Pike give spot to LOS ???
soccerdave
I am simply writing to ask Pike if they would consider giving up their
spot at nationals so that LOS can go. Given all the recent chat about
"spirit of the game" and "sportsmanship" etc, it seems like the only
thing that can be done if Pike really does agree that LOS is the
better team. According to the rule book, LOS did all they needed to
do in order to qualify for Nationals. As just my own opinion, LOS is
the better team, and has the most chance of success in Sarasota. I
would not look down on Pike if they choose to keep their bid to
nationals, but I would be very impressed if they elect to give the bid
back to LOS. I am not especially vested in this....but wanted to
throw this out there. Sticky situation, no matter what happens. Much
respect to both teams.
Just my thoughts.
Dave Snoke
Ring of Fire
Mitch
> According to the rule book, LOS did all they needed to
> do in order to qualify for Nationals.
Pike did everything they needed to do to qualify for nationals, LOS
did not. They needed to either win that game, or not play it. The
2-0 rule is an option, not an specified outcome. I would be floored
if Pike gave away their bid, and I while I agree LOS is the better
team, I wouldn't say spirit of the game would compel Pike to give up
their bid by any stretch. Pike earned it by winning the game.
Eric Brach
> do in order to qualify for Nationals.
Contest. They -almost- did.
They needed to either win that last game, or announce beforehand that
they didn't want to play it and would take advancement to Natties by
default. They did neither.
Once they agreed to play, they had to win... ya know? It's like when
a tennis player or a football coach accepts the call of the line judge
and doesn't ask for a booth review. If you don't say anything, you
accept the status quo and move on and try to win from there.
I mean, I really feel for Los here - they had the bid in their hand.
They could have walked away with their tickets punched. But as it
happens, they played the game for that bid, and didn't win it. So...
it stinks for them, it really and truly does, but based on the way
things turned out, that bid is Pike's.
Pike can pass it on if they choose to - and they have every right do
so - but the choice has to be theirs. Because they won it.
Eric Brach
Dave - my suspicion is that you are correct in saying that Los is
likely a stronger team than Pike, and may have a greater chance of
success down in Sarasota.
That said, whoever ends up going from over there - best of luck.
Brian Williams
> >
> Pike did everything they needed to do to qualify for nationals, LOS
> did not. They needed to either win that game, or not play it. The
> 2-0 rule is an option, not an specified outcome. I would be floored
> if Pike gave away their bid, and I while I agree LOS is the better
> team, I wouldn't say spirit of the game would compel Pike to give up
> their bid by any stretch. Pike earned it by winning the game.
I can see where you're coming from there, but I don't think that it is
as cut-and-dry as this. Had LOS, being made fully aware of all the
options available to them, formally waived their right to claim a
forfeit in the third game against Pike and gone on to play the game,
then I would completely agree with you here. But that's not what
happened. LOS (I don't play for LOS, but I have talked with a few of
their players) was unaware of the rule, and played the third game
believing they had no other option. They did not give informed consent
to waive their right to advance via forfeiture. I understand, but
respectfully disagree with the argument that some are making in the
threads on this topic that by simply playing the game, LOS was waiving
their right to a forfeit, because without being made fully aware of
the consequences of their actions, there was no way for them to
provide the informed consent necessary to do this.
Consider an alternative scenario to further illustrate my point. LOS
is vaguely aware of some rule in the UPA manual that could allow them
to advance via forfeiture, and they ask the Regional Coordinator about
this (ignore the fact that the RC plays for LOS; while this does make
an interesting sidebar, it is fundamentally irrelevant in both this
hypothetical scenario and the real one which played out). The RC
replies that he has never heard of this rule, and that LOS must play
the game. LOS goes on to lose to Pike. Upon returning home, LOS looks
up the rules and discovers that they were indeed correct, and that the
RC was wrong to make them play the game. Who should receive the bid? I
think most would agree that this situation more favors LOS' claim to
the third bid, having been provided with incorrect information from
the RC. What is the difference, then, between receiving incorrect
information from the RC and the RC not being aware of the rule in the
first place (which is what actually happened)?
My claim would be that there is no difference, and that the UPA's
rules supersede the knowledge and/or lack of knowledge of the RC in
both cases. This is why the rules are in place, and they exist whether
people are aware of them or not. Unless LOS made a conscious decision
based on informed consent to waive their right to claim this rule, I
don't believe that simply "playing the game" nullifies the rule.
Now, that being said, it's a pretty crummy situation for both teams to
be in. Both have legitimate claims to taking the third bid to
Nationals. I don't think it's right to ask Pike to simply give up
their bid, as I realize they could make an equally sound claim on
their behalf. I think that the UPA should investigate this matter and
issue a ruling on who should receive the third bid out of the MA
region, if for no other reason than to establish a precedence for
cases such as this in the future.
My personal vote? LOS should get the bid.
b-lo
anything regarding this rule had to be done before the first pull went
up in that game. Los could have tanked their game against Ring, which
while unappealing, happens all the time. But NC teams are not known
for rolling over or backing down. I wouldn't be the least bit
surprised if faced with the same scenario in the future, if they elect
to play out the game. Kudos to Los for a taking Ring to the wire and
an impressive showing.
Pike has earned their bid by winning their game to go. At this point,
the cookie has already crumbled, and the option of Pike giving up
their bid seems misguided... not to mention impractical. If the
players on Pike were smart (always a big "if"), they would have bought
their plane tickets Sunday night.
My hats off to Los. Best of luck to all the qualifiers.
B-Lo
On Oct 6, 11:56 am, soccerdave <soccerd...@gmail.com> wrote:
McB
17 team Nationals!
Jared Smith
I would have to say I disagree. Maybe if this were another sport, I
could agree with you, but in our sport a heavy emphasis is placed on
the players having to know the rules. A player who is ignorant of the
rules of the game is by no means unaccountable to them. And if, for
instance, a player in a game is fouled and loses possession of a disc
he would've caught otherwise, it is on him to make the call. If he
does not the foul because he doesn't understand that he could does not
mean he can later, after learning the rule, go back and nullify the
play. Once he choose to continue on he has lost his chance to make
that call. Tacit consent in our sport is sufficient.
Now LOS is expected to also know the rules of the UPA tournament
series. These rules are freely available online and, while I'm sure
most people myself included will never look at them, nobody can say
they aren't provided. Since LOS had the opportunity to learn this rule
and did not, they are still expected to abide by it. The UPA also
provides volunteers to assist teams in coordinating the tournaments,
and this would be the person who LOS could presumably complain to for
not being made aware of the rule. This person happens to be a member
of that team so it seems they're totally out of luck. I disagree in
that I think it is somewhat relevant the RC plays for LOS. If he
didn't I could see them attempting to make a case, although I believe
without merit, for why they got screwed. However having the RC on your
team kind of kills that line of argument.
kdoe
Beat me to it
Knappy
game to go, both teams had only lost twice in the tournament.
This bracket format is essentially three bids/TRIPLE elim. So, either
outcome seems "unfair" to one team or the other. If the game is called
a Forfeit Win (an oxymoron, if there ever was one) by LOS, then Pike
has essentially been elimated from a triple elim format w/only 2
losses. No forfeit, and Los essentially has to beat the same team
thrice to advance. Both options = not ideal.
In hindsight & after thinking it through, I think the best of 2 crappy
options was to play that game.
On Oct 6, 1:11 pm, Brian Williams <bjwil...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
Knappy
up the rules and discovers that they were indeed correct, and that
the
RC was wrong to make them play the game."
Although well-written, this point is irrelevant. If the RC makes a
scheduling mistake, and team A plays team B when they really should've
played team C........and no one figures it out until after they arrive
home, should all results be nullified?
Of course not.
The game got played, the results stand. Los was within their rights
(by my reading) to get a forfeit win if they chose to. The fact that
they possibly did not know that or were told otherwise is unfortunate,
but once the game is played, it's a done deal. The only exception I
could see is if someone could prove malicious intent on the part of
the RC........but since he (apparently) plays for Los, that's out.
> > My personal vote? LOS should get the bid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ian McClellan
comments here too...
(I play for Pike)
The "forfeit-for-victory option" is stupid (FIX IT UPA): Two prior
victories (or even twenty), over ANY span of time (great or small), do
not indicate AUTOMATIC supremacy over the other team. That's not how
sports works! If it was, then why have a backdoor bracket at all?
Why would Nationals or any other tournament ever have "pool play?"
why do we play games all the way to 15? why not just 5? or 3? or
just 1? Seriously... does any other sport ANYWHERE have a "forfeit-
for-victory" rule?!?!?! FIX IT UPA!
Los is a fantastic team, and they will make Nationals someday. They
played the last game and put their Nationals bid on the line. Maybe
they didn't have to, but I believe there is far more honor and spirit
and fairness in playing the game than in not. I'm glad the game was
played (and I would be even if I played for Los and it happened to me
-- try and imagine that).
Los ended the tournament at #4, which is exactly where their
performance in the games they played puts them. If they won the last
game, they would be going to Nationals. Stop making excuses for them,
they probably don't appreciate that, I know I wouldn't.
P.S. Seriously... does any other sport ANYWHERE have a "forfeit-for-
victory" rule?!?!?!
Barker
Trophy because, by all statistical relevance, they were the better
team.
Tom Brady was quoted: "I mean, we'd beat everyone up to that point!
All the pundits had crowned us already! The game was just a
formality, right? Right? Someone get Goodell on the line. . . "
Congrats to Pike for grinding it out.
-MM
Rob DeVoogd
trying to guilt a team into giving up a bid that they won?
ridiculous.
From what i hear, LOS should have beat Ring. They had a 4 point lead
at one point. They had the disc to win. Does that mean Ring should
give up their bid to LOS? Maybe that's the most equitable solution
here?
This is all pretty clear... LOS didn't have to play the game. Once
they decided to play the game, it counts. The rule is idiotic.. that
much is obvious. And the UPA should definitely change it. But you
can't pick and choose pieces of it. It provides the OPTION not to
play. Once that option is waived.. the game counts. And the option
is waived by playing the game.
All this talk about not knowing the rules has no place in our sport.
Pike and LOS played the game. Pike did what they had to do. And they
won when it counted. This sanctimonious blathering is over the top.
It sucks for LOS.. but them's the rules (at least until they are
changed... and they SHOULD be) and you gotta know them or you might
end up regretting it.
