NEWS
IEM 6: anexis out after three-way tie
anexis have been eliminated from IEM 6 Guangzhou despite having the same number of wins as the two teams progressing from Group A and equal round difference to eFuture.
By Duncan 'Thorin' Shields
Oct 2, 2011 13:26
anexis have been eliminated from IEM 6 Guangzhou despite having the same number of wins as the two teams progressing from Group A and equal round difference to eFuture.Group A of the IEM VI Global Challenge Guangzhou has seen 
fnatic progress in first place but 
eFuture put through in second under highly controversial circumstances. The group ended in a three-way tie, with two of the teams on identical round difference, and yet 
Anexis has been eliminated. The admin in charge of the decision ruled, based on ESL's rules, that anexis went out on a head-to-head comparison with only anexis, despite the three-way tie.
In the significant games of the group stage anexis first defeated fnatic, who then defeated eFuture and finally eFuture defeated anexis. This setup a three-way tie where head-to-head could not be used to decide the winner of the group since all of the teams had beaten 
Immunity and thus were sat on two wins but with a win over each other, in the classical A>B>C>A system.
The standard procedure is to then decide who goes through on round difference based on the three teams games against each other. This would have left fnatic on +4 round difference, anexis on -2 and eFuture on -2. As a result fnatic would go through in first and the Danish and Chinese team would remain tied. At this point though ESL switches to counting the number of round wins between only the two Danish and Chinese teams, meaning eFuture progressed in second.
On page 18 of ESL's IEM Season V rulebook, which is from the previous season, it reads as follows:
fnatic progress in first place but eFuture put through in second under highly controversial circumstances. The group ended in a three-way tie, with two of the teams on identical round difference, and yet Anexis has been eliminated. The admin in charge of the decision ruled, based on ESL's rules, that anexis went out on a head-to-head comparison with only anexis, despite the three-way tie.Group A final standings:
fnatic 2W-0D-1L
Anexis 2W-0D-1L
eFuture 2W-0D-1L
Immunity 0W-0D-3L
Significant results of Group A:
Anexis 16:14 fnatic (tuscan)
fnatic 16:10 eFuture (nuke)
Anexis 12:16 eFuture (train)
Round difference totals:
fnatic (-2 and +6 = +4 overall)
Anexis (+2 and -4 = -2 overall)
eFuture (-6 and +4 = -2 overall)
fnatic 2W-0D-1L Anexis 2W-0D-1L eFuture 2W-0D-1L Immunity 0W-0D-3LSignificant results of Group A:
Anexis 16:14 fnatic (tuscan) fnatic 16:10 eFuture (nuke) Anexis 12:16 eFuture (train)Round difference totals:
fnatic (-2 and +6 = +4 overall) Anexis (+2 and -4 = -2 overall) eFuture (-6 and +4 = -2 overall)In the significant games of the group stage
anexis first defeated fnatic, who then defeated eFuture and finally eFuture defeated anexis. This setup a three-way tie where head-to-head could not be used to decide the winner of the group since all of the teams had beaten Immunity and thus were sat on two wins but with a win over each other, in the classical A>B>C>A system.The standard procedure is to then decide who goes through on round difference based on the three teams games against each other. This would have left fnatic on +4 round difference, anexis on -2 and eFuture on -2. As a result fnatic would go through in first and the Danish and Chinese team would remain tied. At this point though ESL switches to counting the number of round wins between only the two Danish and Chinese teams, meaning eFuture progressed in second.
On page 18 of ESL's IEM Season V rulebook, which is from the previous season, it reads as follows:
"3.20 Ranking
The Ranking is primarily decided with regards to the number of points that a participant has amassed during the season.
A participant will earn 3 points for winning a match, and 1 point for drawing a match. The below ranking priority will
come into effect if 2 or more teams are on equal points. If at any point, the number of tied participants is reduced or
divided into several groups of tied participants, the still tied participants will in each case be compared again starting
with the first point.
· Points amassed between the participants themselves ('Mini-League')
· Score difference between the participants ('Mini-League')
· Score (number of wins in the Score Difference) between the participants ('Mini-League')
· Overall score difference
· Overall score (number of wins in the Score Difference).
· If after all 5 points the teams are indistinguishable, a decider match or matches have to be played, in an attempt
to separate the participants in question. In special cases, the tournament direction can rule on a different way to
determine the order in an unsolvable tie (i.e. coin toss)."
The Ranking is primarily decided with regards to the number of points that a participant has amassed during the season.
A participant will earn 3 points for winning a match, and 1 point for drawing a match. The below ranking priority will
come into effect if 2 or more teams are on equal points. If at any point, the number of tied participants is reduced or
divided into several groups of tied participants, the still tied participants will in each case be compared again starting
with the first point.
