Question for Tournament Directors

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by JRS » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 02:33:55


An interesting event at my son's USAV sanctioned VB tournament this weekend.

Background:  This occurred in the 2nd round of pool play.  The top two teams
of each pool would advance to the Gold Bracket playoffs.  Due to the number
of teams, the first four pools were standard 3 team pools.  The fifth pool
was set-up as a four team 2 X 2 crossover (1 played A & B - 2 played A & B -
1 never played 2).  At the end of the fifth pool play, there was 1 team 2-0
and advancing to the gold playoff.  There were two teams with a 1-1 record
in matches.  Both of these teams were 3-3 in games.  One team had an
advantage in point differential.  These two teams had not played each other.
The tie breakers were matches, games, head to head and then points.

The team with the point advantage was initially slotted as the 2nd place
team to advance.  The other team coach argued that because head-to-head was
the next tie breaker and the teams had not played head-to-head, that the two
teams should have a one game playoff to decide who would advance.  The
tournament director after hearing this argument, agreed with that logic and
ruled there would be a one game playoff to 25.

Was that correct?  Is there any guidance for TD's on those issues?

PS:  The team that had the point advantage lost the one game playoff and
ended up playing in the Silver playoffs.  My son's team benefited and
advanced to Gold.

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by Steve Cutche » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:04:18

I would have said that the tie breakers were for analyzing the results
of pool play.  There WERE head to head results.  They were just 0-0.
So the tie-breaker moves to points.  Suppose you had played and it was
1-1?  Would you have played a third game?  I doubt it.

I think the tie-breaker rules were modified after the fact. Unless
there was a previous provision for creating a head to head game if
needed, I would not have thought it was appropriate.

That said, as a competitor, I'd just as soon advance based on beating
the other team.  So my druthers would be to specify up front a playoff
game for a 0-0 head to head scenario.  I just don't think that should
be added in hindsight.

---Steve


Quote:

> An interesting event at my son's USAV sanctioned VB tournament this weekend.

> Background:  This occurred in the 2nd round of pool play.  The top two teams
> of each pool would advance to the Gold Bracket playoffs.  Due to the number
> of teams, the first four pools were standard 3 team pools.  The fifth pool
> was set-up as a four team 2 X 2 crossover (1 played A & B - 2 played A & B -
> 1 never played 2).  At the end of the fifth pool play, there was 1 team 2-0
> and advancing to the gold playoff.  There were two teams with a 1-1 record
> in matches.  Both of these teams were 3-3 in games.  One team had an
> advantage in point differential.  These two teams had not played each other.
> The tie breakers were matches, games, head to head and then points.

> The team with the point advantage was initially slotted as the 2nd place
> team to advance.  The other team coach argued that because head-to-head was
> the next tie breaker and the teams had not played head-to-head, that the two
> teams should have a one game playoff to decide who would advance.  The
> tournament director after hearing this argument, agreed with that logic and
> ruled there would be a one game playoff to 25.

> Was that correct?  Is there any guidance for TD's on those issues?

> PS:  The team that had the point advantage lost the one game playoff and
> ended up playing in the Silver playoffs.  My son's team benefited and
> advanced to Gold.


 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by Steve Cutche » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:03:50


Quote:



> > An interesting event at my son's USAV sanctioned VB tournament this weekend.

> > Background:  This occurred in the 2nd round of pool play.  The top two teams
> > of each pool would advance to the Gold Bracket playoffs.  Due to the number
> > of teams, the first four pools were standard 3 team pools.  The fifth pool
> > was set-up as a four team 2 X 2 crossover (1 played A & B - 2 played A & B -
> > 1 never played 2).  At the end of the fifth pool play, there was 1 team 2-0
> > and advancing to the gold playoff.  There were two teams with a 1-1 record
> > in matches.  Both of these teams were 3-3 in games.  One team had an
> > advantage in point differential.  These two teams had not played each other.
> > The tie breakers were matches, games, head to head and then points.

> > The team with the point advantage was initially slotted as the 2nd place
> > team to advance.  The other team coach argued that because head-to-head was
> > the next tie breaker and the teams had not played head-to-head, that the two
> > teams should have a one game playoff to decide who would advance.  The
> > tournament director after hearing this argument, agreed with that logic and
> > ruled there would be a one game playoff to 25.

