other stupid things in the rules too. Most people won't understand why you have to damage weak teams at the team EC that you are in front of another team which has the same number of points after 6 or 7 games in the group.
The reason is that the direct game isn't any factor in the decision, so you have to shoot as many goals as possible in case of equality the goals of individual matches are taken.

In the end if you are unlucky you have a lottery at every event, because it can happen that even players/teams of different nationality clubs play against you and throw you out. This isn't lottery? I think another problem is also that scored goals are on 2nd or 3rd place for taking the decision for the group ranking. This is very dangerous too in my opinion.

In my opinion there isn't any possibility to find the right way if you aren't fan of shoot outs. For those who agree on shoot outs, this rule is nonsense, but I'm happy that we aren't all same-minded :-)

von K. wrote:Heinz, this idea is extremely stupid for the reason you mentioned. The ranking outside the absolute top tells us nothing about anything. So it really can't be used for this. It is unequal lottery. Also, there will always be tournaments with smaller groups, and even the groups of 4 are problematic if they have 2 better players and 2 worse, because it will be 5-0 in the other games and a draw in the "big" game. And if the big game is the last one, the lower ranked player is forced to play for a win as the other one can play for a draw. That's not very sporting, is it?

What I don't understand is why it is not a lottery, as it is equal to everyone. Lottery is even used in football World Cups, so why not here?

And how much time it really takes to have shoot outs? Not a lot, in reality.

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  von K. on Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:52 am

Heinz Eder wrote:every shoot-out takes at least 10 minutes.
30 seconds per shoot, you have 10, with preparations you can take about 10 minutes.
worst case 3 equal draws in the group, means 3 shoot outs, which can't be done at the same time, means about 30 minutes (a whole round) you loose.

Ok. So 30 minutes lost time to have an equal sporting solution is bad?

A lottery is also an equal solution and it is sportsmanlike in that way.

Deciding factor based on previous tournaments has absolutely nothing to do with sport or competition! A sporting competition has to be decided inside the competition, not by factors outside it, that are also extremely far from any reality, and thus very unfair lottery. Just like Janus wrote.

Can you name a sport where previous competitions are deciding in case of a tie. How about a World Cup football group where on level points and all the other goes through because of a better FIFA ranking!? I can't because it would mean that a game against San Marino could be decisive.

In all games deciders take time, but are considered ok. And unless possible, a lottery is used. For example a World Cup group position is decided by penalties if the two teams are playing the last game against each other, but if they are not, a lottery is used.

Heinz Eder wrote:Maybe the idea is stupid, but there are many other stupid things in the rules too. Most people won't understand why you have to damage weak teams at the team EC that you are in front of another team which has the same number of points after 6 or 7 games in the group.
The reason is that the direct game isn't any factor in the decision, so you have to shoot as many goals as possible in case of equality the goals of individual matches are taken.

Bad rules exist, but it does not mean they should be accepted and not made better. I think that even in this forum, when it was more active, we had a lot of better solutions based on discussions, than the current ones.

Heinz Eder wrote:In the end if you are unlucky you have a lottery at every event, because it can happen that even players/teams of different nationality clubs play against you and throw you out. This isn't lottery?

I didn't understand this, sorry. Can you explain it some other way?

Heinz Eder wrote:I think another problem is also that scored goals are on 2nd or 3rd place for taking the decision for the group ranking. This is very dangerous too in my opinion

Agreed. Goals should count early, if the game is in danger of becoming negative/passive. But I don't think it is there yet, and other rule changes are better to cure that problem, if necessary.

Heinz Eder wrote:I'm happy that we aren't all same-minded :-)

Agreed! And this is the base for any fruitful discussion and development. This is also why I like seeing you write here after a small break. This is also why I rate this forum higher than SN...

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Admin on Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:11 am

That a shout-out takes time shouldn't be an argument. How many times is the competition manager ready to announce the next games at the end of the group stage? Most of the time he needs a few minutes to sort all the groups and to prepare the ficture. If there is a shout-out in one group, it can help him to prepare the next round without too much pressure.

