Dunk Basketball Uniforms Aussie Basketball Travellers

Advertising spot currently available.
Minimum three month period (1.2+ million page views, 92% Australian).
Email [email protected] for rates and options.

AD: Office space available in Adelaide CBD @ 313 Halifax St;
Suit creatives; freelance desks or space for 2-4 person business. More info

Dazz
Two months ago

#40812

Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

61.2.2
Should two or more teams be tied on game winning percentage at the conclusion of the home and away fixture, final placings shall be determined by the win/loss ratio in only those games played between the tied teams.
61.2.3.
Should there still remain a tie; rankings shall be determined by the difference between the total points scored for and against each team in only those games played between the tied teams.
61.2.4.
If teams still remain tied, rankings shall be determined by the points for over the points against percentages for the entire season.

So, we know that if two or more teams finish on 14 wins, it goes to a mini-table.
What is not clear is how ties within that mini-table are resolved.

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

The result hinges on the interpretation of 61.2.3
Clearly what counts is the "difference between the total points scored for and against each team".

Now in reality, if you look at any two teams, the winner of the split most likely also wins on total points. (Although it is possible for a team to win 3:1, but lose on aggregate points.)

As I read it, there are two major ambiguities in this clause.
Firstly, it only states "should there still remain a tie". 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.

The second problem in part stems from the first.
When It goes on to refer to games between the tied teams, it is unclear WHICH tied teams. Is it the 3 originally tied, or have we excluded one and are now down to two tied teams.
Again, I think it is logical to assume that team clearly 1st in the mini-table be excluded, but the wording is at best ambiguous.

It’s hard to get my head around this in an equitable fashion.
Nobody would dispute that in the event of a tie, the team with the split (or the points lead) should triumph, but that is NOT the primary factor. If Say the Cats finish on 15 and NZ finish on 14, then the Cats are ahead, and the split is irrelevant.
Again if it goes to the mini-table, the 2-team split remains irrelevant.

The reality is that rather than drive to the 2-team result at the earliest opportunity, the total aggregate results should be used where possible.

Report this topic


 

PeterJohn
Two months ago
19:35 7 Feb 17

Reply #623300

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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.


Report this post



XY
Two months ago
19:38 7 Feb 17

Reply #623302

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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


Report this post



Luuuc
Two months ago
19:39 7 Feb 17

Reply #623303

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

"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?


Report this post



PeterJohn
Two months ago
19:47 7 Feb 17

Reply #623304

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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.


Report this post



PeterJohn
Two months ago
19:55 7 Feb 17

Reply #623307

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

"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.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two months ago
20:00 7 Feb 17

Reply #623308

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

I feel like Dazz is just getting his excuses ready and lined up early. It's not straight forward but the rules are set.


Report this post



Luuuc
Two months ago
20:12 7 Feb 17

Reply #623309

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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


Report this post



Anonymous
Two months ago
20:13 7 Feb 17

Reply #623310

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

It's Dazzed.


Report this post



new yoga pants
Two months ago
20:37 7 Feb 17

Reply #623316

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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


Report this post



Dazz
Two months ago
20:41 7 Feb 17

Reply #623317

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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.


Report this post



Dazz
Two months ago
20:46 7 Feb 17

Reply #623318

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get 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.


Report this post



Luuuc
Two months ago
20:49 7 Feb 17

Reply #623319

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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.


Report this post



ROFLcopter
Two months ago
22:47 7 Feb 17

Reply #623333

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

Pretty damn clear to me.


Report this post



koberulz
Two months ago
23:15 7 Feb 17

Reply #623339

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

some(like Luuc and Kober) will disagree with everyone.
No I won't.


Report this post



Freethrows
Two months ago
23:20 7 Feb 17

Reply #623340

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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?


Report this post



Anonymous
Two months ago
23:27 7 Feb 17

Reply #623342

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

sometimes i just wish they went off % like the AFL or something, would make things so much easier lol. Also would make things a lot more simple to very casual fans. Had people ask me wtf is going on and I've had to try and explain how it works even though it still confuses me a bit.


Report this post



Luuuc
Two months ago
00:19 8 Feb 17

Reply #623346

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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.


Report this post



J
Two months ago
00:32 8 Feb 17

Reply #623348

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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


Report this post



koberulz
Two months ago
01:04 8 Feb 17

Reply #623353

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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).


Report this post



Brutal Game
Two months ago
02:14 8 Feb 17

Reply #623354

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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


Report this post



Bear
Two months ago
08:03 8 Feb 17

Reply #623359

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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


Report this post



Fundingsland
Two months ago
08:37 8 Feb 17

Reply #623363

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

+1 Koberulz


Report this post



Anonymous
Two months ago
09:02 8 Feb 17

Reply #623364

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

Luuuc won't disagree for the sake of it. Your spelling koberulz and Dazz wrong on that one. Tills is correct in saying after a team is eliminated by virtue of one breakdown the initial settings are utilised again for the remaining teams.


Report this post



Freethrows
Two months ago
11:27 9 Feb 17

Reply #623522

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

@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.


Report this post



Luuuc
Two months ago
11:53 9 Feb 17

Reply #623527

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

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)


Report this post



GordonG
Two months ago
12:27 9 Feb 17

Reply #623537

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

(... as I understand it)


No-one understands it :D


Report this post



Freethrows
Two months ago
16:59 9 Feb 17

Reply #623579

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

@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.


Report this post



Luuuc
Two months ago
17:18 9 Feb 17

Reply #623584

re: Rule 61.2 Final Placings - This could get ugly.

^ Yep, you've got it.


Report this post





 

Reply to this topic

Name Email

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Vesta 26

Title
Rules: You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets
Message

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.
 


Liam Flynn - basketball coaching and consulting

Recent Posts

.

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 3:35 pm, Wed 26 Apr 2017 | Posts: 655,271 | Last 7 days: 693