> > Was that correct?  Is there any guidance for TD's on those issues?

> Since there was no head-to-head play, there should be a one game playoff. You
> cannot be eliminated by points.

Not according to the tounament rules; section G.1 says:

In the case mentioned, both teams were qualified to advance from pool
play to championship play.  The question was position assignment in the
championship round.  So a playoff game was against the rules.

=-=-=-=-=
Teams qualifying for the playoffs, but tied for position only shall not
compete in a playoff game to determine position; rather, position
assignment shall be determined by the priority system listed below
based on point differential to the extent possible.

a. Results of the matches between tied teams, first on the won-lost
record, and then second on the point spread.  If still tied [and they
were in this case...] then:

b.  Comparison of the point differential based on the total round robin
competition.  Point differential shall be determined by subtracting the
total points lost from the total points won.  The highest plus or
lowest minus remainder shall be considered the superior team for
tie-breaking purposes.  If still tied, then:

c. Coin toss.

=-=-=-=-=

---Steve

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by Roger » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:32:51


Quote:




> > > An interesting event at my son's USAV sanctioned VB tournament this
weekend.

> > > Background:  This occurred in the 2nd round of pool play.  The top two
teams
> > > of each pool would advance to the Gold Bracket playoffs.  Due to the
number
> > > of teams, the first four pools were standard 3 team pools.  The fifth pool
> > > was set-up as a four team 2 X 2 crossover (1 played A & B - 2 played A &
B -
> > > 1 never played 2).  At the end of the fifth pool play, there was 1 team
2-0
> > > and advancing to the gold playoff.  There were two teams with a 1-1 record
> > > in matches.  Both of these teams were 3-3 in games.  One team had an
> > > advantage in point differential.  These two teams had not played each
other.
> > > The tie breakers were matches, games, head to head and then points.

> > > The team with the point advantage was initially slotted as the 2nd place
> > > team to advance.  The other team coach argued that because head-to-head
was
> > > the next tie breaker and the teams had not played head-to-head, that the
two
> > > teams should have a one game playoff to decide who would advance.  The
> > > tournament director after hearing this argument, agreed with that logic
and
> > > ruled there would be a one game playoff to 25.

> > > Was that correct?  Is there any guidance for TD's on those issues?

> > Since there was no head-to-head play, there should be a one game playoff.
You
> > cannot be eliminated by points.

> Not according to the tounament rules; section G.1 says:

> In the case mentioned, both teams were qualified to advance from pool
> play to championship play.  The question was position assignment in the
> championship round.  So a playoff game was against the rules.

This was a juniors tournament, correct?

The ***s tie breaking procedure (section G.1) is different from what the
juniors use (section H). USAV *** tourneys generally follow the first tie
breaking method (section G). The junior community rejected that method when
teams were eliminated from the Gold Championship by those same points. Hence,
method two (section H) was created to fit their situation.

Juniors do not ever eliminate a team from the Gold Championship by points. The
silver bracket is considered to be a consolation championship. Both are playoffs
but for way different finishes.

Roger O.
Former US Open & USJO Championship Staff

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by Steve Cutche » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:19:01


Quote:

> This was a juniors tournament, correct?

> The ***s tie breaking procedure (section G.1) is different from what the
> juniors use (section H). USAV *** tourneys generally follow the first tie
> breaking method (section G). The junior community rejected that method when
> teams were eliminated from the Gold Championship by those same points. Hence,
> method two (section H) was created to fit their situation.

> Juniors do not ever eliminate a team from the Gold Championship by points. The
> silver bracket is considered to be a consolation championship. Both are playoffs
> but for way different finishes.

> Roger O.
> Former US Open & USJO Championship Staff

Hmmm...  Well that's not very clear.  

There is nothing in Section G to suggest it is for the *** division
only.  

And the header for Section H seemed to imply (at least to me) that it
applies only to National Qualifiers and the Championship tournaments...

The section is "JUNIOR NATIONALS"

Everywhere else that I've seen the Juniors division described, it was
described as "USA JUNIOR OLYMPIC" not "NATIONALS"

I could certainly see the care of using a playoff game in a National
Qualifier or higher tourney rather than points or, heaven forbid, a
coin flip.