Mitch
> as cut-and-dry as this. Had LOS, being made fully aware of all the
> options available to them, formally waived their right to claim a
> forfeit in the third game against Pike and gone on to play the game,
> then I would completely agree with you here. But that's not what
> happened. LOS (I don't play for LOS, but I have talked with a few of
> their players) was unaware of the rule, and played the third game
> believing they had no other option. They did not give informed consent
> to waive their right to advance via forfeiture. I understand, but
> respectfully disagree with the argument that some are making in the
> threads on this topic that by simply playing the game, LOS was waiving
> their right to a forfeit, because without being made fully aware of
> the consequences of their actions, there was no way for them to
> provide the informed consent necessary to do this.
who says they have to be informed? that might be a nice legal term to
use for the basis in a court of law, but US, NC, or VA law means
nothing in this regard. The structure of this event is governed by
UPA by-laws. Where in the UPA tournament structure, by-laws, etc does
it say a team must be informed of these rules? The UPA puts the info
out there for everyone to see, just like the rules of the sport. It
is the responsibilities of the teams and players to know them.
> Consider an alternative scenario to further illustrate my point. LOS
> is vaguely aware of some rule in the UPA manual that could allow them
> to advance via forfeiture, and they ask the Regional Coordinator about
> this (ignore the fact that the RC plays for LOS; while this does make
> an interesting sidebar, it is fundamentally irrelevant in both this
> hypothetical scenario and the real one which played out). The RC
> replies that he has never heard of this rule, and that LOS must play
> the game. LOS goes on to lose to Pike. Upon returning home, LOS looks
> up the rules and discovers that they were indeed correct, and that the
> RC was wrong to make them play the game. Who should receive the bid?
Great story. But that's not what happened. And the fact that the RC
plays for the team in question on makes it worse for them, as Jared
pointed out. Their third party to lay possible blame on in any appeal
is their own party. I hate writing that because I consider Baker a
friend, but it's the situation at hand.
> I think most would agree that this situation more favors LOS' claim to
> the third bid, having been provided with incorrect information from
> the RC. What is the difference, then, between receiving incorrect
> information from the RC and the RC not being aware of the rule in the
> first place (which is what actually happened)?
It's a huge difference. Being told incorrent information by *the*
authority for the tournament versus not being told anything makes all
the difference in the world.
> My claim would be that there is no difference, and that the UPA's
> rules supersede the knowledge and/or lack of knowledge of the RC in
> both cases.
Since you like analogies....if a cop tells you the speed limit is 75
on a road when it's 55, you have a valid argument with the judge if
you were pulled over going 75. If you just missed the publically
posted 55 sign, you are SOL (no pun intended with LOS spelled
backwards).
> This is why the rules are in place, and they exist whether
> people are aware of them or not.
They exist, but they must be used at a given time, not afterwards.
After the first pull, the game was happening and the outcome
determined the bid, end of story. I would be surprised if the UPA
even considered writing an outcome to set a precedence....If I foul
you and you don't call it, does the UPA need to arbitrate the fact
that a foul was not called, regardless of any knowledge of the rule?
I think one thing that should be pointed out is that the LOS players
aren't asking to change the outcome. I'm not saying this in/validates
any argument being put forth, just that they are living with the
outcome, an approach I respect.
Mitch
ulticritic
They needed to either win that game, or not play it.
they knew this ahead of time.....and they still decided to play it?
Mitch
> I posted more on the other thread... but I'll post some of those
> comments here too...
>
> (I play for Pike)
>
> The "forfeit-for-victory option" is stupid (FIX IT UPA): Two prior
> victories (or even twenty), over ANY span of time (great or small), do
> not indicate AUTOMATIC supremacy over the other team. That's not how
> sports works! If it was, then why have a backdoor bracket at all?
> Why would Nationals or any other tournament ever have "pool play?"
> why do we play games all the way to 15? why not just 5? or 3? or
> just 1? Seriously... does any other sport ANYWHERE have a "forfeit-
> for-victory" rule?!?!?! FIX IT UPA!
I agree you should go to nationals given what happened. But, with
regards to what you said, baseball, hockey, basketball have that in
one form. If you win the first 4 games of the world series, the last
3 games are left unplayed, because you showed you were better. Winning
game seven after losing the first 6 doesn't get you a ring.
Why have the backdoor bracket at all? If Xrates beat you (Pike) in
the previous game, Xrates, a higher seed having beat LOS at
sectionals, would play LOS for the first time all weekend at
regionals. LOS beat you 2-1 this weekend, just lost the game that
mattered. Again, I think you should be going, but I can absolutely
see the logic in the 2-0 rule. You shouldn't have to keep beating the
same team over and over the same weekend. Twice at sectionals, twice
at regionals, etc I can see....but at some point, enough is enough. I
can also see an argument that every "game-to-go" game should be
played. I just don't see it as black-and-white as you do.
> Los ended the tournament at #4, which is exactly where their
> performance in the games they played puts them.
They finished directly behind a team with a better head-to-head record
while not in a 3 or more way tie. Some could argue that's messed up.
Should the NFL switch their head-to-head tie breaker to "who won the
latest matchup"? I would certainly say no. Pike had a better overall
record, but schedule effects that hugely. Pike lost to LOS twice,
never having to play Ring or Truck Stop. LOS lost to both of those
teams, and you once while beating you twice. I think it's very
reasonable to say your strength of schedule was weak while LOS's was
rather strong.
Pike was 6-2, with an average opponent's seed of 8, average seed of
opponent you beat is 8.67, and average oppoent you lost is 6.
Comparatively, LOS was 4-3, with an average opponent's seed of 4.3,
average opponent's seed in victory was 5.25, and average opponent's
seed in loss was 3. You had a huge advantage in triple elimination of
never having to play the top two seeds.
> Stop making excuses for them, they probably don't appreciate that,
> I know I wouldn't.
I personally am not making excuses for LOS. They lost, they shouldn't
go. I'm just pointing out that your reasoning isn't as cut and dry as
you say it is. Not even close, in fact.
> P.S. Seriously... does any other sport ANYWHERE have a "forfeit-for-victory" rule?!?!?!
Again, any sport with a "best-of" series format. Those last games
aren't played if they aren't necessary.
For a third time, I think you should be going. Best of luck in
Sarasota.
Knappy
backwards)."
no anagram intended, either?
ulticritic
> Congrats to Pike for winning their third game against LOS.
> I am simply writing to ask Pike if they would consider giving up their
> spot at nationals so that LOS can go. Given all the recent chat about
> "spirit of the game" and "sportsmanship" etc,
but isnt there somthing to be siad for LOS showing good spirit/
sportsmanship by NOT asking for, wanting or expecting that
spot........and that it would be an even greater display for pike to
offer and los to decline. Now if THAT were to happen i'd say you
people might have somthing here with this sotg crud.........but we all
know, it wont, so.....................
JH
Completely agreed. The only way I could possibly find a crack in this
is if the RC was on Pike, in which case there could be questions of
conflict of interest, but personal responsibility is the key here: if
you care enough to give hours every week practicing; if you care
enough to fly and drive all over the country; if you care enough to
play a grueling weekend and throw yourself all over the place, then
you should care enough to learn the rules--ESPECIALLY those that
determine if you make nationals or not.
But really, it doesn't matter, both teams agreed to play the game, and
thus the result is the result. Anything else would suggest serious
moral hazard on LOS, having insulated them from the risk of actually
losing.
Classy play by LOS to play the game. Congrats to Pike for winning.
-Handy
Mitch
> opponent you beat is 8.67, and average oppoent you lost is 6.
> Comparatively, LOS was 4-3, with an average opponent's seed of 4.3,
> average opponent's seed in victory was 5.25, and average opponent's
> seed in loss was 3. You had a huge advantage in triple elimination of
> never having to play the top two seeds.
correcting a typo....LOS's aveage seed of their 3 losses was 2, not
three, comapred to Pike's average of 6. And their average seed of all
opponents was 3.9.
For this format, Pike finished higher...but in comparing what happend
overall this weekend, LOS performed better. LOS took Ring to double
game point, beat two higher seeds (one twice), while Pike beat nothing
lower seeds, and lost to one lower seed twice.
Will Reed
they plan on preventing situations like this in the future. This
needs to be addressed by more than just reviewing or changing the rule
in question. Going forward the UPA needs to ensure that the
Coordinator at any championship event is aware of the rules, potential
outcomes and conflicts that may arise due to the tournament format.
Props to the RC for stepping up and making the event happen. Congrats
to Pike and LOS for playing a very exciting game.
ulticritic
>
> I would have to say I disagree. Maybe if this were another sport, I
> could agree with you, but in our sport a heavy emphasis is placed on
> the players having to know the rules.
but isnt sotg supposed to trump all rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A player who is ignorant of the
> rules of the game is by no means unaccountable to them.
how about an rc being ignorant of the "qualifying" rules? isnt the
responsibility of the upa to ensure its members that their
representatives KNOW the policies?
----------------------------------------------------------
And if, for
> instance, a player in a game is fouled and loses possession of a disc
> he would've caught otherwise, it is on him to make the call.
eh, this is a little different. in real sports teams can protest
issues in games too. I remember in little league my big brothers team
coming back and playing the last inning of a game over due to an error
of some kind by the ump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he
> does not the foul because he doesn't understand that he could does not
> mean he can later, after learning the rule, go back and nullify the
> play. Once he choose to continue on he has lost his chance to make
> that call. Tacit consent in our sport is sufficient.
obviously not
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> Now LOS is expected to also know the rules of the UPA tournament
> series.
where does it say that? and, moreso than the rc himself? is there no
one person at regional events that has "final word" on an issue of
controversy? seems like "that person" would HAVE to be the RC
----------------------------------------------------
These rules are freely available online and, while I'm sure
> most people myself included will never look at them, nobody can say
> they aren't provided.
still, there is an implied level of service on the part of the
organization to provide knolegable people to interpret and manage
policy, isnt there? especially when there is a payment involved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since LOS had the opportunity to learn this rule
> and did not, they are still expected to abide by it. The UPA also
> provides volunteers to assist teams in coordinating the tournaments,
> and this would be the person who LOS could presumably complain to for
> not being made aware of the rule. This person happens to be a member
> of that team so it seems they're totally out of luck.
why? if that rc was never made responsible by the administration to
be fully aware of said policy? seems like it ultimately comes back on
the leaders. The fact he was on there team makes it more interesting,
to say the least, but the question is, did the upa do their due
diligence to make sure that all their reps KNOW AND UNDERSTAND
qualification policy thoroughly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree in
> that I think it is somewhat relevant the RC plays for LOS. If he
> didn't I could see them attempting to make a case, although I believe
> without merit, for why they got screwed. However having the RC on your
> team kind of kills that line of argument.
kinda, but not completely. I would say that had the rc been on pike
this would be a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty,(GIVE IT UP FOR
CURB!!!) pretty fucked up situation...........that would definitely be
even more revealing of ultimates sotg level than the current
situation.
ulticritic
>
> P.S. Seriously... does any other sport ANYWHERE have a "forfeit-for-
> victory" rule?!?!?!
does any othe sport have an anti ref overtone?
wix
> For this format, Pike finished higher...but in comparing what happend
> overall this weekend, LOS performed better. LOS took Ring to double
> game point, beat two higher seeds (one twice), while Pike beat nothing
> lower seeds, and lost to one lower seed twice.