_________________
Top links:
http://waspa-circuit.blogspot.com/
http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/
http://fbfts-bstvb.blogspot.com/
http://hongkongsubbuteo.blogspot.com/
http://subbuteo-australia.blogspot.com/
http://subbuteo-canada.blogspot.com/
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1330
Join date : 2010-04-21
Age : 42
Location : Somewhere in Belgium

View user profile http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:01 am

von K. wrote:

Ok. So 30 minutes lost time to have an equal sporting solution is bad?

A lottery is also an equal solution and it is sportsmanlike in that way.

Deciding factor based on previous tournaments has absolutely nothing to do with sport or competition! A sporting competition has to be decided inside the competition, not by factors outside it, that are also extremely far from any reality, and thus very unfair lottery. Just like Janus wrote.

Can you name a sport where previous competitions are deciding in case of a tie. How about a World Cup football group where on level points and all the other goes through because of a better FIFA ranking!? I can't because it would mean that a game against San Marino could be decisive.

In all games deciders take time, but are considered ok. And unless possible, a lottery is used. For example a World Cup group position is decided by penalties if the two teams are playing the last game against each other, but if they are not, a lottery is used.

As far as i know in soccer at the World Cup the toss decides about the team, which has to go through, but how often did it happen in the past? never as far as i can remember, because they use groups of 4. I think it is ok to discuss about it, but in reality it shouldn't happen, and if it happens there are sports like soccer where only the luck decides about it, for me it is better to take a ranking or something simular to decide it. It is a question of view of course.

von K. wrote:
Bad rules exist, but it does not mean they should be accepted and not made better. I think that even in this forum, when it was more active, we had a lot of better solutions based on discussions, than the current ones.
We are again on the same point, where associations can get active. not one association (even if it should be obligatory to answer even one association), but if there are more and more associations, then the board will have to answer.
It is not obligatory for the FISTF Board to check the forum for good ideas, the associations are the members one more time, and they have to build internally an opinion with its board and ask their members for better ideas and in the end the association can forward those ideas, then the board should have to answer.
We are always ending up at the point where we discuss about the philosophy of FISTF, and some people still seem to think that FISTF has to be open for every single player's opinion, but in the end there should be a filter called national association between FISTF and its players/clubs and this filter isn't working in most countries for a very long time.

Heinz Eder wrote:In the end if you are unlucky you have a lottery at every event, because it can happen that even players/teams of different nationality clubs play against you and throw you out. This isn't lottery?
von K. wrote:
I didn't understand this, sorry. Can you explain it some other way?
Maybe you didn't get cheated yet at a tournament, but it happens and it is not only happening between players from the same country/club, it is even happening between players/clubs from different countries. I'm pretty sure the chance to get cheated at an event is much higher than that the ranking has to be taken to take a decision about a group ranking in a group of 4.

von K. wrote:
Agreed! And this is the base for any fruitful discussion and development. This is also why I like seeing you write here after a small break. This is also why I rate this forum higher than SN...
I don't rate any forum higher than the other, because some people post on sn who don't post here. My break had nothing to do with the forum or person, I didn't post much on the sn forum too, except of our tournament in vienna, i hope finnish people saw the flights and information on the other forum too. I followed the forum here and had a look on it, but I felt that i couldn't give any input on the topics discussed here.
I also wasn't sure, if there are people here who are still interested in the FISTF handbook.

Heinz

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Admin on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:02 pm

The thing about changing the rule is that if you don't think the rule chage will bring a major improvement to an existing problem, the rule should not be changed. Here I don't see the real improvement of the situation...

_________________
Top links:
http://waspa-circuit.blogspot.com/
http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/
http://fbfts-bstvb.blogspot.com/
http://hongkongsubbuteo.blogspot.com/
http://subbuteo-australia.blogspot.com/
http://subbuteo-canada.blogspot.com/
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1330
Join date : 2010-04-21
Age : 42
Location : Somewhere in Belgium

View user profile http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:06 pm

Most things according on that wouldn't bring a major improvement, because the thing itself is a very small one. Does it mean, that the rule never can be changed again?
The team event rule with the direct game is also a small change, but it would be a good small change in my opinion.

