Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification – third round

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tiebreaker criteria[edit]

Completely impossible to understand: what is the difference between "the teams concerned" and "the teams in question"?

It's not the best way to describe, but the two terms are different things. The "teams concerned" are the teams equal on points in the table. The "teams in question" are teams that are subsequently equal after tiebreaks have been applied. An example helps. Three teams are equal on 10 points (say) - these are "the teams concerned". We apply tie-breaks 1,2,3 and 4 to the three teams (basically looking at the results between just them) and we get two teams on 6 points (adjusted points and equal gd and away goals) and one on 4. The "teams in question" are the two teams on six. The results say we now re-do the tie breaks 1,2,3 and 4 from the start on just those teams (rather than continuing down the list to tiebreak 6 on overall goal difference). It is important that the rules be clear that this is what is meant to happen. For two teams it wouldn't really matter, but for three it can.

As a pointlessly overthinking additional point, you might also note that the rules are inherently inconsistent by applying any GD-based tiebreaks before heading back to the top, as in the case of four teams (in a group of 5+) you could have four teams equal on points, and within that three teams equal on "adjusted" points but you would then apply GD as well to split, rather than going back to the top to split the three teams based on points obtained within just the three - which is technically inconsistent in its logic. This is (however) more a general thing that relevant to this round (although it could conceivably be relevant if all teams ended on the same points)

Round nomenclature[edit]

Why bother quoting the regulations and then referring to the "round" as something completely different to what the regulations call it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.149.238 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]