As far as I've read, no one's mentioned that Pike played 8 games to
Los' 7 over the weekend. The automatic counter-argument is that Los'
penultimate game was v. a tougher team. Which challenges a team's
resilience more? I don't think we can draw definitive conclusions.
But let's not act like Pike actually *benefited* from losing to Los
earlier.
Clay Z
Mitch ... your argument for why the rule is valid and Los should be
going is great ... except for the MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF YOUR
ARGUEMENT :
your words "LOS beat you 2-1 this weekend, just lost the game that
mattered."
exactly. as knappy pointed out, it is a triple elimination format for
the third bid. The most important game for both teams was the "GAME TO
GO" which was the one that was played at the end. the game that
"mattered" as you stated yourself.
Your baseball reference makes no sense to me cause we don't play "best
of series". However, in a best out of 7 series, the world series
champions must WIN the 4 games in the series. If they win the first 3,
and have one more game to "clinch" the title, and can't win that
fourth game, (the "one that matters most") they lose the championship.
Football is a better example cause their is no "best of" playoff
games. If the eagles lose to the Giants in NFC east games and the
Giants go into the playoffs w/ a 2-0 record vs. the eagles ...then
according to this UPA forfeit rule ... the Giants are allowed to claim
supremacy and get an automatic forfeit win to advance? Um .... no!
I come away with two things:
1) This rule is stupid and I think most of us agree that you need to
WIN by effort (not forfeit) in any "game to go".
2) Pike won the game that mattered most ... the "game to go" in a
third bid placement bracket.
Both teams could have easily advanced and are "national caliber"
teams. Unfortunately, Los blew a lead to Pike, then lost the 3rd place
game to go!
Good luck to both teams in the future,
Clayton
ulticritic
> you care enough to give hours every week practicing; if you care
> enough to fly and drive all over the country; if you care enough to
> play a grueling weekend and throw yourself all over the place, then
> you should care enough to learn the rules
how about the upa "caring" enough about the series to make sure all
their reps were fully aware of how to administer policy?
ulticritic
Going forward the UPA needs to ensure that the
> Coordinator at any championship event is aware of the rules, potential
> outcomes and conflicts that may arise due to the tournament format.
word fuckin up!
Mitch
> As far as I've read, no one's mentioned that Pike played 8 games to
> Los' 7 over the weekend. The automatic counter-argument is that Los'
> penultimate game was v. a tougher team. Which challenges a team's
> resilience more? I don't think we can draw definitive conclusions.
> But let's not act like Pike actually *benefited* from losing to Los
> earlier.
I don't think you can definitively say Pike didn't benefit from losing
to LOS. By beating Pike, Los had to play Truck Stop the first time,
Ring the second time. Beating Pike twice lead to two losses against
MUCH tougher opponents. By losing to LOS twice, that got Pike wins
against weaker opponents.
I think a legitimate question is, knowing you can only lose 2 if you
want to advance, would you rather play:
7 games......seeds being 11, 3, 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, or
8 games......seeds being 14, 6, 12, 10, 5, 6, 5, 6
By losing to LOS where they did, Pike avoided playing the 1, 2, and 4
seeds the whole weekend. When the number of losses is the key, I'd
rather play 1 extra game while playing noticably weaker opponents than
1 fewer games against a monumentally tougher field, especially if it
means I never see a higher seed, ever.
Should Pike not go because of this? Of course not. not even close.
I just brought this up when someone (a Pike player) said they finished
higher based on performance. I argue they finished higher almost
solely based on schedule, not overall performance.
Another way to look at it....if I were to be given the results of all
the games for the top 6 teams (I use six because I haven't looked at
the overall game results of the rest), but not told the order in which
those games were played, I would keep the tournament results same,
except switch Pike and LOS. I think that is the justification for the
2-0 forfeit rule. They already clinched a best of 3 series. Again, I
still think Pike should go because the game was played, regardless of
who knew what. Rules are rules, but the 2-0 rule does have some merit.
Steve Loomis
> Congrats to Pike for winning their third game against LOS.
> I am simply writing to ask Pike if they would consider giving up their
> spot at nationals so that LOS can go. Given all the recent chat about
> thing that can be done if Pike really does agree that LOS is the
> better team. According to the rule book, LOS did all they needed to
> do in order to qualify for Nationals. As just my own opinion, LOS is
> the better team, and has the most chance of success in Sarasota. I
> would not look down on Pike if they choose to keep their bid to
> nationals, but I would be very impressed if they elect to give the bid
> back to LOS. I am not especially vested in this....but wanted to
> throw this out there. Sticky situation, no matter what happens. Much
> respect to both teams.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> Dave Snoke
> Ring of Fire
This seems like a clear cut case where spirit dictates that Pike
should have informed LOS of their options. We've all at least
witnessed cases where player A informs player B that he fouled him,
even though player B didn't think to call it. Or where a veteran
player explains the rules to a newbie, to the veteran's disadvantage.
On a reset after a foul, a defender positions himself three yards
behind his man, who then tells him, "You can come closer. I was open,
but I wasn't that open." It happens, even in serious games. Not all
the time, but it's there. That's spirit.
The only way I see that you could argue that SOTG doesn't obviously
compel Pike to disclose the loophole is that maybe you figure SOTG
governs behavior in the game, not before the game. That one is for
the philosophers to work out. But unless that's your defense, than
Pike committed a spirit foul by keeping their mouths shut.
And I agree that it's a dumbass rule. That's no defense.
And my brief experience with LOS suggests that they are world class
assholes (or at least a prominent handful of them are). That's also
no defense.
And I understand that nattys are a big deal. No defense.
Reggie Fanelli
follow the schedule, right?
if one team wants to play....then ya play the schedule.
hard to beat a team three times? did someone already say that?
is Ian on Pike?....WUFF Camp!
Reggie Fanelli
---wuff camp.
ulticritic
> i hate pike as much as the next guy...and like LOS
maybe pike is just saving los from getting trounced at nationals.
Isnt that what will likely happen to pike?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> is Ian on Pike?....WUFF Camp!
ian was a wuff camper????
Reggie Fanelli
yes.
Ian McClellan
> ...... You shouldn't have to keep beating the
> same team over and over the same weekend.
Yes you should! If the format keeps pitting them against each other
(as multiple-elimination bracket formats tend to do), then you should
absolutely have to keep beating them! Who says any given team's
regional experience is required to have variety?
> > P.S. Seriously... does any other sport ANYWHERE have a "forfeit-for-victory" rule?!?!?!
>
> Again, any sport with a "best-of" series format. Those last games
> aren't played if they aren't necessary.
A "best-of" series is not even a relevant comparison. In fact, it's
kind of the exact opposite of bracket play... Furthermore, there are
no forfeits in a "best-of" series. One team simply reached the
necessary goal first to advance. Kinda like how we play to 15
points. It's not like the winning team is "forfeiting" the rest of
the points in the game and declaring victory through that forfeit...
they just won cuz they got there first. Any team who wins 4 games in
a best-of-7 series wins when they reach 4 because that's the goal and
the pre-requisite for advancing.
In this tournament format, Los would've been forced to play any other
team (except Pike) that advanced to that level of the tournament (to
fight for 3rd place). That's where it's broken. The game would've
been played by XRates or Forge or whoever if they had won the games it
took to get them there. But for some reason, the designers of this
format felt that two teams shouldn't have to play 3 times. Well why
not? The rest of the format requires winning games in a bracket
format as the condition to advance. 1st place, 2nd place, 4th-16th
places aren't determined by "how many times" you beat any given
opponent. So why should 3rd place be decided that way? If the 15 of
the 16 final results are determined by bracket play, why isn't this
one? It's broken because someone made a bracket format with an
element of "best-of" conditions for only 1 of the 16 placements (3rd
place). It's out of place. It is not logical. If you're going to
design a bracket format, then stick with it to the end! If two teams
have to play each other a thousand times to decide the results of
bracket play, then that's what they are required to do, BECAUSE IT'S A
BRACKET TOURNAMENT. I feel like I'm saying the same thing 5 different
ways, and I hope my point gets across. No team should advance past
another team in "bracket format" by forfeiting. Ever. That's not how
bracket formats work.
Ian McClellan
> but isnt there somthing to be siad for LOS showing good spirit/
> sportsmanship by NOT asking for, wanting or expecting that
> spot.
Um... who said they didn't?
Because they most certainly did... They appealed directly to the UPA
Club Open Competition Coordinator (or whatever his title is) ...and I
don't blame them one bit.
pacemaker
Not taking a side here, but just thinking out loud.
At what point did the Pike players know about the forfeit rule? If
they knew about it before or during the 2nd game with LOS, then the
Pike players could see that game could effectively be an elimination
game if LOS dropped down to play them again later. In that case, Pike
would have to be playing it like was an elimination game, but lost.
In effect, it was a game-to-go for Pike, but not for LOS.
ulticritic
i was simply refuting the op's request and thus interpretation of
where the "real" spirit lies. Kinda like two old timers(or jerry
sienfeld and his dad) fighting over a restaraunt check. I'm just
saying that los has an equal chance of showing as good spirit by
letting it go as you guys do of giving it up. and like that one guy
said, maybe ring should step up show some spirit and give up their
spot. especially since theve been there for the last umteen years.
give someone else a chance to experience that for a change.
Sam Stein
The *purpose* is not to follow a particular schedule or format or to
play as many games as possible. The purpose is to advance the best
teams to the national tournament. The rule is just fine in this
regard.
If Forge or XRates had fought their way up the 3rd place bracket, they
would've deserved the shot at Los much more than Pike, only losing one
and zero times previously to them. XRates is an obvious case. And in
the case of one prior loss, those can often be called the result of a
fluke/one bad call/etc/etc -- though I'm not saying that would've been
the case with Forge.