Cool

Admin wrote:The thing about changing the rule is that if you don't think the rule chage will bring a major improvement to an existing problem, the rule should not be changed. Here I don't see the real improvement of the situation...

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  von K. on Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:38 pm

Heinz Eder wrote:As far as i know in soccer at the World Cup the toss decides about the team, which has to go through, but how often did it happen in the past? never as far as i can remember, because they use groups of 4.

Italy World Cup 1990, group F, I think. Holland and Ireland were equal 2-3. The lottery decided that Ireland is 2. and Holland is 3. At that time 3 went through from some groups, so both went to the next round. Ireland got Romania, which they won, but Holland got eventual winners Germany and lost (the infamous Völler-Rijkaard spitting game).

However based on rankings Holland would have been 2. and Ireland 3. I think it would have been utterly unfair for the irish, because they had played equally in that particular competition.

Their game was the last game of the group (those days there was no shoot out in that situation) so Holland also would have known they go through as 2. with a draw in that game. So the irish would have to win despite being equal in all other ways, and maybe would even fall out of the tournament because they would be exposed on the counter. And this artificial deciding factor would have had consequences for the group winners England, because Holland would have won the group with that countered goal in the end. So England would have met Italy in the QF while Holland would have been on the way to semi-finals most probably. With the lottery Holland was forced to play for the win or take the risk of the lottery. With a ranking decider the whole tournament regarding meny teams would have been different. And all because Holland had been better in previous years, but were not better at the tournament.

This ranking system makes players unequal starters at the start of the competition, and I have stern belief that in sport all starters must have equal opportunities for success regarding the system.

Heinz Eder wrote: I think it is ok to discuss about it, but in reality it shouldn't happen, and if it happens there are sports like soccer where only the luck decides about it, for me it is better to take a ranking or something simular to decide it. It is a question of view of course.

So your view is that an equal solution for all starters, a lottery, is worse than a system that makes players unequal at the start of the tournament. And this even when we know the problems of the ranking (it tells nothing conclusive about players qualities below the top).

Everyone has his view, but I really have hard time understanding why this would be more fair, and less problematic.

Heinz Eder wrote:
von K. wrote:
Bad rules exist, but it does not mean they should be accepted and not made better. I think that even in this forum, when it was more active, we had a lot of better solutions based on discussions, than the current ones.
We are again on the same point, where associations can get active. not one association (even if it should be obligatory to answer even one association), but if there are more and more associations, then the board will have to answer.
It is not obligatory for the FISTF Board to check the forum for good ideas, the associations are the members one more time, and they have to build internally an opinion with its board and ask their members for better ideas and in the end the association can forward those ideas, then the board should have to answer.
We are always ending up at the point where we discuss about the philosophy of FISTF, and some people still seem to think that FISTF has to be open for every single player's opinion, but in the end there should be a filter called national association between FISTF and its players/clubs and this filter isn't working in most countries for a very long time.

It has been made perfectly clear, that people like me, and people from my country or our association (which was even robbed the right to vote in Madrid by Garnier), have absolutely nothing to give to FISTF rules development (or anything else for that matter). This was made clear by for example the italian member in the official forum of the CoN. Our president has also volunteered for a rules and statutes committee, because he is a very capable and intelligent guy up to the task, but no interest from FISTF.

A committee for the development of the "book of cases" was also promised, but it is not done. Should the associations really construct groups where they find solutions for different rules one by one, and then send a letter to FISTF demanding changes? And what is a proper time to wait for that promised committee before taking such action?

I understand also that all forums are not possible to follow, but if the official forum is not meant for development discussion, criticism (of things, not persons) and to be followed by FISTF BoD, I don't see the point of the whole forum. I did get a different view on it, when it was created.

