[BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Hans van Staveren sater at xs4all.nl
Thu Nov 15 08:20:43 CET 2012


I would agree with Jerry Fusselman's opinion about organizers here.

 

As long as it is allowed to resign from a knockout match at all I would tell
Team 1 that they would be allowed to do it, but that they should probably
also think about publicity and their good name.

 

Someone recently suggested something like the Kojak doctrine to me. Does
anyone know what exactly that is?

 

Hans

 

From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Sent: woensdag 14 november 2012 23:07
To: blml at rtflb.org
Subject: [BLML] Conceding a knockout match while 80-odd imps ahead?
[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

Richard Hills, May 2004:

I found these conditions of contest a little ....
[fill in your own blank] ->

Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select
the Australian Open Team.  The ABF decided to start
with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a
series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a
grand final.

So far, so good.

But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its
fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of
knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four
winning teams to participate in a set of knockout
semi-finals.

The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to
make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked
teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and
the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped,
with the best four teams from the round-robin
proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals.

Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all
teams would qualify from the round-robin to the
knockout quarter-finals, with the round-robin merely
deciding seeding (and carry-forward).  The fixed
pairings in the quarter-finals would be:  Team 1 vs
Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4

The three winners from the quarter-finals would
qualify to the semi-finals, plus the highest ranked
loser.  That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for
it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide
whether or not its chances of eventually winning the
event would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi-
finalist.

It gets worse.  The draw for the semi-final knockout
matches was *pre-set*.  When the trial was actually
held, at 3-quartertime of the quarter-finals Team 1
had a big lead over Team 6.  Team 1 examined the
results after 3 quarters in the other quarter-finals,
and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a
carry-forward advantage against Team 1.  However, if
Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a
different team in its semi-final, and against that
different team it would be Team 1 with the carry-
forward advantage.

Therefore, Team 1 approached the CTD, and requested
permission to concede its quarter-final match against
Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps.

As CTD, how would you rule?


Best wishes

R.J.B. Hills


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise 
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, 
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged 
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination 
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the 
intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has 
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: 
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm 


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121115/acdc230c/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list