Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2018, 08:12:35 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Savage: XR is a new patch for Savage, created by the Newerth.com staff. The XR1.1 Client is out now! Download it now!
189386 Posts in 10975 Topics by 18139 Members
Latest Member: eripkhos
* Home Forum Wiki Help Search Login Register
+  Newerth Forums
|-+  Newerth Hosted Competitions
| |-+  Newerth Savage League (NSL)
| | |-+  Disputes
| | | |-+  Tiebreaker
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Tiebreaker  (Read 3596 times)
Groentjuh
Newerth Serveradmin, German Mirror and Webdeveloper
Administrator
Super Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1371


View Profile WWW
« on: June 18, 2016, 09:07:04 pm »

Sorry Gridfon, but Valli wanted a last minute dispute:

#12. Ladder position:
  • The total number of accumulated points will take priority in determining league position.
  • The winner is the team that won the most points.
  • In case of ties, the second criteria in designating the order is the direct match between the tied teams.
  • If the direct match was a draw, tiebreakers will be allowed for determining the winner of shared places, at the end of the regular season.
  • Tiebreakers would be played on a map reserved for the tiebreaking week only, for a minimum of 1 game (2 rounds) and for as long as needed to determine a winner or one team decides to forfeit.
  • In the unlikely case of having 3 teams compete for a spot, there will be no deciding game, but using the total number of NSL rounds won as tiebreaker.

Warrior has tied with 1 point vs KS and Warrior vs KS ended in a tie. We have not played a tiebreaker, so this should put us on a shared seventh place with KS. Valli however disagrees in this post and on skype:
Quote
[14:26:48] Groentjuh: Technically an incorrect final ranking
[14:27:16] Groentjuh: Warrior and KS technically share #7
[21:56:10] Valli: ^no
[21:56:19] Valli: Warrior has the last spot
[21:56:24] Valli: they did not attend the tiebreaker
[21:57:33] Groentjuh: "If the direct match was a draw, tiebreakers will be allowed for determining the winner of shared places, at the end of the regular season."
[21:57:51] Groentjuh: That does not state that I MUST play the tiebreaker.

Good luck, Gridfon!
Logged


Before adding any of my IMs, ask yourself: Can I ask it in a PM?
Before sending me a PM with questions, Search the forums!
Wanna be ref? Post on my Server Forum
Telvek
man of the nation
Competition Administrator
Full Member
***
Posts: 220



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2016, 10:13:57 pm »

I have uploaded 2 screenshots here as I messaged Jegenrapo to discuss with warrior about a Tiebreaker.

Hence, the Case is clear for me. Jegenrapo opened a thread here, however nobody replied...
Well in the end no warrior member showed up on sunday, due to NSL rule #4, point 3, not fielding up with at least 5 players results into a forfeit.

I dont know why warrior didnt show up, either Jegenrapo had some problems to communicate with the warrior admins or there were some issues within warrior. I am sorry but in my opinion its an unlucky case.
Logged

Trigardon
Forum Administrator
Legendary Member
****
Posts: 4813


Demonic Monster


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2016, 09:32:07 am »

I have uploaded 2 screenshots here as I messaged Jegenrapo to discuss with warrior about a Tiebreaker.

Hence, the Case is clear for me. Jegenrapo opened a thread here, however nobody replied...
Well in the end no warrior member showed up on sunday, due to NSL rule #4, point 3, not fielding up with at least 5 players results into a forfeit.

I dont know why warrior didnt show up, either Jegenrapo had some problems to communicate with the warrior admins or there were some issues within warrior. I am sorry but in my opinion its an unlucky case.


Quote
[21:57:33] Groentjuh: "If the direct match was a draw, tiebreakers will be allowed for determining the winner of shared places, at the end of the regular season."
[21:57:51] Groentjuh: That does not state that I MUST play the tiebreaker.
Logged

Telvek
man of the nation
Competition Administrator
Full Member
***
Posts: 220



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2016, 01:56:35 pm »

What do you mean?
The screenshots clearly say this. I asked Jegenrapo to contact a warrior representative IF they wish to play a tiebreaker.
According to Jegenrapo's answer, warrior wanted a tiebreaker as well.
Logged

Groentjuh
Newerth Serveradmin, German Mirror and Webdeveloper
Administrator
Super Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1371


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2016, 08:17:48 pm »

Telvek: I'm not sure why you reply at all; You're not dispute admin.

