Division 3 cross-table

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Post Reply
User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7267
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Division 3 cross-table

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:36 pm

I've just been looking at the 4NCL Division 3 cross-table here:

http://www.4ncl.livechess.co.uk/div3_20 ... 3s-rd2.htm

(1) That's a really horrible layout visually.
(2) What does "SOS" mean in the second-to-last column?

I presume it is "Sum of Opponents' Scores". And from the current table layout, this is being used as a tie-breaker ahead of game points, or maybe ahead of match points. The table layout doesn't make it entirely clear.

OK, found it in the 4NCL rules for the 2011/12 season:

http://www.4ncl.co.uk/1112_rules.htm

11.3: "End of season team placings in the Division 3 combined division will be decided in the first instance on match point totals. If at the end of the season teams in the Division 3 combined division are tied on match points, the tie shall be broken in favour of the team having (a) the highest sum of opponents’ match points (b) the greatest number of game points (c) the highest sum of opponents’ game points (d) the toss of a coin."

I haven't fully followed the history of the evolution of that rule. Can anyone say whether this is a new change or something that has been in place for a while? (I had assumed that it went match points and then game points, but clearly not).

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8880
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Division 3 cross-table

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:42 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I haven't fully followed the history of the evolution of that rule. Can anyone say whether this is a new change or something that has been in place for a while? (I had assumed that it went match points and then game points, but clearly not).
It was a change this season. Other divisions are still MP/GP etc.

Michael Yeo
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: Division 3 cross-table

Post by Michael Yeo » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:53 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: I haven't fully followed the history of the evolution of that rule. Can anyone say whether this is a new change or something that has been in place for a while? (I had assumed that it went match points and then game points, but clearly not).
It's my fault.
Some of the background is covered in the second item (under Agenda Item 6) at http://www.4ncl.co.uk/1011/download/4NC ... s_myeo.pdf

The captains' meeting was generally supportive so the rules were changed without any vote.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7267
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Division 3 cross-table

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:01 pm

Oh, OK. Thanks for the background info.

Paul Dargan
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 11:23 pm

Re: Division 3 cross-table

Post by Paul Dargan » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:24 pm

@ Michael
g
If that is really what happened then the current rules do not seem to reflect the proposed ordering you recommend - GP's seems to have been promoted from 3rd tiebreak to second.

Paul
Last edited by Paul Dargan on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Yeo
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: Division 3 cross-table

Post by Michael Yeo » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:39 pm

Paul Dargan wrote:@ Michael

If that is really what happened then the current rules do not seem to reflect the proposed ordering you recommend - MP's seems to have been promoted from 3rd tiebreak to second.

Paul
The ordering is different from my proposal, but not in the way you suggest. Using the letters I used, it is now bacd rather than bcad. Sum of opponents' match points (b) is still first. Game points (a) now take priority over sum of opponents' game points (c). I don't have a problem with that.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Division 3 cross-table

Post by Mike Truran » Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:13 pm

We did that only so as to keep consistency of sequence (i.e. match points followed by sum of opponents' match points, then game points followed by sum of opponents' game points). Mike's main concern if I recollect correctly was to to have sum of opponents' match points as the principal tie-break - which is now the case.

Post Reply