[NC2014] Suggestions
- Thread starter captain folms
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Losers of groups go through?
Aka 2nd place.
Runner up is what you're looking for... or "2nd place".Folms said:
Want to ask about Mr.X desicion.
I think it's not fair to take our first place after such fight.If admins make mistake in rules why we should suffer from this?If you make desicion to change rules,why results which was before this desicion should be change?As i know in normal practice if mistakes was made they are counted and later in another tournaments rules change.As captian of Russia i want to review your disicion,listen all admins and make fair desicion.
I think it's not fair to take our first place after such fight.If admins make mistake in rules why we should suffer from this?If you make desicion to change rules,why results which was before this desicion should be change?As i know in normal practice if mistakes was made they are counted and later in another tournaments rules change.As captian of Russia i want to review your disicion,listen all admins and make fair desicion.
Cybran
Knight
I don't understand how match can end with 8:8 and 1 team wins. If we look at any sport(hockey, football..) the team that wins the tiebraker will get an extra point to make them win. This would make the score 9:8 and the team with 9 will win.
So I suggest adding 1 point to the winning team only to make it logical.
So I suggest adding 1 point to the winning team only to make it logical.
Mr.X
Heroes_Grifon said:
The reason a new ruling is being implemented during the tournament is that there are still matches to be played, and we'd rather not have people continuing to play on an unfair ruleset once we have recognized that it is unfair.
Ok,you implemented rule during tournament to continue play on fair one,but why results before should change?If to see all situation you change RD of bene and chech and it's ok for them,because nothing change in their group,but you decide to change our 1 place because UK understand after match that they dont take it or you think we made this on purpose?Mr.X said:
Since there was no reply i ask for explanation from other admins too.We are really surprised by this decision and would have never expected it. Frankly i dont understand why only MrX dealt with this case if there are a lot of referees available. Referees that confirmed our results vs UK and were totally ok with it, why is he the only one taking decision? Why every other score in tiebreaker in different matches in this tournament counted and EVERYONE was ok with it but now suddenly it became not legit? Ok, if you think that someone can abuse this system later, you can change it, i dont mind, let it be from now on that these points dont count, but why do we have to suffer from it now, when your decision was made after our match? There was nothing written about tie-breaker scores before so just logically and considering that they have been counted before by every admin there are supposed to count now.The rules before were in our favour and now you simply change them how you like, its just not fair. We all know that if there was no posts from UK team on forums, nobody would care about abusing this system. We won our match vs UK, it was hard comeback, but we won, we proved that we were stronger at the end, and still you make them #1 and us #2. Our result between each other is another point to to consider. Can other referees post their opinions?
First of all referees do not make decisions about ruleset. They are there to make sure the matches are scheduled and played properly. Team of admins are the ones who decide on ruleset and cases like this one.
I was not allowed to participate in decision making because I am a member of the UK team, hence I might be biased. Watly was initially not allowed to participate too because he is a member of a the same Group, hence he might be biased as well. However, Watly left the admin team all together so his case doesn't matter anymore. Relax has been away for 2 days, we cannot wait until he returns as the tournament needs to continue with the same pace. Therefore, Mr.X was the only one eligible for the decision and he has successfully produces a verdict.
I was not allowed to participate in decision making because I am a member of the UK team, hence I might be biased. Watly was initially not allowed to participate too because he is a member of a the same Group, hence he might be biased as well. However, Watly left the admin team all together so his case doesn't matter anymore. Relax has been away for 2 days, we cannot wait until he returns as the tournament needs to continue with the same pace. Therefore, Mr.X was the only one eligible for the decision and he has successfully produces a verdict.
Cybran said:
I totally agree with this. There has to be a winner, and it makes no sense that Russia won with score 8:8. For example in ice hockey shootout game, if the score is 4-4 before shootout game and other team makes 3 goals in it and other one 2. The score in the end is 5-4 to the one who won the shootout game.
I do agree with this but there actually wasn't any rule written about this. The decision was taken de facto by folms who was updated the groups. So no actual rulechange.Heroes_Grifon said:
I agree it's less than ideal but it's something that the admins just missed and I understand whatever decision they take would have been hard for them.
Heroes_Grifon said:
The UK team was really surprised by the inclusion of tiebreaker rounds into the overall round difference and would never have expected them to be included.
Heroes_Grifon said:
Because it is only now that the full ramifications of the application of those rounds has been looked into and examined, previously it was an unconscious inclusion of those rounds that has set a form of precedent without specific investigation into it's consequences. It is only reasonable that this fault is put right for the fairness and legitimacy of the whole tournament.
Heroes_Grifon said:
You are intentionally excluding the point relating to the fact that the tiebreaker rounds are played under an almost entirely different format to the rest of the rounds. It's like conducting two chemical experiments with different variables and thinking that the results can simply be merged. The tiebreaker rounds are distinct from the rest of the rounds played.
Heroes_Grifon said:
A fault has been recognised, it is only reasonable that it is put to repair.
Heroes_Grifon said:
That's a preposterous point, the issues with a ruleset are more likely to be realised by the teams that play under them. Simply because only one team has been affect does not make it wrong for the ruleset to be scrutinised. In fact, under many legal systems the ability to request a judicial review relies on the claimant to have been affected by a particular law.
The point should be made that the tournament is still in the group stages and has not ventured beyond that point. If we were already entering the elimination rounds then the arguments relating to the recentness of this ruling would be more valid but as it is, at this stage of the tournament the situation is still amendable and rightly ought to be amended. Any arguments such as 'that was the rule before the match, it is unfair that it is changed now' are invalidated by the fact that it has been established that using this rule to get ahead is immoral and only affirms the fears of its abuse.
Russia fought a good fight and rightly deserved their win, whether they deserved to get the round wins added to their group standing has been concluded as negative.
+1_Osiris_ said:
And if that is not going to happen, at least share the points received from a tie-braker game so that the winning team gets two points and the losing team gets one point. Imo its quite unfair for the losing team that they get no points if they lose in a tie-breaker...
I think that this rule/error/situation is missed because there was no chance to think this might be happen before it happend and while writing the rules of the tournament. As always happened with the former tournaments, we need to live an error to make a rule about it to prevent it to happen again. Because no one can ever see or guess that happening.
Blacktide's comments about this case is rational. But sometimes these mishaps happening and someone need to get hurt to benefit the commuity. And in this case Russia got hurt.
Blacktide's comments about this case is rational. But sometimes these mishaps happening and someone need to get hurt to benefit the commuity. And in this case Russia got hurt.
I agree with this fact and in group stages there should be a draw points to prevent such things._Osiris_ said:
I have updated the group stages which put Russia 1st but that was subject to change depending on X's decision.
M.ArdA said:
Precisely. It's important to understand that this is a decision taken to overturn previous mis-informed precedent, not an active decision to displace Russia from the number 1 spot. Whatever the situation was that caused the issue to be raised is entirely irrelevant to the eventual ruling, Russian being given 2nd place is simply a direct result of the decision. To prevent this from seeming personal, the case needs to be looked at in an objective light.