Heinz Eder wrote:
Heinz Eder wrote:In the end if you are unlucky you have a lottery at every event, because it can happen that even players/teams of different nationality clubs play against you and throw you out. This isn't lottery?
von K. wrote:
I didn't understand this, sorry. Can you explain it some other way?
Maybe you didn't get cheated yet at a tournament, but it happens and it is not only happening between players from the same country/club, it is even happening between players/clubs from different countries. I'm pretty sure the chance to get cheated at an event is much higher than that the ranking has to be taken to take a decision about a group ranking in a group of 4.

Sorry, Heinz, but I didn't understand the whole thing. What is the scenario where this cheating happens. I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what happens in that case. Who plays who, and what is the situation in the group etc? I'd like to understand what this example is about.

Heinz Eder wrote:
von K. wrote:
Agreed! And this is the base for any fruitful discussion and development. This is also why I like seeing you write here after a small break. This is also why I rate this forum higher than SN...
I don't rate any forum higher than the other, because some people post on sn who don't post here.

My rating is based on the fact that this forum has never been sensored and people are not banned from here. This forum in its history, and even now with us few who write here still, has a lot better and open discussion. I have not seen many interesting discussions in the SN after some people were banned and some have left in protest. You are almost the only one trying to have good discussion, but I rarely see many people joining you. And I never see any spanish or italian players discussing there, which would be important. I've seen a lot of "Ciao, I'm here too" comments to add to the numbers, but nothing else from these nicks...

This is the reason for this rating. At first everyone took the SN forum as they took this one, or the previous FISTF forum.

Heinz Eder wrote: My break had nothing to do with the forum or person, I didn't post much on the sn forum too, except of our tournament in vienna, i hope finnish people saw the flights and information on the other forum too. I followed the forum here and had a look on it, but I felt that i couldn't give any input on the topics discussed here.
I also wasn't sure, if there are people here who are still interested in the FISTF handbook.
Heinz

I think the few people here are always interested in everything. And although I don't see many things completely as you do, I think it's very good to see your views and opinions on the matters.

As for the finns, the IP's of many finnish workplaces and players homes are banned from the SN (even those who are not banned as nicks) so many of the active people here can't read the forum or don't see the attachments there. People can get around that, but I don't see why that should be necessary for a global federation forum. And in my workplace (1000 potential users of the net) the IP is blocked by SN. This is also a reason why discussion here is important in my opinion.

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  hönkki on Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:43 pm

Just for the curiosity: have anyone studied how common it is that two (or more) teams are equal in all these

1. Number of points won.
2. Most individual wins.
3. Goal difference.
4. Most goals scored.
5. Result of the direct match

and then FISTF-ranking should decide ?

Just thinking how big problem this is ?

hönkki
Grand Prix Winner
Grand Prix Winner

Posts : 74
Join date : 2010-04-23
Age : 51
Location : Helsinki, Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  von K. on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:37 pm

hönkki wrote:Just for the curiosity: have anyone studied how common it is that two (or more) teams are equal in all these

1. Number of points won.
2. Most individual wins.
3. Goal difference.
4. Most goals scored.
5. Result of the direct match

and then FISTF-ranking should decide ?

Just thinking how big problem this is ?

Heinz maybe has an answer to the study. But with the 5-0 rule it seems a clear problem even in groups of 4. This can happen often if there are 2 better players and 2 worse, and also if there is one better player, 2 average players, and 1 worse.

It is possible that the ranking decider makes these situations more rare, because the lower ranked player has to take risks. But that is not equal sport where all start from same line.

I also think the direct match should come before goals, because it would make every match important to win and would not penalise more defensive, or less scoring, players against blizzard attackers who score a lot always.

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:33 am

von K. wrote:
Italy World Cup 1990, group F, I think. Holland and Ireland were equal 2-3. The lottery decided that Ireland is 2. and Holland is 3. At that time 3 went through from some groups, so both went to the next round. Ireland got Romania, which they won, but Holland got eventual winners Germany and lost (the infamous Völler-Rijkaard spitting game).

Really? I can't remember on that, but it is a long time ago and I was only 8 or 9 :-)

von K. wrote:
However based on rankings Holland would have been 2. and Ireland 3. I think it would have been utterly unfair for the irish, because they had played equally in that particular competition.