· Points amassed between the participants themselves ('Mini-League')
· Score difference between the participants ('Mini-League')
· Score (number of wins in the Score Difference) between the participants ('Mini-League')
· Overall score difference
· Overall score (number of wins in the Score Difference).
· If after all 5 points the teams are indistinguishable, a decider match or matches have to be played, in an attempt
to separate the participants in question. In special cases, the tournament direction can rule on a different way to
determine the order in an unsolvable tie (i.e. coin toss)."
RELATED NEWS
31 comments
Loading comments...
Most read last month
Most discussed last month
The below ranking priority will
come into effect if 2 or more teams are on equal points. If at any point, the number of tied participants is reduced or
divided into several groups of tied participants, the still tied participants will in each case be compared again(NOW AGAIN) starting
with the first point.
· Points amassed between the participants themselves ('Mini-League')
· Score difference between the participants ('Mini-League')
· Score (number of wins in the Score Difference) between the participants ('Mini-League')
· Overall score difference
· Overall score (number of wins in the Score Difference).
Fnatic went through automatically because of three way tie on round difference, leaving 2 teams tied. The two teams tied played vs eachother inwhich efuture beat anexis, so efuture qualify, what's so hard to understand?
That means which map gets picked, which side you start on, against which opponent and at what point in the group alll become extra factors to eliminate teams. All of that instead of just playing another map which takes like 30-40 minutes tops and ensures the right team goes through.
http://bit.ly/nV2I79
"Either you are using head-to-head, which then applies to all, or you are using round difference. You can't pick and choose."
It's clear in the rules how it's done, not pick and choose, you just made yourself look a bit stupid by mis-reading them.
Actually I just suggested a system which is more efficient and provides zero room for ambiguity. Looks like you can't read either.
If you think the group stage round robin system has "worked perfectly fine for a long time" then no amount of words will ever convince you otherwise. There have numerous cases of draws and three-way ties ruining tournaments. Apparently you're fine constantly ignoring the fact some teams get maps drawn which have larger chances of lop-sided scores than others. I'm not, since I value the least random methods of determining the best team more than those simply used because they are traditional.
Btw, comparison to other sports like football is not possible when it comes to CS. Every football game is played on the same "map" if you want and CS isn't. So it's definitely impossible to compare two games played on different maps. How many times haven't we seen Bo3 games going like 16-4 4-16 16-4 ? Meaning if you compare the two teams on map 2 you will say wow team B TOTALLY owns team A. But when you play 3 maps you see that in the end team A > team B.
Comparing round differences is weird but sometimes playing a decider map costs too much time.
In this case tho, as anexis lost their h2h to eFuture, I feel it's completely normal that eFuture goes through. If they had tied against each other it would have been a whole other story tho.
After checking twitter i'm even more sure you lack a brain, asking why the tournament director even still has his job, suggesting he should be fired for a ruling in the RULES. To say that you're shocked crtmn still has his job when he has only ever followed the rulebook is a retarded thing to say, but sure Thorin, if you know those rules better than him then dig out your journalism degree (if you have one) and go try and find some matches where they haven't been done by the rules according to crtmn, I doubt you'll find anything. Anyways, if you ever need someone to replace you with writing news, who can read rulebooks, whos IQ is off the mark compared to yours come holla at me.
This paragraph lacks the most basic logic. I don't even know where to start explaining a rule which is simple and logical (and almost the same as the UEFA Champions League rule for tie-breakers).
Compare it to the MSL Ro32 example I already listed above which not only removes the need for two maps but ensures there can be no ambiguity over who qualifies and allows for overtime in the case of tied games.
Round robin group stage:
-Takes longer
-Draws allowed
-Opponents potentially played on different maps, allowing undue bias to teams who are able to draw the most heavily one-sided maps vs. their opponents
-Can semi-frequently result in three-way ties which must be decided by arbitrary means due to lack of time for replays.
MSL Ro32 system
-More efficient, less games required to determine the two teams
-No ambiguity, the teams who win two matches qualify
-Allows for overtime in games which would have been draws in the round robin system, since there is no round difference to worry about
Before defending what are clearly arbitrary subrules how about explaining why the former system is better than the latter for high level counter-strike? Giving examples of physical sports does not count as a justification.
The fact I was wrong about the phrasing of sentences in this news post doesn't change the fact there are huge flaws in this round robin group system which damage the integrity of high level CS competition in these tournaments. I've addressed the problem on my end, when can we can expect you to do the same on yours?
: /
STEP ONE: COUNT WINS, NOTICE THE THREE-WAY-TIE
STEP TWO: IGNORE IMMUNITY, COUNT WINS
STEP THREE: IGNORE IMMUNITY, COUNT WINS, COUNT ROUNDS
STEP FOUR: IGNORE IMMUNITY AND FNATIC, RUN A NEW TIE-BREAKER