In the case of Pike, there was already VERY strong evidence of which
team was the best team. In fact, in this case, Los had outscored Pike
by 11 points in their previous two meetings. I would guess the rule
is actually there to ensure a demonstrably superior team does not get
bypassed by a lesser team fortunate enough to have not just lost on
universe point. The rule, when implemented, likely ensures a region
is best represented at Nationals. I doubt that has happened now...
Additionally, on a bit of a sidenote/side-thought- isn't there at
least some merit to the argument that a first meeting is actually the
most important? That is the only time two teams play with the actual
regional CHAMPIONSHIP still on the line.
wix
direction.
and, good post. i had terrible timing with that last one and posted
when that particular discussion was already past.
wix
yup. far classier than an RSD campaign.
tiny
> People are forgetting the primary reason for a regional tournament.
> The *purpose* is not to follow a particular schedule or format or to
> play as many games as possible. The purpose is to advance the best
> teams to the national tournament. The rule is just fine in this
> regard.
>
> If Forge or XRates had fought their way up the 3rd place bracket, they
> would've deserved the shot at Los much more than Pike, only losing one
> and zero times previously to them. XRates is an obvious case. And in
> the case of one prior loss, those can often be called the result of a
> fluke/one bad call/etc/etc -- though I'm not saying that would've been
> the case with Forge.
>
> In the case of Pike, there was already VERY strong evidence of which
> team was the best team. In fact, in this case, Los had outscored Pike
> by 11 points in their previous two meetings. I would guess the rule
> is actually there to ensure a demonstrably superior team does not get
> bypassed by a lesser team fortunate enough to have not just lost on
> universe point. The rule, when implemented, likely ensures a region
> is best represented at Nationals.
Sam beat me to this. I was going to post something almost identical
to this. The MOST important aspect of any format for a series event
is to decide the final place that advances to the next round. Once
you reach nationals, the most important aspect is obviously to
determine the correct champion (fairly easy for a format to do - the
prior is actually much more difficult). The one thing that I think
is silly about the rule is that it is optional to play the game.
Personally, I think this should be changed and that the game
automatically just does not happen. Once up 2-0 against a team with
only one game left, you are obviously the better team. Pike also
needs to understand the rule just as much as Los and understand that
once they lose to Los twice, they will be forced to forfeit the game
if they play again. (I'm not 100%, but three games in one tournament
is definitely rare and I believe it can only happen in that last game
of the day). Besides, who the hell in their right mind and knowing
the rule is going to agree to play this game already up 2-0 with a bid
to nationals on the line? This rule only almost once came into play
and the top DC team at the time was the team that potentially had a
match-up looming in the 3rd place game against a team they had already
beaten twice. Their response when informed of the option to play
should that team advance to their game was essentially an immediate
"uh, no thanks." The team they beat twice lost and thus it never
mattered and they still had to play the 3rd place game to go to
nationals.
Btw, I have heard that many people on site we're aware of the rule and
that it had been discussed quite a bit. Secondly, I have seen at
least one post that said that Pike was also very clear of the rule.
If this is true, kind of interesting moral dilemma that they failed to
inform Los of their option to not play the game. Also interesting
that no one at the site who knew the rule informed Los of their
option.
As the previous Open Mid-Atlantic RC, I am particularly heartbroken by
this story, especially for the RC. He's a good guy and I am very
thankful that he stepped up and took the job over for me so that I
could play in the mixed division. I absolutely hope that this is not
the defining moment in his ultimate or RC career. He is human and
there was a detail that is only under very rare circumstances
applicable at regionals that he was apparently unaware of.
Unfortunately, it had a critical impact on the outcome on the
tournament and on a personal level for himself and his own team.
Unfortunately for Los, I do also agree that once the game has been
played, it has been played. I doubt the UPA will overturn the outcome
of this tournament. Sad outcome. No one wants to see something like
this happen and hopefully something will be done in the future to help
prevent something like this happening again. Unfortunately, this is
not the first time that similarly tragic, but unlikely outcomes have
forced changes in formats. When I was originally an RC you did not
get a third loss on Sunday in the double elim format with three teams
advancing. This was only changed once it was realized that there was
an unlikely, but possible outcome in which the team that finished the
tournament 4th never played the team that finished the tournament
3rd. I believe that this actually happened (maybe in the central
region?) before they changed the format to prevent this possibility.
Alex Peters
automatically be forced to forfeit that GTG because they are 0-2 vs
the team they are set to play, why would they even try to win the
current game? They will just go "hey (current opponent), we are
fucked, so we're just going to throw you 15 callahans and help you
rest up so you can smoke those guys next game."
David Stoddard
I asked one of the guys on Pike that question and he said, "We still
want to finish as high as we can." So there is your answer Alex.
Alex Peters
that game to Ring, they didn't know if Los knew that rule or not, and
they didn't know that if Los did know that rule, that they would elect
to play or not. Who knows what this person would say if they were
facing automatic elimination no matter what, and that's only one guy.
Personally, I would be doing everything I could to ensure that Los has
to play their way in, and has a damn tough time doing it. Does a
number on the internet saying 4th place instead of 5th place really
matter so much, especially if you know you probably could have taken
4th if you wanted to.
tiny
Yes, a number on the internet saying 4th instead of 5th does mean a
lot to at least some of us. I'd actually be shocked if a team caved
in the last game of their long hard fought season just because they
knew it would not result in a bid to nationals. I mean, who wants to
end their season on a losing note when they have a chance to end with
a win?
At this point, most 4/5th place teams will instantaneously realize
that you are no longer playing for nationals this year, but for the
next. Many of the teams that qualify for nationals do not get there
on their first try. Many have to fight and claw their way to the top
over a number of years. Look at Tau, look at truckstop or for that
matter, even Pike. So you fight for every game in front of you
against every meaningful opponent. Because when your recruiting next
year, how you handled yourself in that game that "didn't matter" may
very much indeed matter.
And of course, Ring and Los are playing at the exact same time as
Pike. So when is it exactly that you are supposed to tank your game?
Considering that the game went to double game point, Pike couldn't
have possibly known until the very end of their game.
JB
>
> - Show quoted text -
Having just worked our way through a losers bracket to win a third
spot, we had an interesting scenario that only came clear to me later.
A team we faced in the pre-game to go had some percieved prior
knowledge that we had no intention of going should we have won the 3rd
bid. They were thinking (and this is heresay) that we should forfeit
the game to give them a chance at the spot. In any case, we won the
bid in the game to go and the bid went to the team we beat, leaving
the team we beat previously bitter (again heresay). I only heard about
this forfeit business after the
fact, but it would not have changed anything in my opinion. Can
forfeiting meaningful games ever be beneficial? Did the team we beat
for the bid play worse because they suspected we would give it back to
them anyway?
JB
Stafa
> The one thing that I think
> is silly about the rule is that it is optional to play the game.
> Personally, I think this should be changed and that the game
> automatically just does not happen. Once up 2-0 against a team with
> only one game left, you are obviously the better team. Pike also
> needs to understand the rule just as much as Los and understand that
> once they lose to Los twice, they will be forced to forfeit the game
> if they play agai
Why is a team automatically better just because they are up 2-0?
Although the circumstances of this situation have happened and can be
reviewed in hindsight, the mere victory twice does not mean a team is
better.
Think of various situations which others have already raised. What if
one team has just played a mammoth Universal point game and the other
a quick and easy 15-0 game. One is fresher. Both the other has game
face and is pumped (maybe not if they lost the universal point). What
if wind is a factor and it comes down to who won the toss and picks
downwind first? If the same team wins the toss twice in a row, then
why are they automatically the better team. There are many situations
where a team can go 2-0 up within the same tourny, yet this does not
mean they are the better team.
I don't know the circumstances of this situation other than what i
have read on RSD, but the point i would make is that you should not
base rules around this specific circumstance as if it is only possible
scenario for a team to be up 2-0 because they are "better". If they
were truly the "better" team, then they would be able to win the third
game no matter the circumstances.
DanD
since they had already beat the team you gave your bid to...
Rob DeVoogd
> only one game left, you are obviously the better team.
-HUH? tell that to the 2004 red sox. Again.. Pike won when it
counted. Everyone is talking like LOS had no chance here.. like they
lost to Ring and Pike just stole their bid and ran away with it...
That's just not the case. A game was played. A "game to go." Both
teams knew (or thought they knew) that it was the "game to go." Pike
won it. End of story. I have no investment either way.. but these
arguments are ludicrous.
Pike also
> needs to understand the rule just as much as Los and understand that
> once they lose to Los twice, they will be forced to forfeit the game
> if they play again.
-did you even read the rule? Cause this doesn't demonstrate a
very good understanding of it. It does not say that Pike must forfeit
if they have lost twice to LOS. It says either team has the OPTION of
not playing this game. LOS chose to play the game. They lost. Pike
won. End of story.
(I'm not 100%, but three games in one tournament
> is definitely rare and I believe it can only happen in that last game
> of the day).
-Do you know what the last game of the day on sunday of
regionals is? It's the "game to go." The team that wins that game
advances to nationals. Pike and LOS played... Pike won.
The main point of all this is that the rule is idiotic and should be
done away with. Are you out there UPA? Change this rule.
dj
harder on another team to qualify? Not even knowing if they'd play the
game to go against you or not? that's ridiculous, the rule is
ridiculous, this entire thread is ridiculous. they played, pike won,
it's fcking done with. you play to win, that's why we keep score and
this isn't fcking pickup.
Alex Peters
harder on another team to qualify? Not even knowing if they'd play the
game to go against you or not?"
No, I'm responding to Tiny's scenario in which the game to go would
*automatically* not happen if a 0-2 team was scheduled to meet their
2-0 rival. While in this case Pike didn't know yet the outcome of the
2nd place game, it's not much of a stretch to have the 2nd place game
be a blowout and be done early, in which case the 0-2 team would
probably know that they are now automatically eliminated, win or
lose. Either way, you are making a choice to make it harder on one
team to make nationals, either the team you are playing (by
eliminating them when you have no shot) or the 2-0 team by losing and
forcing them to play a game to go. I would rather see the two teams
play to go than to automatically send one without playing.
tiny
> "wow, so you're saying that you'd forfeit your game just to make it
> harder on another team to qualify? Not even knowing if they'd play the
> game to go against you or not?"