I believe the rules do not clearly state that we must play the tiebreaker and that in case we do not, we automatically lose the tiebreaker.
I believe the rules clearly state we must have played the tiebreaker on the 10th of June (week 8 ).

None of the NSL organisation nor the NSL website states these apparently required matches any where! If these matches were required I would expect them to just show up on the schedule.
Logged


Before adding any of my IMs, ask yourself: Can I ask it in a PM?
Before sending me a PM with questions, Search the forums!
Wanna be ref? Post on my Server Forum
Telvek
man of the nation
Competition Administrator
Full Member
***
Posts: 220



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2016, 08:37:05 pm »

I am too tired to explain it a third time.

Now it's your turn Gridfon.
Logged

Daemon
XR Main Developer
Legendary Member
****
Posts: 4795


beware, for this is the everbroken...


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2016, 10:05:21 pm »

Tiebreaker is not mandatory for ending the season.
Tiebreakers are mandatory for deciding the final places of tied teams.
Cases (based on universal acknowledgment of how sports work):
1. Both teams agree to play the tiebreaker, let's say for 1st place. The winning team occupies #1 and the loser is #2.
2. Neither team wishes to play the tiebreaker, so a winner is not decided. Both teams occupy #2 spot.
3. One of the teams wishes to play but the other one forfeits. The one that forfeited is #2 and the other one is #1.

Same thing goes for any spot on the ladder. If 2 teams are tied for, say, 4th place, then if both forfeit, it means they cba to see who's better and that they settled for #5 place.

The only sports of any kind that allow sharing the upper position are:
1. NOT leagues, where teams/players face each other in matches.
2. Parallel sports, where each competitor races against time or scores or w/e, not against other players.

So, WR and KS are not required to play a tiebreaker. However, if one of them decided to make the challenge and the other one did not accept it, that counts as forfeit no matter the reason.
Logged

Groentjuh
Newerth Serveradmin, German Mirror and Webdeveloper
Administrator
Super Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1371


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2016, 10:15:01 pm »

Daemon, may I ask where all that is stated in the rules?
Logged


Before adding any of my IMs, ask yourself: Can I ask it in a PM?
Before sending me a PM with questions, Search the forums!
Wanna be ref? Post on my Server Forum
Daemon
XR Main Developer
Legendary Member
****
Posts: 4795


beware, for this is the everbroken...


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2016, 10:22:50 pm »

Quote
[21:57:33] Groentjuh: "If the direct match was a draw, tiebreakers will be allowed for determining the winner of shared places, at the end of the regular season."

You don't have to play, but if you don't play, then you won't get the upper spot. How else would you prove it's you on #7 out of 8 and not the other guy, but playing for it - breaking the tie?

It doesn't have to be said anywhere, it's logic. It is a league. Leagues have as many places as teams involved. Those that don't care for deciding who's better, then... they won't be. And it's okay.

Wanna ignore logic? Be my guest. It's too late in this game's life to bother either way.
Logged

Groentjuh
Newerth Serveradmin, German Mirror and Webdeveloper
Administrator
Super Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1371


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2016, 10:40:02 pm »

I do not really agree on your logic. I would believe the position would remain the same if no tiebreaker is played.

Nowhere does it state that if KS challenges and we deny or not even reply to the rather late challenge that we lose the shared position. If that was stated in the rules we would probably have played the tiebreaker, knowing there is nothing to lose compared to not playing it.

But let's not spend our time on pointlessly discussing this. It's Gridfon's task to decide on this dispute as I pointed out several times.
#16. Disputes:
  • The dispute admin Gridfon will deal with any disputes.  He will not participate in the competition as a player and his ruling is the only one that matters. Consulting him prior to filing a dispute is fine.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 10:44:24 pm by Groentjuh » Logged


Before adding any of my IMs, ask yourself: Can I ask it in a PM?
Before sending me a PM with questions, Search the forums!
Wanna be ref? Post on my Server Forum
Stringer
The guy who doesn't know anything
Newerth Council
Full Member
*
Posts: 125



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2016, 10:51:04 pm »

To summ it up:

Groentjuh argues that since tiebreakers are not mandatory, they only happen if teams agree to do one, which requires agreement from both teams. If one team does not want to do a tiebreaker, there is nothing in rules to force it to happen, therefore it falls into "it never happened" category and have no consequences whatsoever. Can't lose something that never happened.

