| |
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 (Longish) (Casper Van der Tak)
Date: Saturday, 24 September 2016, at 5:16 p.m.
I am sure that there IS a mathematically correct way of awarding points for draws, whether in football or any other sport or game, just as there is for awarding points in races, or other events that finish in a dead heat or tie; this goes deeper than mere convention. I'll try and approach it from different ways.
A draw in a football or field hockey match for example can, and should be, approached in exactly the same way as a tie in a proverbial two horse race, or one with more entrants. Take a track race with 4 runners where, in a club match, points may be awarded thus: 4,3,2,1. If you get a dead heat for any two places, WHY should the tied runners, between them, receive any more or any less points than if they had not quite so tied or, indeed, been wrongly adjudged to have done? A tie for 1st/2nd should yield 3.5 points for each athletes club, no more and no less. (And this is how it is allocated in practice.) If all the races had merely 2 runners instead of 4, then exactly the same principle should apply, ie 1.5 points each for the two athletes tying for 1st (2 points) and 2nd (1 point). Points should not evaporate or dematerialise, as they are allowed to in football draws nowadays. Neither, however, should they materialise! I well remember watching a BBC TV 'Superstars' programme, quite probably back in the 1970's, where three competitors had tied for first place in the archery or crossbow event. They did not have a shoot-off (or, if they did, they tied in that too). The points system used for each event was '10,7,4,2,1' for 1st down to 5th places, and I recall them showing at least one of the tied competitors having to be convinced by the referee why each of them would be receiving 'only' 7 points, rather than 10!
When awarding medals, and where some kind of playoff is not held, the convention is to 'round up' the tie, that is, if two are tied for first place, both are awarded a gold. Now, it's true that it might not be very practical to construct special medals for the recipients, in time for the medals ceremony, that are of one half gold and one half silver, but there should be no doubt that their tied golds are 'lighter' than if they had won one outright. Surely too, it should state on the medals 1st/2nd? It also seems rather rich that each of their countries are accorded a gold in the medal table, just as surely as if they had indeed won outright. Obviously, it is felt that to list them there as a half gold and a half silver might be confusing for the public, but that is exactly what they are. This generosity of awarding can be taken to absurd lengths IMHO. In the Rio Olympics Michael Phelps was involved in a three way tie for second place in the 100m Butterfly final (to 1/100th second anyway). Each was very generously awarded a silver medal. Here, with three so tied, there is no issue of (ideally) creating a 'dual colour' medal, and - sharing second through fourth places - it's easy to visualise what they had really achieved. Awarding 3 points then for a 1st place finish, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd it can be seen that the average medal value of the tied swimmers is (2+1+0)/3 which equals 1 'medal point' and therefore the bronze! No question here, three BRONZES should have been awarded (ideally with 2nd/3rd/4th inscribed), as that is intrinsically what was achieved.
WHY should two draws be worse than a win and a loss? Say they're both 1-1 scorelines. If instead, team A had conceded one goal less (1-0) in one of them, and one goal more (1-2) in the other why would that be 'better' overall than if they'd both stayed at 1-1? For, under '3 points for a win' these outcomes, which have a net value of 0, would yield an extra point. They should not.
Finally, imagine a football team that drew all of their league fixtures in a season. In the fullness of time it will happen, almost certainly before a monkey types out the works of Shakespeare (though perhaps a certain red giant might have something to say about it first). It need have nothing to do with playing cautiously, but could happen with a team with a normal attack/defence mindset. Isn't it obvious that this team are of an average standard in their division, and should finish, more or less, in mid table? Under '3 points for a win' however, their seasons total would be 2/3 of it's intrinsic value and, in the English Premier League for example, would put this undefeated side on the very cusp of relegation. Turn just a few of those draws into losses - far more likely to happen before 'red giant' - and, a team that deserved to be just below mid table, would almost surely be relegated.
Drawing a game is exactly halfway between winning one and losing one, and this is it's true mathematical worth, whether it's properly reflected in the award of points to the teams or not.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.