>
> No, I'm responding to Tiny's scenario in which the game to go would
> *automatically* not happen if a 0-2 team was scheduled to meet their
> 2nd place game, it's not much of a stretch to have the 2nd place game
> be a blowout and be done early, in which case the 0-2 team would
> probably know that they are now automatically eliminated, win or
> lose. Either way, you are making a choice to make it harder on one
> team to make nationals, either the team you are playing (by
> eliminating them when you have no shot) or the 2-0 team by losing and
> forcing them to play a game to go. I would rather see the two teams
> play to go than to automatically send one without playing.
I do see your point, Alex. The real issue is that there is not a
single format in the UPA manual that is perfect. (except for maybe
championship events, simply because its much easier for a format to
only worry about getting the #1 team correct). So you have to decide
which imperfections you are going to go with and hopefully limit them
as much as possible. In this specific case, do you want a possibility
of a team 1-2 against the 4th place team to advance or do you want
prevent the situation you have described. Obviously neither are
completely ideal. I'd be surprised if the UPA format committee didn't
specifically discuss this point and they seem to have gone with the
1-2 record against the 4th place team being the worse scenario. (I'd
really love to hear from Adam Tarr or someone else on the format
committee though as I'm sure they could provide far better insight
than myself). I'm also guessing that they will re-address this
scenario and this rule the next time they meet.
Mitch
> Once up 2-0 against a team with
>
> > only one game left, you are obviously the better team.
>
> -HUH? tell that to the 2004 red sox.
The 2004 Red Sox were in a best of 7. Since only 3 games could be
played against he same team, the equivalent would be being up 2-0 in a
best of 3.
> Everyone is talking like LOS had no chance here.. like they
> lost to Ring and Pike just stole their bid and ran away with it...
No, not everyone. Most are (including me) are saying Pike should
absolutely go. What we are pointing out is the merit of the 2-0
rule. Is it perfect? No. But some are arguing there is no
justification for it, I say BS. Pike never played 3 of the top 4
teams, played more bottom dwellers while Los battled with the big
boys, almost beating one. Los beat the *all* quality opponents they
had in common with Pike, and beat Pike twice out of three possible
meetings for the weekend. The justification for the 2-0 rule is that
looking at the results as a whole, ignoring order, clearly shows Los
to be the better team. The only way to put Pike ahead is to look at
the results of literally only 1 game out of an entire tournament.
Again, doesn't make it perfect, but it is a very valid argument (just
like someone believing all games with bids on the line should be
played is a perfectly valid stance).
> End of story. I have no investment either way.. but these
> arguments are ludicrous.
Not to some. Not to many, in fact.
> The main point of all this is that the rule is idiotic and should be
> done away with. Are you out there UPA? Change this rule.
On it's surface, the rule does look bad, but looking at how things
played out to generate the scenario (Pike playing only lower seeded
teams over and over while Los played the top), I can see the support
for it. (actually still undecided as to where I stand).
Sam Stein
The rules should be changed so that there is not even an option for a
2-0 vs. 0-2 game to happen. In that case, Pike would have been "on
notice" that losing their second game against Los could end up
resulting in their elimination. Yes, it would suck for a team in that
situation to have to fight their way into the 3rd place game, blindly
hoping they would get to play the game (in this case, they would've
been rooting for Los to beat Ring for second place). But I think that
sucks less than the outcome we had.
A team that loses multiple head-to-head matchups has probably earned
the right to have a nervous Sunday afternoon.
Also, the hypothetical argument that a team like Pike might hand away
their game away to a team like X-Rates, knowing by the end that they
were eliminated, is totally bunk. Who the hell would do that??? And
anyway, if a team was not willing to fight for that extra bit of glory
just for fourth place, then obviously they don't deserve a shot a
nationals.
Mitch
> Mitch ... your argument for why the rule is valid and Los should be
> going is great ... except for the MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF YOUR
> ARGUEMENT :
>
> your words "LOS beat you 2-1 this weekend, just lost the game that
> mattered."
>
> exactly. as knappy pointed out, it is a triple elimination format for
> the third bid.
It is a triple elimination for certain teams, it is not triple
elimination across the board. For those arguing that Pike would be
jobbed being eliminated while only losing two games, 11 of the 17
teams were eliminated from contention after their 2nd loss, not their
3rd.
> The most important game for both teams was the "GAME TO
> GO" which was the one that was played at the end. the game that
> "mattered" as you stated yourself.
No, LOS played two games to go, Pike played one. Pike played their
most important game after LOS played theirs. I agree that the end
game is the one that mattered *because it was played*. It wouldn't
have been played had LOS known the rule (which is their fault they
didn't).
> Your baseball reference makes no sense to me cause we don't play "best
> of series". However, in a best out of 7 series, the world series
> champions must WIN the 4 games in the series. If they win the first 3,
> and have one more game to "clinch" the title, and can't win that
> fourth game, (the "one that matters most") they lose the championship.
????? I hope you typed that wrong. the world series champ must win 4
games, but losing game 4 after winning the first three doesn't lose
the championship, it brings on game 5. if they lose, it brings on
game 6. if they lose, it brings on game 7. if they lose, THEN they
lose the championship. No matter the outcome of the final game, Pike
could not secure a better *performance* at Regionals. A higher
finish, yes. A better performance, no. That's the idea behind the
2-0 rule.
> Football is a better example cause their is no "best of" playoff
> games. If the eagles lose to the Giants in NFC east games and the
> Giants go into the playoffs w/ a 2-0 record vs. the eagles ...then
> according to this UPA forfeit rule ... the Giants are allowed to claim
> supremacy and get an automatic forfeit win to advance? Um .... no!
Regular season versus playoffs. UPA is saying performance at the
tournament, ie, the playoffs, not the season as a whole. Regular
season produces seeds. Performance in playoffs produced results. And
football is worse than baseball because they play single elimination.
A triple elimination where you play the same team over and over is
closer to a best of series (though I fully admit, it isn't the same).
A common question here is "name one sport that uses a foreit to win it
approach." Well, name a sport that uses triple elimination *that
isn't really triple elimination for most of the teams.*
> I come away with two things:
>
> 1) This rule is stupid and I think most of us agree that you need to
> WIN by effort (not forfeit) in any "game to go".
> 2) Pike won the game that mattered most ... the "game to go" in a
> third bid placement bracket.
I agree Pike should go, no question. I do not agree the rule is
stupid. Pike never played #1, #2, or #4 (and was #3), while LOS
played #1, #2, and #3 (thrice). In a format where # of losses
matters, I think that is a huge disadvantage that the 2-0 rule
equalizes. Do I fully support the 2-0 rule? No. But I think it has
merit and isn't dismissed as stupid.
Jeff
be played out. All the nonsense saying that one team had a harder path
than another team really just needs to be dismissed as all games
played led up to the only Pike versus LOS game that mattered regarding
advancement.
The 2 wins and then forfeit scenario is a highly constructed way to
determine an outcome ... how the heck was that one ever arrived at
(lets hear stories) it may make sense in a meeting room late in the
afternoon, but on the fields late in the afternoon with a bid on the
line it makes no sense at all.
does anyone else wonder what the people who made all the decisions
about placement, regions and bids are thinking (or laughing about)
right now ... where are you Brian Canniff, Jin Ding, Hank Ibser, AJ
Iwaszko, Florian Pfender, David Raflo, Adam Tarr, Will Deaver and
Michael Degnan
> > for it. �(actually still undecided as to where I stand).- Hide quoted text -
JB
Yes I play for the Cougar. #21, tall loud blond guy. Can't miss me
(except at nationals, you'll miss me at nationals)
Seriously though, should the two teams have had to play off for the
returned bid? If the two teams in question were from the same section,
would that make it okay to have the teams play off? Or is it really
just a matter of winning at the appropriate times. Bitterness may have
been a bad choice of word, disappointed in having missed a golden
opportunity is more accurate in this case. Truth be told, Kapow got
the worst deal here. They are a better team then the Cougar, Killjoy,
or BCBC IMO.
AE
I haven't seen the bracket, but would it have been possible for Pike
to play LOS before the last game for a third time - and if so, what
would have happened then? LOS could have had a bye before a game-to-
go? Or is it impossible to play a team 3 times in this format until
the final game...
If it is possible, then that 2-0 rule would really throw things off,
because the 2-0 team would have a bye and a huge advantage for the
game-to-go...
tiny
>
> The rules should be changed so that there is not even an option for a
> notice" that losing their second game againstLoscould end up
> resulting in their elimination. Yes, it would suck for a team in that
> situation to have to fight their way into the 3rd place game, blindly
> hoping they would get to play the game (in this case, they would've
> sucks less than the outcome we had.
>
Sam, so I have tried to do a bit more research on why there is the
"option," but have not come up with a good answer yet. Remember that
the rule does not simply apply to only a 16 team double elim bracket
with three teams advancing at the regional tournament. It applies to
every single format in the UPA manual.
Also, we have largely been leaving out that this rule is under the
subject "Allowable Forfiets" and that there is a second rule that says
what you can do when one team A has a 0-1 record against team B. Also
understand that forfiet rules were created largely to address the
issue of teams forfieting at sectional tournaments and thus messing up
whatever format was in use. It's an older rule from a time in this
sport when useless forfiets were more common (note I said "more
common" and not "common") in our sport. The UPA inacted forfiet rules
to do what they could to prevent this. So at first, I believe they
just said that if any team forfeits any game, then that team can not
advance to the next round no matter how well they do in the
tournament. But with this as a blanket rule, it quickly became
obvious that there were two situations where forfietures would be
reasonable and not at all effect the outcome of the rest of the
tournament.
Case 1 deals with the last game of the day in which Team A is already
0-1 against Team B. Team A does have the option to forfeit this
game. (In the rules it says both teams have to agree, but it is
generally understood that Team B will never want to play this game -
why take the risk?) Its unlikely that Team A would not want another
shot against Team B, but there are a few situations where this might
be reasonable and even plausible. One example might be that Team A is
short on numbers and is worn out from a long tournament and running
out of healthy bodies. Perhaps under these conditions Team A has a
very small chance of winning anyways (maybe game 1 wasn't even close
as it was) and its actually not even worth the risk to additional
injury to play out the game. Yeah, unlikely, but I'm okay with a team
having that option.
Case 2 deals with what we have been talking about which is when team A
is 0-2 against Team B. Only team B has to decide not to play the
game.
So the real question as Sam has pointed out is why was the option part
included in the rule? I'm still trying to figure out if there is a
legitimate reason for that.