Everyone else argue that since tiebreakers are allowed, it gives one team the right to challenge the other to a tiebreaker, at which point the other team has to either live up to challenge, or forfeit the fight, essentially loosing it. One could also say rules give league admins the right to assign tiebreaker, essentially making it mandatory for teams in question. But to my knowledge it was never officially done.

To quote Groentjuh,
Good luck, Gridfon.

Logged

Be wise
Trigardon
Forum Administrator
Legendary Member
****
Posts: 4813


Demonic Monster


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2016, 11:31:40 pm »

To summ it up:

Groentjuh argues that since tiebreakers are not mandatory, they only happen if teams agree to do one, which requires agreement from both teams. If one team does not want to do a tiebreaker, there is nothing in rules to force it to happen, therefore it falls into "it never happened" category and have no consequences whatsoever. Can't lose something that never happened.

Everyone else argue that since tiebreakers are allowed, it gives one team the right to challenge the other to a tiebreaker, at which point the other team has to either live up to challenge, or forfeit the fight, essentially loosing it. One could also say rules give league admins the right to assign tiebreaker, essentially making it mandatory for teams in question. But to my knowledge it was never officially done.

To quote Groentjuh,
Good luck, Gridfon.



Stringer to the rescue!
Logged

Daemon
XR Main Developer
Legendary Member
****
Posts: 4795


beware, for this is the everbroken...


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2016, 08:53:06 pm »

I do not really agree on your logic. I would believe the position would remain the same if no tiebreaker is played.

Indeed. But it would not be the 7th, in this case, but 8th place would be shared. You'd actually have to know who's better of the 2 in order to have someone occupy the 7th place. Or have someone forfeit.
Logged

valli
Quack or die!
Newerth Council
Super Hero Member
*
Posts: 1083



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2016, 09:45:27 pm »

Locked. Gridfon (I pm'ed him) shall decide this. Enough has been said. As a sidenote -> I am not even sure if it is Gridfon's case to decide if I read through that one Wink -> http://www.newerth.com/smf/index.php/topic,18211.msg198929.html
Logged

He who controls the past commands the future, He who commands the future, conquers the past.
Gridfon
Righteous Scarecrow
Newerth Council
Hero Member
*
Posts: 664



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2016, 09:45:29 am »

    Warrior has tied with 1 point vs KS and Warrior vs KS ended in a tie. We have not played a tiebreaker, so this should put us on a shared seventh place with KS. Valli however disagrees in this post and on skype:
    Quote
    [14:26:48] Groentjuh: Technically an incorrect final ranking
    [14:27:16] Groentjuh: Warrior and KS technically share #7
    [21:56:10] Valli: ^no
    [21:56:19] Valli: Warrior has the last spot
    [21:56:24] Valli: they did not attend the tiebreaker
    [21:57:33] Groentjuh: "If the direct match was a draw, tiebreakers will be allowed for determining the winner of shared places, at the end of the regular season."
    [21:57:51] Groentjuh: That does not state that I MUST play the tiebreaker.

    According to the rules, tied teams are allowed to play a tiebreaker. But the rules do not require them to play it:
    #12. Ladder position:
    • If the direct match was a draw, tiebreakers will be allowed for determining the winner of shared places, at the end of the regular season.

    -KS- could only be ranked higher in the case if the Warrior clan agreed to play the tiebreaker and then did not show up for it. However, no Warrior representatives accepted the offer to play the tiebreaker in the public forum threads. -KS- leaders (I spoke with Jegenrapo and sorel) do not claim that any Warrior representatives accepted the offer in private communication either.

    As a result, -KS- and Warrior should share the same rank in the final NSL ranking table. Telvek and valli, could you please update the rankings?


    On a side note, all of the above is mostly an unfortunate result of miscommunication and late scheduling. On the one hand, I know that certain Warrior members would love to play tiebreaker but the scheduling attempts only started 2-3 days ahead of the suggested match time, and it was impossible to make. On the other hand, seeing how things turned up, -KS- leaders confirmed that they don't mind sharing the same NSL rank with the Warrior clan. There is no hostility on either of the sides.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
    « previous next »
    Jump to:  

    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Page created in 0.031 seconds with 20 queries.