Of course it wouldn't be fair for Ireland, but if teams are only playing better than Holland in one event, and the ranking based on constant results over some years say something different, it has also its warrenty. If you prefer the toss, i wouldn't have a problem with that too. It happens more often, that 2 players cheat by playing a result to kick out the third in the group, I know 2 situations that season, where players or even teams of my club were victim. It happened even during a EC. That's the problem, players and teams already know their whole tournament way before the first row is played, because everything is fixed, that is the major problem.
How often did we see a former WR number 1 becoming second in a group for an example? What do you think why he did that?

von K. wrote:
So your view is that an equal solution for all starters, a lottery, is worse than a system that makes players unequal at the start of the tournament. And this even when we know the problems of the ranking (it tells nothing conclusive about players qualities below the top).

The ranking would be the next point. You already discussed it excessive here, the ranking could be changed too. If you start discussion in one corner of the whole topic, it is obvious that you will get into other corners automatically.
The ranking should be a coefficient and not a total number of points. As you say, the total number of points doesn't say much about the player, but a coefficient is something different and then a rule like that with the ranking maybe would make more sense.
I think we need a total modification of the tournament concept and in the end it is maybe possible to have a fair solution for most problems. You prefer lottery by toss, I prefer a fact, which maybe makes clear already before the tournament that not all players are the same, which is of course a valid view. I personally don't want to wait for my luck after paying some 100 EUR for a trip and maybe after I spent some 1000 EUR for trips all over the season, i would like to have a benefit for travelling more than another player, who maybe lives in the country, where the tournament is and don't play abroad, this player should get a 50/50 chance by toss?

von K. wrote:
It has been made perfectly clear, that people like me, and people from my country or our association (which was even robbed the right to vote in Madrid by Garnier), have absolutely nothing to give to FISTF rules development (or anything else for that matter). This was made clear by for example the italian member in the official forum of the CoN. Our president has also volunteered for a rules and statutes committee, because he is a very capable and intelligent guy up to the task, but no interest from FISTF.

A committee for the development of the "book of cases" was also promised, but it is not done. Should the associations really construct groups where they find solutions for different rules one by one, and then send a letter to FISTF demanding changes? And what is a proper time to wait for that promised committee before taking such action?

I understand also that all forums are not possible to follow, but if the official forum is not meant for development discussion, criticism (of things, not persons) and to be followed by FISTF BoD, I don't see the point of the whole forum. I did get a different view on it, when it was created.

If there are 5 or 6 other associations, whos presidents think that the finnish association is also important for FISTF, then they should try to support your association. If the finnish association protests against it not to be taken fully by the board, it is something normal, that you protest, but there is nobody who protests for you, that would make much more impression to the board.
The associations shouldn't built groups on their own, but the associations should constantly tell the board that this point is important for them.
In my opinion the subbuteonews forum should only appease people, because those who wrote there are not heard and the italians and spanish people are still not active or only in the italian forum active. You are right, you don't need to think I don't know that.
Maybe sometimes you think I'm an idiot because of my ideas and views but, it doesn't mean that I'm blind for the situation.

von K. wrote:
Sorry, Heinz, but I didn't understand the whole thing. What is the scenario where this cheating happens. I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what happens in that case. Who plays who, and what is the situation in the group etc? I'd like to understand what this example is about.

I won't describe exact situations or even use names, it is common that when players or clubs know each other well and they are "friends" it can happen that some strange results happen. In those situations there is always a player/team included who has to pay the price of friendship.
There are also some strange results happening, if players see that the way in the knock-out round could be harder when they are winner of the group, so they "become" second sometimes. I don't want to say more about it, and I hope it is more clear now what I wanted to say with that. As long as those problems are not solved, it is not a priority to discuss about toss or ranking in my opinion, but maybe it is only a first step by sports department, I don't know.


Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:39 am

This is not for the team competition, this is only for individual competition.
There are other rules valid for the team competition.