Jeff
advance to Nationals via a forfeit.
The fact that the game was played trumps any application of the
forfeiture scenario.
Sam Stein
0-1 team at regionals.
Swarthmore agreed not to play the 2nd place game against GW at 2002
metro east open regionals. There were three bids and Swarthmore had
already guaranteed themselves a top 3 finish and a trip to nationals
by beating Maryland in the previous backdoor game. (GW had beaten
Swarthmore once earlier in the tournament, so the teams decided that
that result was good enough to give GW 2nd place)
And I'm sure it has come up occasionally elsewhere.
On Oct 7, 11:19 am, tiny <erpra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Stein
was over at that point. And with regard to "self-respecting team
wanting to advance" that way, if that had been the case this past
weekend, I'm pretty sure Los would've felt pretty damn good about
advancing based on 15-8 and 15-11 wins over Pike.
Jeff
uproar from a different point of view. The fact is that LOS did not
forfeit the game, they played the game. Once the game started the
forfeiture argument is no longer valid. LOS had the option to forfeit
and did not take it, they played the game.
> > > legitimate reason for that.- Hide quoted text -
Jeff
forfeit. they lost that right when the first pull went off in what
became the go to game
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tiny
>
> does anyone else wonder what the people who made all the decisions
> about placement, regions and bids are thinking (or laughing about)
> right now ... where are you Brian Canniff, Jin Ding, Hank Ibser, AJ
> Iwaszko, Florian Pfender, David Raflo, Adam Tarr, Will Deaver and
> Michael Degnan
>
No offense Jeff, but this is out of line, not grotesquely, but still
out of line. You may not know these people, but I know personally or
have had email conversations with most of the format committee. They
are very smart people who care deeply about the sport and have been
involved at high levels on and off the field for 10-20 years or
longer. They have put in a tremendous amount of time to produce the
format manual (a 115 page technical document that is absolutely good
99.5% of the time), which has been a tremendous evolution in the way
our sport is run whether most people realize it or not. They have
thought of an incredible number of things in regards to the formats
that the vast majority of us never would ever think to address until
an issue arose. Before the manual, series coordinators could pick
whatever format they wanted to chose and run with it. They possibly
had to get it approved by the national director (or regional
coordinator for the sectional coordinators), but this still obviously
left the door open for wide inconsistencies from tournament to
tournament and potential for abuses whether intentional or
accidental.
They are still human though. It is possible that they have missed
something. Knowing how the championship committee's work from being a
UPA "official" myself at one point, I am near certain that this issue
will be addressed at the end of the season and before the next fall
series (probably even before the college series in the spring which
uses the same format manual.) But first, right now, I am sure they
are discussing what to do in regards to the Pike/Los situation. Even
if the "decision" seems obvious, they are professional and they will
discuss it none the less to do everything they can to make sure that
the best outcome occurs. (not necessarily correct, because frankly I
think we are in this case put in a situation where there is no
absolutely correct outcome - and I do understand that some of you will
disagree with me on that)
tiny
The rule also states that it must be the last game of the day.
(People have been mostly leaving that part out).
From page 2 of the formats manual:
Allowable Forfeits
“Placement Games” include games for seeding amongst teams already
advancing
and games to advance to the next stage of the Championship Series
(“games to go”).
Normally, teams are required to play out their entire schedule, lest
they forfeit
the remainder of their games in the Series (see the “Forfeit Rule” in
the latest
Series Guidelines for exact wording). In certain limited situations,
however, a
placement game may be left un-played. This can only be done without
penalty in the
two cases outlined below.
Case 1
1 - It is the last game of the tournament for both teams.
2 - Both teams are already guaranteed to advance to the next stage of
the
Championship Series (or both teams have already been eliminated from
advancing).
3 - Neither of the teams wishes to play the game.
If ALL of the above conditions are met, then the game may be left un-
played. The
final placement of the teams will be determined based on their current
standing in
the format.
Case 2
1 – It is the last game of the tournament for both teams.
2 – The teams have played twice already in the tournament and one team
has a 2-0
record against the other team.
3 – Either one of the teams does not wish to play the game.
If ALL of these conditions are met, then the game may be left un-
played. The team
with the 2-0 record will be placed above the other team in the final
tournament
rankings.
Note that in formats that utilize pool play completion to determine
which
team(s) will advance, all pool games by all teams must be completed or
the forfeiting
team(s) will forfeit the remainder of their games in the Series (see
the “Forfeit
Rule” in the latest Series Guidelines for exact wording). This is
because pool play
completion can result in ties and tie-break scenarios that depend on
the outcome of
games involving teams who are not necessarily in the running to
advance. Therefore,
Cases 1 and 2 above can only be applied to games in placement brackets.
Jeff
be derisive at all ... I have met and worked with a few of the people
I am sorry if anyone thinks I am calling someone one out. It is just
that RSD has actually had some discussions such as regions, placement
and bids that may signal a need to revisit some issues. As anyone who
has had to revisit a decision, there are some self-reflective moments
where you do wonder about how thoughts developed and may have a
chuckle to one's self during that reflection. Like many internet
conversations ... context is impossible to convey via text ... and my
context was not disparaging at all
Sam Stein
that LOS should actually be given the bid to 2009 nationals. They
played the game and lost. Pike is in. We're just talking about the
rules in general/going forward.
However, with that said, I still have to disagree with what you said
below. I am quite certain that there would NOT have been any uproar
if LOS had declined to play that last game. A) The rules allowed for
it, and B) they had clearly proven themselves by convincingly beating
Pike twice, by a combined 30-19.
On Oct 7, 11:49 am, Jeff <jffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
pacemaker
I haven't played out every scenario, but I am pretty sure the 2-0 rule
only shows up in a 16.3.1 bracket when the 3rd and 4th place teams
come from the same group of 4.
Simple solution for clarity. If the UPA wants to keep this rule, the
3/4 game (or ANY game which is allowed to be left unplayed) MUST have
an "if necessary" asterisk and reference to the forfeit rule , and/or
mention of a 2-0 team being allowed to say "no game."
The UPA guidelines have 3 sections on forfeit. The last is a quick
blurb about allowable forfeits with a link to the entire format file.
You then need to wade through that to see the forfeit rule. This is
obscure.
I'd bet that fewer than 5% of the UPA fall series players knew what
case 2 actually said before this thread. Maybe we're now up to 7%.
When I called my brother, he thought it was "same day". Another
friend, who posts here frequently, said he wasn't even aware of the
rule. Both of them are rules geeks.
(( Apparently just as important for 16 team fields with 3 bids using
16.3.2 is avoiding rematches in the semis after pool play and one
round of bracket 16.3.2. That is another headache. ))
Back to the case at hand. I am still not sure what is right. I am
not sure LOS would have played the game had they known the rule. Is
it the format's fault for not mentioning *if necessary? Is it LOS'
fault for not reading the entire forfeit rule with linked information
in the format file? Is it the TD +/- RC's fault (yes, I
understand...) for not being a proper representative of the UPA series
guidelines? I am not sure we know that LOS "wished" to play the
game. Does it have to an active wish not to,play the game?
My brother did have a nice thought. Several years ago, if there were
a question, it would be difficult to get an answer. Now just hop on
any phone and pull up the file right there. But you'd have to know to
do that. I am not sure how much time elapsed between LOS losing the
2/3 game and starting the 3/4 game *if necessary.
Yuck!!
pacemaker
Sam Stein
1/2 hours, actually.
As soon as LOS won their 2nd game against Pike earlier in the day, you
can bet your ass that some of the folks from Pike were thinking about
it! At that point, Pike knew there was a good chance LOS would go on
to lose to Truck or Ring in the 2nd place game. And from what I read
here (not confirmed), some Pike players were aware of the rule on
Sunday.
It was at this point that the RC/TDs failed. They had over two hours
to consider the likelihood of a 2-0 vs. 0-2 final game.
Mitch
> will be addressed at the end of the season and before the next fall
> series (probably even before the college series in the spring which
> uses the same format manual.) But first, right now, I am sure they
> are discussing what to do in regards to the Pike/Los situation. Even
> if the "decision" seems obvious, they are professional and they will
> discuss it none the less to do everything they can to make sure that
> the best outcome occurs. (not necessarily correct, because frankly I
> think we are in this case put in a situation where there is no
> absolutely correct outcome - and I do understand that some of you will
> disagree with me on that)
how do we know that the rule isn't in place for the exact situation
that happened, meaning they would have no reason to discuss it, unless
their stance has changed since they wrote it? Placement games happen
to order the teams after #1 because the necessary info isn't there.
My understanding is that the current format exists because before,
they didn't have the game and it was possible for the #4 finisher to
have never played #3 finisher, thus you end the tourney with two teams
next to each other without enough info to place them relative to each
other, and the result is critical for bids. Thus, the extra games.
The side effect is that you could end up playing games where you
already have the info from that very weekend, the 2-0 record. Playing
a third game either makes it 3-0 or 2-1, neither of which change the
relative performance for the weekend. Thus the rule, simplifying the
outcome.
Maybe I'm giving the competition committee more credit than they
deserve, but I'd bet that this discussion has already happened, way
back when the format manual was being created. That rule isn't in
there by accident. It makes sense. It isn't perfect, but it
certainly has merit.
Sean Keegan
I feel like EVERYONE knew this situation before the game even
happened. I heard on Saturday that LOS wouldn't have to play pike
again on sunday if it came down to it. I'm not on either team, and
didn't really care much either way, but I somehow heard multiple times
that this was the case. How is it possible that everyone was buzzing
about it, and somehow the only team that didn't know was LOS?
I watched the last game and remember asking another unbiased spectator
why LOS was playing that game if they didn't have to, AS ONE OF THE
LOS GUYS WALKED BY. Is it really possible that no one on LOS heard
this possible scenario and thought to bring it up to the RC. The pike
guys certainly knew the situation. I don't think it's Pike's
responsibility to tell LOS of the situation.
Pike won, I'm sure they've bought their tickets, and they deserve to
go. Anyone saying Pike should give their spot to LOS is just dumb.
my $.02
tiny
>
> > Here's a question:
>
> > I haven't seen the bracket, but would it have been possible forPike
> > would have happened then? LOScould have had a bye before a game-to-
> it the format's fault for not mentioning *if necessary? Is itLOS'
> fault for not reading the entire forfeit rule with linked information
> in the format file? Is it the TD +/- RC's fault (yes, I
> understand...) for not being a proper representative of the UPA series
> game. Does it have to an active wish not to,play the game?
