NBL posted about this today including its resolution of the 'all home teams win in round 19' scenario, which leaves 4 teams on 14-14. It then leads to Perth and NZ both on 6-6 in the resulting mini table, which NBL says it woudl resolve as follows:

"With New Zealand and Perth tied on 6 wins in the mini-table, the head-to-head between those two teams would decide fourth place. The Breakers would thus advance with a 3-1 advantage."

So they've changed their rules from 61.2.3, using the head to head rather than the points' differential. That makes more sense to me than how the 61.2.3 is written.

There is no doubt whatsoever what happens and there is no ambiguity in the rules. It is very clear, if complicated.

"The article published by the NBL claims that in that instance, it reverts to head to head, but that is simply NOT correct"


What makes you say it's not correct?
To me it seems pretty clear that teams are separated first by head-to-head wins-losses, and when that fails to do the job it goes to head-to-head points for-against.



"So, let's say that 3 teams finish on 14 wins, the mini-table places one team clearly 1st, and the others tied.
So, there remains a tie. Nowhere does it say that the team placed 1st is excluded from any further consideration. Logically we assume that to be so, but it is NOT clearly stated."

It's not clearly stated, by why would a team that is no longer in the equation suddenly be brought back into the equation?

Interestingly, NBL missed NZ's best case scenario being a second place finish. They'd get that from:

Adelaide beat Cairns in both games
NZ beat Melbourne
Perth beat Sydney
Brisbane beat Illawarra
Melbourne beat Perth

That would put NZ in a mini table with Illawarra, Perth and Melbourne. In that table they'd be top with an 8W-4L record. Perth and Illawarra would then fill 3rd and 4th.

"There is no doubt whatsoever what happens and there is no ambiguity in the rules. It is very clear, if complicated."

You read tomartoes and someone else reads tomaytoes. The rules have room for at least two interpretations, each internally consistent with the wording as written. Today's NBL post suggests a third.

I still don't understand where he is coming from.

I get how people can read the rules and one person reads tomartoes while the other reads tomaytoes.
What I don't get is how the NBL can follow up with an example that demonstrates the tomartoes interpretation, and then a poster can conclude that "it is simply NOT tomartoes"

For anyone that missed the article:
Who will make the Swisse NBL Finals - we do the math

it has always been game differential, then points differential at other levels of the game don't know much about NBL though

For starters,
What the NBL has published is clearly at odds with the existing rules. (Although the result may be the same.)
Does that mean they have changed the rules? Possible, where can I get an up to date copy?
Or does it just mean that Liam Santamaria got it slightly wrong??

My POINT is that it gets ugly if we end up in that scenario. The fact that you disagree (whilst incredibly surprising) simply reinforces my point.

I'm reminded of a quip about the UN observers during the Viet Nam war. The communist observer always saw it one way, the Western observer always saw it the other way, and the neutral observer always said they weren't sure.

So some will see it clearly one way, some will see it the other, some will say its ambiguous, and some(like Luuc and Kober) will disagree with everyone.
Again, all that proves is that its ugly.

As for making excuses, for what?
I'm hoping Perth win both and get a clear run. I don't want to see it decided on a technicality. If it is, well they'll be in or out.
EITHER way, I will be starting a thread on how the Cats fucked up their recruitment and what they need to do to fix it for next year.

Cats have NO hope of winning this season. If they can al least make the finals, that will be ok. If not, well shit, but there will be no excuses.
You could probably argue that injuries to Damo and Knight cost them, but then again they're something that should be planned for.

When you say "the existing rules" are you referring to the ones you quoted in the original post above?
If so, what have the NBL published that is at odds with them? I'm still not seeing it. To me it is a simple process, that was worded a little clumsily above, but instantly clarified by Liam's article.

Pretty damn clear to me.

some(like Luuc and Kober) will disagree with everyone.

If 61.2.3 was worded "...between the teams still involved in a tie" it would be perfectly clear. As it is, @Dazz is correct. There is ambiguity about which teams would be subject to the separation by points total difference. It only makes sense that a team already separated by the first method would not be involved, it's just not stated clearly.

61.2.3 also clearly states the teams remaining in a tie will be separated by the difference of the points scored, not by which team(s) won the most games. So, if a team won the series 3-1, but lost the points differential (easily possible with a blowout loss and three narrow wins,) they would be ranked lower. Again, Dazz is correct.

@Luuuc, I love your work, except in this instance. Read it again. The NBL has stated teams would be separated by head to head results, and their example uses win loss records. The rules state (as you wrote) that it's points differential. Usually the same thing, but not always.

As has become the norm for LK's NBL, they've gone off half cocked and haven't made the rules clear.

Where is that independent board they promised to review "actual" be "deemed" salaries, by the way?

Sorry Freethrows but I'm honestly still not seeing the problem!


"If 61.2.3 was worded "...between the teams still involved in a tie" it would be perfectly clear."

It is worded that way! It starts with "Should there still remain a tie;" and then talks about how those tied teams are separated. i.e. by points.


"61.2.3 also clearly states the teams remaining in a tie will be separated by the difference of the points scored, not by which team(s) won the most games."

Dude. That's because the previous clause already separated the teams by win-loss! Only when that doesn't work does 61.2.3 even come into play.

I guess more than ever the answer is really simple, just win.

What people are missing is that you go back to the top of the process every time one or more teams is removed from the tie, you don't just keep on going to the next procedure but ignoring the removed team(s).

This reminds me of the 2001/02 ODI tri series where all 3 teams finished on a 4-4 record.

Australia finished 3rd despite having the highest net run rate as South Africa had an extra bonus point so were 1st. NZ were 3-1 v Aust.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/series/61098.html?view=pointstable

@DAZZ, mate you're not applying for the Trump Administration's Sports Minister portfolio are you by any chance?

+1 Koberulz

@Luuuc, I think you're right. I read it wrongly, and the teams separated from the others by 6.2.2 are not involved in 6.2.3.

However, if there are three teams tied after 6.2.2, it's clear that the following separation of the teams is by total points scored for and against.

Picture this: Cairns, New Zealand, Perth and Melbourne all finish on 14:14. Cairns have a 7:5 W:L ratio, and the other teams all have 6:6. (This may or may not be a possible scenarion this year, it's just a for example.)

According to 6.2.3, NZ, Perth and Melbourne would be separated by "the difference between the total points scored for and against each team in only those games played between the tied teams."

That means that you add the total points scored by a team in all games between those three sides, then subtract the total points scored by their opponents in those series. The placings are then sorted by which team has the highest figure.

Freethrows, the teams are hypothetically 6:6 in the original 4-way mini pool, but once Cairns get top spot in that mini pool they will advance, and you're left with a new 3-way mini pool. Those head-to-heads will no longer be 6:6, since the 6:6 result included Cairns results.
A new mini-pool occurs based on 3-way head-to-heads. Only if that new mini pool results in a tie would points come into it. If a team can advance or be eliminated by head-to-head then that will happen first.

Points only enter the equation when head-to-head fails.

(... as I understand it)

(... as I understand it)


No-one understands it :D

@Luuuc, I understand your point. Change the ratios to 4:4 if you like. If it's still a three way tie, it comes down to points differential.

I'm not trying to argue with you, by the way, just trying (thanks GG!) to understand it, and maybe help others understand it along the way.

^ Yep, you've got it.