How often it happens? In groups of 3 it can happen very often, especially with the 5-0 cut.
In a group of 4 I didn't see it very often, but that could only be said after that season, where most groups will consist of 4 players, now most groups consist of 3 and it happened at nearly every event that a shoot out was needed.

The top seeded player beats both opponents in the group with more than 5 goals difference, and the other 2 players play a draw.

All group matches end with a draw.

In the team event, you can imagine a group of 7 at a EC with 2 very strong teams, 2 middle teams and 3 very weak teams. In the situation the very strong teams win 4-0 against both middle teams, and the 2 middle teams play a draw, you can imagine what will happen?
The middle teams will start a shoot out against the 3 weak teams, because they need the goals for the third place in the group.

Nobody seems to be interested to take the another order for that

Points
Difference of individual wins
Individual wins
Individual games lost
result of direct game
goal difference of direct game
goal difference of all idividual games
scored goals of all individual games
get goals of all individual games

with that order it isn't in every case important to "destroy" weak teams for the goal difference of all individual games.

Heinz

hönkki wrote:
1. Number of points won.
2. Most individual wins.
3. Goal difference.
4. Most goals scored.
5. Result of the direct match

and then FISTF-ranking should decide ?

Just thinking how big problem this is ?

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  hönkki on Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:33 pm

This is not for the team competition, this is only for individual competition.

of course, stupid me Embarassed


Then it is a problem. I would choose shoot-outs.

hönkki
Grand Prix Winner
Grand Prix Winner

Posts : 74
Join date : 2010-04-23
Age : 51
Location : Helsinki, Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  von K. on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:11 am

Heinz Eder wrote:
von K. wrote:
So your view is that an equal solution for all starters, a lottery, is worse than a system that makes players unequal at the start of the tournament. And this even when we know the problems of the ranking (it tells nothing conclusive about players qualities below the top).

The ranking would be the next point. You already discussed it excessive here, the ranking could be changed too. If you start discussion in one corner of the whole topic, it is obvious that you will get into other corners automatically.
The ranking should be a coefficient and not a total number of points. As you say, the total number of points doesn't say much about the player, but a coefficient is something different and then a rule like that with the ranking maybe would make more sense.
I think we need a total modification of the tournament concept and in the end it is maybe possible to have a fair solution for most problems. You prefer lottery by toss, I prefer a fact, which maybe makes clear already before the tournament that not all players are the same, which is of course a valid view.

If the ranking would be done based on the excessive discussions we had on the possibilities of a better ranking, it would make more sense. Anyway, I find the idea of an unequal decider very alien in any sport. But of course you can have different view. The difference probably also depends on the past experiences regarding sports and the way people see sports.

Heinz Eder wrote:I personally don't want to wait for my luck after paying some 100 EUR for a trip and maybe after I spent some 1000 EUR for trips all over the season, i would like to have a benefit for travelling more than another player, who maybe lives in the country, where the tournament is and don't play abroad, this player should get a 50/50 chance by toss?

It's a good point towards having a system that gives travellers the edge. Of course, it would be very difficult to have such a decider, but anyway the reasoning is something I had not thought about.

This kind of a decider, that is based on attracting and rewarding travellers is clearly better in my opinion, than something based on past events. Here I understand the reasoning better.

Heinz Eder wrote:Maybe sometimes you think I'm an idiot because of my ideas and views but, it doesn't mean that I'm blind for the situation.

Come on Shocked I wouldn't like writing with you, if I didn't value your opinion. Sometimes I'm surprised, but you always have argumentation to which you base your opinions. It may differ from mine, but it is a lot better than not having argumentation. And, sadly, I'm not always right Cool

Also, when I answer you, I usually try to write things so that also outsiders understand them. So some things may sound even like underestimation, but they are not that.

Heinz Eder wrote:
von K. wrote:
Sorry, Heinz, but I didn't understand the whole thing. What is the scenario where this cheating happens. I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what happens in that case. Who plays who, and what is the situation in the group etc? I'd like to understand what this example is about.