>
> My brother did have a nice thought. Several years ago, if there were
> a question, it would be difficult to get an answer. Now just hop on
> any phone and pull up the file right there. But you'd have to know to
> 2/3 game and starting the 3/4 game *if necessary.
>
> Yuck!!
>
> pacemaker
Pacemaker, nice post over all. In terms of Los knowing or not knowing
the rule I guess we don't have official confirmation on that yet,
but...... find me one team who played day two of regionals who would
have said yes if confronted with Los's situation and knowing the
rules. I am very curious to know what percentage of people knew the
rule. I'd say that of the people I talk to at least 50% knew the
rule, but I tend to talk to the format geeks. My guess is that in
reality, even if it is in between our two %'s, its probably a lot
closer to yours than mine.
tiny
>
> I feel like EVERYONE knew this situation before the game even
> happened. I heard on Saturday thatLOSwouldn't have to playpike
> again on sunday if it came down to it. I'm not on either team, and
> didn't really care much either way, but I somehow heard multiple times
> that this was the case. How is it possible that everyone was buzzing
> about it, and somehow the only team that didn't know wasLOS?
>
Nothing wrong with the rest of your post in my opinion, but the part
that says "I heard on SATURDAY...."
At this point, Los had only played Pike once, so this is either
impossible or (more likely) if people were talking this way then they
did not themselves actually understand the rule.
Rhett
Sean,
You raise some good issues. First off, I'd like to say that Pike
deserves to go to Nationals. They beat us (Los) for 3rd place. It's
pretty clear and simple. I'm not sure "how" it's possible that
everyone else knew that we didn't have to play Pike again but I will
say that none of us on Los knew that. We just didn't and we can only
blame ourselves. I do find it interesting though, that Pike never
mentioned anything to us about it...almost as if they were trying to
keep it a secret from us.
And, I'd also like to say that I'm not one to really rally around the
whole SOTG stuff, I find it pretentious that folks break that kind of
stuff out during games. What I do believe in however, is
sportsmanship. I'm a big proponent of that.
I find it disheartening to think that Pike knew about this and chose
not to say anything. Yes, it's not their responsibility, but do you
want to punch your ticket to nationals like that? I wouldn't want to
do that and I wouldn't want to go to nationals under that scenario.
Does it cross the line? Did Pike demonstrate sportsmanship? I'll
leave that for the players of Pike to answer. If you asked me to
trade places with them, I wouldn't. I feel good about what our team
accomplished and they way we conducted ourselves on and off the
field.
Rhett
Throw
Sean Keegan
Tiny,
That was my bad saying that I heard it on Saturday. The first time I
heard it was toward the end of the 2nd match up between Pike/Los which
was indeed on Sunday (games/days/times were mixed in my head.)
And Rhett,
First I’ll say I really feel for you guys. I can’t imagine the
feeling of beating a team twice, then losing the final match up of the
year(in a game that apparently didn’t need to be played) after a heart
breaking loss to Ring right before. Your game against Ring was hella
fun to watch.
Anyway, I don’t want you to take the wrong thing from what I said. I
don’t know that EVERYONE on Pike was aware of the situation, just
that it seemed to be that there was significant chatter about the
situation at hand. I know at least one Pike guy knew the situation,
but I can’t tell you for sure that he told the rest of the team and
they all knew the situation.
I don’t really know what I’d do in either situation. If I was a Pike
member and knew the situation, I don’t know if I’d tell my team. It
might dishearten the rest of the team during their game against X-
rates if they were assuming Ring would beat you in the 2nd place game,
knowing that if Ring won and Pike won there wouldn’t be another
game.
And if I were a captain on Los and a Pike guy, or even the RC, came up
to me and told me I didn’t have to play the game and we were
automatically qualified, I don’t know what I’d do. It’s obviously
very tempting to take the “free” bid. Would it be good sportsmanship
to take the “free” bid? I really don’t know…
It sounds like you guys honestly didn’t know the situation, which is
unfortunate. Things would be much cleaner if you guys knew the
situation and willingly played the game. The main purpose of my
previous post was to put down anyone that said Pike should give up
their spot. I wish that last bid was determined in a less
controversial way, I really do.
- Keegan
Ps… I used “situation” about 8 or 9 times in this post, couldn’t think
of a better word..
Flo
>
> how do we know that the rule isn't in place for the exact situation
> that happened, meaning they would have no reason to discuss it, unless
> their stance has changed since they wrote it? Placement games happen
> to order the teams after #1 because the necessary info isn't there.
> My understanding is that the current format exists because before,
> they didn't have the game and it was possible for the #4 finisher to
> have never played #3 finisher, thus you end the tourney with two teams
> next to each other without enough info to place them relative to each
> other, and the result is critical for bids. Thus, the extra games.
> The side effect is that you could end up playing games where you
> already have the info from that very weekend, the 2-0 record. Playing
> a third game either makes it 3-0 or 2-1, neither of which change the
> relative performance for the weekend. Thus the rule, simplifying the
> outcome.
>
Pretty close to what actually happened. This rule was put in for this
exact situation in 16/3 (no, it is not an anachronism from older
manuals), and then written up as a general rule for possible future
formats (I have not checked, but I think this may be actually the only
place in the current manual where it is possible to occur---Tarr would
know). It was discussed at length and decided that the previous two
games were actually better indicators of the strength/performance of
the two teams than a third game after playing *very* different
schedules with a lot of strong opponents for the 2-0 team during their
6 previous games.
There are quite a few people out there stating that rematches should
not even be played out in 16/2 in the game-to-go. We did not agree
with these people and made the gtg manditory in that case. But in
16/3, the argument to not play that game is much stronger, so we went
the other way on that.
I still believe the rule is good. Leaving the option to play the game
in there is also ok for teams who really want to play that game. Our
mistake was to not put the rule in a more prominent place in 16/3, and
I am pretty sure this will be changed.
Flo Pfender
Mitch
> Pretty close to what actually happened.
>
>
> I still believe the rule is good. Leaving the option to play the game
> in there is also ok for teams who really want to play that game. Our
> mistake was to not put the rule in a more prominent place in 16/3, and
> I am pretty sure this will be changed.
>
thank you very much for chiming in, was hoping to get some info from
those "in the know." I agree that if you are going to have this rule,
either put it in the sections they would apply to, or at least
reference the rule in the sections they would apply to.
Adam Tarr
> This rule was put in for this
> exact situation in 16/3 (no, it is not an anachronism from older
> manuals), and then written up as a general rule for possible future
> formats (I have not checked, but I think this may be actually the only
> place in the current manual where it is possible to occur---Tarr would
> know).
As far as I can tell, it's the only place it can happen in any
regionals (i.e. 4 or fewer advance) format are the 16 team, 3 advance
and 16 team, 4 advance, bracket formats.
It's much more likely in the 3 advance format, though. In that
format, the teams could play for the first time in quarters, so it can
happen if (for example) the 4 and 5 play consistently like the 3rd and
4th best teams. Or, in the case of Pike and LOS, the 3 and 6 play
consistently like the 3 and 4. In the case of the 4 advance format,
the first game has to be a first round game, so it requires something
more exotic, like the 8 and 9 playing like the 4th and 5th best teams.
The only other possibilities I spot are in the 6th place game in the
13-16 team pool formats for 4 or 8 advancing, and the 4th place game
in the 15-16 team pool format for 6 advancing. These are all seeding/
placement games, though, so nobody's going to get too wound up about
them.
I agree with Flo's description of our rationale for the rule.
Peterson
> And if I were a captain on Los and a Pike guy, or even the RC, came up
> to me and told me I didn’t have to play the game and we were
> automatically qualified, I don’t know what I’d do. It’s obviously
> very tempting to take the “free” bid. Would it be good sportsmanship
> to take the “free” bid? I really don’t know…
I wouldn't play the game and I don't think personally that it would be
good or bad sportsmanship either way. Nothing to gain by playing the
game and the situation is codified in the UPA format rules. I also
don't blame Pike for not walking up to LOS and saying "Hey guys
congratulations you know you don't have to play us". I hate it for
LOS as it sounds like they have risen up and were ready to fuck up
some other team's season. Keep battling LOS!
Peterson
Jamie Rhodes
I think there is a valid question of sportsmanship (call it SOTG if
you want, but it is more applicable to use a term that pervades all
sports instead of a unique ultimate construction) that is raised by
this scenario. Who carries the burden of knowledge in this scenario? A
better question is who carries that burden in our sport? If a Pike
player were to approach LOS and say "Hey, you know we don't have to
play this game, right?" then the Pike player is assuming that the LOS
player is ignorant of the rules we have all implicitly agreed to as
members and participants in the UPA. I assume the Pike player that
would have approached you in that scenario had done what they believed
was necessary in order to understand the tournament in which they were
participating. Most of us don't do that. We show up to play and let
the chips fall where they may.
We see two separate approaches to the game and two potential outcomes.
My kudos to the competition committee for developing a rule that
accommodates what I would say are the two dominant philosophies
amongst ultimate players. We have our rules gurus and we have our
players. Some people want to know all the minutiae and others just
want to play the game. I don't like to make broad assertions but these
leads me to believe that LOS falls into the latter category, while,
allegedly, a Pike player or two is in the former. I doubt that if the
tables were turned that Pike would've played the game, but this is
pure speculation.
As to sportsmanship I see two applicable issues. Ultimate is
predicated upon constantly teaching each other in order to spread and
grow our sport. Another foundation is also personal responsibility; it
is your and my responsibility to know the rules. If we were all to
believe the first than Pike should've informed LOS as to the rules so
that everyone competes fairly. If it is the later, then the
responsibility was on LOS to know the situation. If you are on offense
and your team turns over the disc, do you tell your defender?. The
Ultimate is constantly in tension. My personal feeling is that if we
are in a game-to-go to Nationals than the expectation should be the
later. Of course, reasonable minds disagree. Those Pike players that
said nothing have to square their decision with their view of
responsibility. I think we can all agree that when it comes to
qualifying for Natties, our first responsibility is to the players
we've been with all season. Unit, Corps, God, Country.
In the interest of full disclosure: I played for Pike in 06, 07. Many
friends, including my own brother, play for Pike. I heard of the rule
Sunday morning after the second loss to LOS. I looked up the format
afterwards. I was surprised that the game was played. Once it is
played it is official. I think the competition committee could've (and
might have) foreseen this, and I don't think they would have changed
the rule. We have rule freeks and players, and the player's view won
the day.
Jamie Rhodes
Peterson
Then why is everyone so hung up on using the term SOTG rather than
sportsmanship ? SOTG seems to carry some mystical power that ultimate
players think makes them morally superior to other athletes.
Peterson
tiny
Well written Jamie. Until now, I had only suspected that Pike was
fully aware of the rule. I guess this basically confirms it.
Btw, sportsmanship does not need to be a choice between teaching and
player responsibility. Why can't we expect both to occur?
Unfortunately, this isn't a win-lose situation, its a lose-lose
situation in my opinion. No one held up their end of the deal. Just
because the stakes were so much higher does not change what is right
and what is wrong in terms of sportsmanship - This is an athletic
competition, NOT life and death. I do agree that I would not have
gone against my teams decision (unit first, right?), but I sure as
hell would have discussed it with them and given my opinion on it.)
From my experience with the Pike leadership up until '07 as the RC, I
am actually surprised that Pike did not inform Los of the rule or make
sure that they were playing the game in spite of the option to simply
take their bid to nationals.
Did Pike cheat by not informing Los the format rules. Absolutely
not.
Should Pike be asked to give up their bid to nationals? Not at all in
my opinion, but I guess thats up to the UPA championship committee to
decide.
Did Pike exhibit the highest levels of sportsmanship when they failed
to inform Los of an extremely pertinent format rule they obviously
didn't know? Not even close.
And I'd have to say, the "rule freeks" definitely won the day this
time. The only reason that Pike qualified for nationals is because
Los did not know this format rule (unless someone can somehow
legitimately argue that Los would have actually agreed to play this
game with full knowledge of the rule.) Pike didn't actually have to
have a "rules freak," but obviously they were helped out by the fact
that Los did not have one.
-t
Dan
Pike deinitely knew. This is from an unnamed pike player's facebook:
UNNAMED PIKE PLAYER: Pike wins 15-11 over X-rates and is going to the
3rd bid game to go. Playing Los (maybe) they are 2-0 vs us and might
not have to play us
Sun at 2:52pm via Twitter · Comment · Like
so yeah, they knew.
as an aside: congrats to all the mid atlantic teams in all the areas
going to the show. represent well!
Sean Keegan
and "MIGHT NOT HAVE TO PLAY US"
sounds like he was damn sure of the rule! and are we really gonna
bring someones facebook post into this?
Trey Katzenbach
I have played in the 16 team, bracket-play format for 3 spots for
several years in the Mid Atlantic region and this scenario almost
comes up every year. Unfortunately, it never actually came to
fruition or we would know when it goes into effect. I knew of the
rule but never knew when it should be applied because it is so poorly
delineated. It is obvious that no one from Los knew and I know no one
from Pike has ever seen it applied in a tournament so they likely were
not sure of the rule. I can't fault Pike for not mentioning it under
these circumstances. Throw in the fact that the rule sucks and both
teams played their previous games knowing they might face each other
again, and I don't think you can call Pike unspirited or poor sports.
In my opinion, the game to go is always going to be more important
than any games that have been played before, be it 2 or 20. Everyone
knows when the games to go are. That is something everyone can agree
on.
- Trey
Matt
leveled a Machine player about to catch a goal. As a disinterested
spectator I would describe it as an obvious foul and as disregard for
the safety of the other player. Not only does the LOS player contest
the foul, he gets pissed and starts yelling at the Machine player.
The reason I write this is that the rest of LOS didn't say a word.
Not even "sportsmanship". Next year guys.
Brummie
years at university regionals. The same scenario keeps popping up
over and over again; a team that wins their semi final loses in the
final then ends up triple eliminated by a team they've already beaten
on the same day.
Why? Well because one team play a semi, a final (which they put
everything into, as you'd expect) then have to play a 2v3, then a 3v4;
effectively another two semi finals. Compare to the team that lost
the semi final in the first place, who have games against much weaker
teams (often walkovers) and come into that 3v4 game relatively
fresh.
We made some adjustments so that no team should have to replay any
other team on the same day during elimination play (i.e. pool results
can be replayed). The idea of triple elimination is that it allows
two teams that meet in semis the opportunity to advance as seeds 1 &
2, as well as giving a back door for any team that was badly seeded.
I don't think it was ever meant to allow a team to an extra shot
against the same team.
Two years ago my team lost in sudden death in our semi then ended up
replaying the same team in our game to go and walked them over to 7.
They were exhausted. I felt the situation was totally unfair on them
- but we went to Nationals anyway. I initiated the change in how TE
worked so that last year, when they beat us in semis again but lost
the final, the 2v3 game where we were scheduled to meet again was
automatically given as a victory to them; we later played in the game
to go against a different team. I think the new system is a vast
improvement.
Brummie
tiny
3rd and 6th seeds or the 4th and 6th seeds play like they are the 3rd
and 4th seeds. Have not double checked that, but it does sound about
right. The first situation I think being clearly the more likely of
the two to occur.
I'm pretty sure the situation is impossible in the 16 team pool play
format that some regions use due to the way teams are reseeded after
crossover games, but obviously did not have the time to eliminate
every possible scenario.
Frankie
"The only reason that Pike qualified for nationals is because
> Los did not know this format rule (unless someone can somehow
> legitimately argue that Los would have actually agreed to play this
> game with full knowledge of the rule.) "
Ummmm Pike also WON the game to go. That might have helped their
chance of qualifying for nationals.
This is re-dic. Congrats Pike.
tiny
> Hey Tiny
>
> "The only reason thatPikequalified for nationals is because
>
> > legitimately argue thatLoswould have actually agreed to play this
> > game with full knowledge of the rule.) "
>
> chance of qualifying for nationals.
>
> This is re-dic. CongratsPike.
true, they did step up and win that game. Pike is absolutely a good
team. Of course, thats not the point. I wish I could go back and re-
write that sentence though to "The only reason Los didn't qualify for
nationals...".
Adam Tarr
> I've heard now that the only time this can happen is when either the
> 3rd and 6th seeds or the 4th and 6th seeds play like they are the 3rd
> and 4th seeds. Have not double checked that, but it does sound about
> right. The first situation I think being clearly the more likely of
> the two to occur.
That's not true; it can happen with any two teams that meet in the
quarters or earlier. So, the 4 and 5, the 3 and 6, the 1 and the 9,
the 15 and the 10... whatever.
> I'm pretty sure the situation is impossible in the 16 team pool play
> format that some regions use due to the way teams are reseeded after
> crossover games, but obviously did not have the time to eliminate
> every possible scenario.
This is correct. The only other format where this rule can impact who
advances is the 4 advance bracket, and the first game has to be in the
first round (so: 8v9, 7v10, 6v11, etc).
P
Sounds like a true event. I once saw a member of LOS knife an opposing
player, take that player's mom out for a nice seafood dinner and never
call her again. Oh, and he called a travel when the guy fell down. As
a disinterested spectator...I would say that the opposing player did
move his pivot foot. Those guys are a bunch of LOSers
Adam Tarr
> Fellas,
>
> I have played in the 16 team, bracket-play format for 3 spots for
> several years in the Mid Atlantic region and this scenario almost
> comes up every year.
If by "every year" you mean "2004", then I agree with you.
> Unfortunately, it never actually came to
> fruition or we would know when it goes into effect. I knew of the
> rule but never knew when it should be applied because it is so poorly
> delineated.
Really? "If you're 2-0 against a team, you don't need to play them in
the final game to go" is too ambiguous?
I understand that the teams involved may have been ignorant of the
rule, but it seems hard to blame this on the way the rule is explained.
corey
i remember fondly living in a region where we actually had 16 teams at
regionals, and I LOVED bracket play. It's more exciting than pool
play options, IMO. That said, isn't the solution here to just
eliminate the bracket option when there are 3 bids to natties? I know
the south and MA always prefer bracket, so let them keep it for 2
bids. But if they get a wildcard, make 'em play pool play. Wouldn't
that get rid of all this silliness?
Colin
Is the goal of Regionals to send the strongest teams to Nationals? Or
to create a format where the teams can play their way into
Nationals?
It seems the same unfairness is at issue when the team dropping out of
the higher bracket plays ANY team coming up from the lower bracket.
If that's so unfair as to require the two-win exception, then it is
that unfair circumstance itself should be remedied in all cases. If
that game is a bad indicator of strength and strength is the goal,
then we need to change it. Or recognize that strength is not the goal
and accept it. Also, since when is testing endurance not part of the
tournament format?
I don't believe that every 2-0 situation is a good indicator of the
expected outcome of a third game. Lots of factors could come into
play to change the outcome of the third (not just fatigue). Change in
whether conditions, change in personnel, etc. If the teams are evenly
matched and the first two games were close, the third game may very
well be a toss-up. There's also adjustments that each team may make.
One team may be unidimensional and the other team may adjust after two
games. I don't think anyone would really make a serious argument that
the 2-0 record is a strong indicator in all cases. So the question is
whether the third game is such a bad indicator that it warrants
throwing it out and just using the two wins. But that brings up the
problem of whether that game is such a bad indicator for any set of
teams that the format itself should be changed.
I'd like to hear more about the decision-making process behind the
rule. Goals the rule was furthering, unfairness to be addressed,
reasoning for drawing the line where it was drawn, etc. Right now it
still sticks out as an odd and very incomplete attempt to address
perceived unfairness.
Moving forward, I have two suggestions that I think would be helpful:
1) Change the rule to make it an automatic win and leave an option
that the 2-0 team may declare unequivocally that it does not want the
automatic win, in which case the outcome of the game will be
determinative. Without the declaration, any subsequent game means
nothing. This would help reduce the impact of ignorance of the rule
(which is really understandable, at this point). Also, no team in its
right mind would ever refuse the automatic win, so the rule might as
well protect that outcome.
2) Create a one-page document with all the rules players/teams should
know about the formats. Rules about forfeits and any other rules.
Separating this out of the 115 pages of the Tournament Format Manual
and publicizing it in a meaningful way would help remedy the ignorance
problem.
-Colin
tim e
> On Oct 7, 11:30 pm, Trey Katzenbach wrote:
>
>> If by "every year" you mean "2004", then I agree with you.
>
what a year. E-pig had already played LSN 2 times (winning both)and
watched with great curiosity as LSN and VAult played out the 3rd bid
semi. I am almost certain that Pig knew the 2 win rule back then since
Pig were cheering on LSN. Not somethng Pig would have normally done
back then. Either way, it never played out since VAult went on to win
vs LSN and Pig played VAult for the 3rd bid.