Like I said earlier, I'm all for a playoff game.  And I'll certainly
defer to your pedigree.  It just isn't clear in a reading of the rules
that G isn't the applicable statute.

---Steve

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by Roger » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:16:52


Quote:


> > This was a juniors tournament, correct?

> > The ***s tie breaking procedure (section G.1) is different from what the
> > juniors use (section H). USAV *** tourneys generally follow the first tie
> > breaking method (section G). The junior community rejected that method when
> > teams were eliminated from the Gold Championship by those same points.
Hence,
> > method two (section H) was created to fit their situation.

> > Juniors do not ever eliminate a team from the Gold Championship by points.
The
> > silver bracket is considered to be a consolation championship. Both are
playoffs
> > but for way different finishes.

> > Roger O.
> > Former US Open & USJO Championship Staff

> Hmmm...  Well that's not very clear.

I agree. While either method can be used for any tourney, juniors are dependent
on accurate seeding to try and reduce the number of potential ties. Juniors are
just a different animal than 'normal' *** play.

Quote:
> There is nothing in Section G to suggest it is for the *** division
> only.

Have you ever used Section H to break a tie at an *** tourney? I don't mean to
imply that no one ever has. It's probably because ***s do not play for the
Silver, Bronze, or Lead Championships after pool play.

Quote:
> And the header for Section H seemed to imply (at least to me) that it
> applies only to National Qualifiers and the Championship tournaments...

You are correct in your assumption. Most or nearly all the regions will follow
whatever is done at the national level in order for their teams to make an easy
transition from regional play to national play.

Quote:
> The section is "JUNIOR NATIONALS"

> Everywhere else that I've seen the Juniors division described, it was
> described as "USA JUNIOR OLYMPIC" not "NATIONALS"

> I could certainly see the care of using a playoff game in a National
> Qualifier or higher tourney rather than points or, heaven forbid, a
> coin flip.

> Like I said earlier, I'm all for a playoff game.  And I'll certainly
> defer to your pedigree.  It just isn't clear in a reading of the rules
> that G isn't the applicable statute.

Welcome to the world of juniors.

Roger

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by JRS » Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:14:00

Yes, it was a Juniors tournament held in the Milwaukee area (Wisconsin Boys
Festival).  There were 18's, 17's, 16's, 15's and 14's divisions.  There may
have even been a 12/13 division.

Quote:
> This was a juniors tournament, correct?

> The ***s tie breaking procedure (section G.1) is different from what the
> juniors use (section H). USAV *** tourneys generally follow the first
tie
> breaking method (section G). The junior community rejected that method
when
> teams were eliminated from the Gold Championship by those same points.
Hence,
> method two (section H) was created to fit their situation.

> Juniors do not ever eliminate a team from the Gold Championship by points.
The
> silver bracket is considered to be a consolation championship. Both are
playoffs
> but for way different finishes.

> Roger O.
> Former US Open & USJO Championship Staff

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by Michael Bor » Thu, 06 Feb 2003 00:45:09

Quote:

>Since there was no head-to-head play, there should be a one game playoff. You
>cannot be eliminated by points.

Roger

unless i misunderstood, no ome was eliminated, just relegated to different
playoffs, so that doesn't apply.

And We'll See You on the Beach, or in the Gym,
Michael Borga -- JSVBA.com  --  732-714-9963
Men's Head Volleyball Coach, New Jersey Institute of Technology
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jsvba">Link to JSVBA Website</A>

 
 
 

Question for Tournament Directors

Post by John Villalov » Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:37:41


Quote:

>>Since there was no head-to-head play, there should be a one game playoff. You
>>cannot be eliminated by points.

>unless i misunderstood, no ome was eliminated, just relegated to different
>playoffs, so that doesn't apply.

You can not be eliminated from the championship bracket based on points.  So if
they use a point spread and stick you into a bracket where you can no longer
finish first then that is not appropriate.

The way our region does it is that three way ties in the top two divisions
(Gold & Silver) will be played off.  A division consists of eight teams.  In
the lower divisions they will not have playoff but will go by game winning %,
point spread among tied teams, point spread among entire competition, and then
coin toss.  This is because those teams are in reality playing for 17th place
at the most.

Later,
John