I won't describe exact situations or even use names, it is common that when players or clubs know each other well and they are "friends" it can happen that some strange results happen. In those situations there is always a player/team included who has to pay the price of friendship.
There are also some strange results happening, if players see that the way in the knock-out round could be harder when they are winner of the group, so they "become" second sometimes. I don't want to say more about it, and I hope it is more clear now what I wanted to say with that. As long as those problems are not solved, it is not a priority to discuss about toss or ranking in my opinion, but maybe it is only a first step by sports department, I don't know.

Ok, now I understand what you meant by this cheating. It i svery problematic if teams or players make favours to the friends. It kills the whole sport idea. It is also very questionable with teams or players choosing to come 2nd. The best way to deal with that is to not have groups of 3 and play as many matches as possible (group of 4-5, 2 matches, group of 6-7, 3 matches etc) at the same time in the last round of games. That kind of tactics happen also in other sports, but it is more difficult if you donät know the score of the other game beforehand.

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Heinz Eder on Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:06 am

von K. wrote:
It's a good point towards having a system that gives travellers the edge. Of course, it would be very difficult to have such a decider, but anyway the reasoning is something I had not thought about.
This kind of a decider, that is based on attracting and rewarding travellers is clearly better in my opinion, than something based on past events. Here I understand the reasoning better.

A ranking with a coefficient would express that too, I totally agree with you that the actual solution is not the best in combination with the actual ranking.

von K. wrote:
Come on Shocked I wouldn't like writing with you, if I didn't value your opinion. Sometimes I'm surprised, but you always have argumentation to which you base your opinions. It may differ from mine, but it is a lot better than not having argumentation. And, sadly, I'm not always right Cool
Also, when I answer you, I usually try to write things so that also outsiders understand them. So some things may sound even like underestimation, but they are not that.
I know that idiot was surely the wrong word for that. Cool Most of your views valid ones, right or wrong is always difficult to say. Some people may agree with you others not, I don't know anybody who always has 100% agree on his ideas.

von K. wrote:
Ok, now I understand what you meant by this cheating. It i svery problematic if teams or players make favours to the friends. It kills the whole sport idea. It is also very questionable with teams or players choosing to come 2nd. The best way to deal with that is to not have groups of 3 and play as many matches as possible (group of 4-5, 2 matches, group of 6-7, 3 matches etc) at the same time in the last round of games. That kind of tactics happen also in other sports, but it is more difficult if you donät know the score of the other game beforehand.

Ask Marcus Tilgner about it, in the end it is not difficult if the organizers would use real software support at their tournaments. You only need a new draw, then the players can't know the extact way and opponents after the group stage.
Another possibility is to include more players into the knock-out stage. I would prefer it for an example if all 3rd placed of the groups could play in the barrage additionally. Depending on numbers it also can happen then, that 3rd of the group is automatically in the first knock-out round. Then we could stay with groups of 3 which is better to organize and all players have at least 3 games in the individual competition (the same number they have in a group of 4), but the small but for me important difference would be that all players also have knock-out games. In groups of 4 or even bigger it can easily happen that the last game won't change anything anymore, because you are already 4 points behind the second place, then you played 2 "competitive" games and the last one doesn't matter anymore and then you can go home, because you were unlucky with the draw. If you become third in a very strong group you also have the chance to win the tournament (of course with a much more difficult draw, but it is possible).
As you see it is not enough to pick out only a small detail, you need to have a look on the total construct of the sports side, but there for you need people, nobody can do that on his own, because it is too much work, and it is too important to decide it on your own. Computer software is a next topic, which should be a priority of FISTF. FISTF touornament software, FISTF clock for the PC are only some examples. If you have a unique software, the files you get will be unique without a big effort from the organizers, it then would be the automatical output. It was promised already in january 2010, that something like that will happen, so far some organizers only use Marcus' software. I don't mention names, because it is not important for me, who promise something, for me it is important that it happens.
Some may say I was not able to realize all those things, and now I make pressure that those things have to happen, I only can say, people didn't elect me again, because I was not able and elected somebody who they think can do it better, and I honestly hope that Stefano can do all those things, because I will be one of those who will benefit from it.

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New handbook - big joke - group rankings

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum