| |
BGonline.org Forums
Match scoring protocol when time runs out? +1 (Longish)
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Match scoring protocol when time runs out? +1 (sebalotek)
Date: Thursday, 22 September 2016, at 6:06 p.m.
Firstly, and this is more than just a semantic point, two players not showing up for a match is technically NOT a draw! If it was defined as one then, logically and mathematically, they should share the points for a win (3) and a loss (1), giving them 2 points each. In fact, it cannot even be defined as a 'double defeat' as, under league rules, both will receive fewer points (0) than they would for an actual loss (1).
The idea of awarding fewer points to a player or players who fail to show for a match is not uncommon in sports. This kind of principle is built into a number of them, and needn't simply involve a no-show. In football (soccer) for example, a team found to have fielded an ineligible player in a league match will have points deducted from their seasons total. As also might a team who, it was adjudged, fielded a deliberately weak side in a league match, so as to save themselves for a forthcoming important cup one. One team walked off the pitch in an Olympic football final, and were not awarded the silver medals as a result! In a track and field team match, an athlete not finishing a race, or not recording a valid mark in a field event will receive no points at all, whereas, if they came last, they may well score a point. This is a tougher rule, as they at least entered their event and probably made an honest effort, such as collapsing near the end of the 10,000m or having 3 marginal fouls in the triple jump. They actually score the same points as an athlete who was disqualified.
What actually IS relevant - believe it or not - to the bg league/round robin scenario is exactly how many points each position might receive. Please bear with me. With four athletes in a club event they would score 4,3,2,1 points, which is perfectly logical. You can get systems with a bonus point for first place (5,3,2,1) but is there a mathematical formula that can be written that could calculate the points for any placing with this arbitrary bonus award? I'm not a mathematician, but I don't think so! This is exactly because it IS arbitrary, as opposed to having an underlying mathematical basis. Competitions where just two athletes are allocated to each event don't happen, but if they did then the scoring should be '2,1' ie 1st: 2 points, 2nd: 1 point, with 0 therefore for no mark recorded - OR indeed an athlete not showing up! Awarding a bonus point here to the winner (3,1) would, again, be totally arbitrary - and this is exactly what has been done in this and, it seems other bg leagues. Now, if there is to be no adjustment for a default, ie it simply counts as a loss, then it is irrelevant how many points are awarded for a win or loss. But if you ARE going to penalise a player (or players) who don't honour a particular league fixture then exactly how many points you award for a win (1st place) or a loss (2nd place) most certainly IS relevant!
Therefore, in summary, awarding 3 points for a win, 1 for a loss, and 0 for a default has NO intrinsic basis, whereas awarding 2,1,0 for these outcomes is NOT arbitrary, and DOES have an intrinsic basis! Put it another way, taking two players results in isolation - not those against each other - just two results from each, then, if Player A has a win and a default, and Player B has two losses, these should score the same in total (2 points). Under the system in use, Player A with a default to his name, would score an extra point. So, the system in use arbitrarily over scores the intrinsic value of that players results, underemphasising the impact of the default!
Sebalotek:
"3 points for a win and 1 point for a loss (0 points for an unplayed match) also mirrors the long established and well respected FIBSleague scoring system."
In terms of it's mathematical basis, it should not be respected.
I wonder actually how often such defaults occur in these leagues, which are very popular here in the UK, of course? If it's quite uncommon then, rather than the intrinsically correct '2,1,0' system would it not be better to simply subtract a point from each of these? It's cosmetic, but would result in a simple '1 point for a win, 0 for a loss' - with a penalty point applied (only) when defaults occur: the KISS principle!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.