Talk:EuroBasket 2013

clinched nations

fiba's website is reporting that Croatia has clinched, however that is clearly not true. According to the rules (pg. 68/section D) Hungary could still overtake Croatia by winning all their remaining games, Croatia losing their remaining games, and Hungary must beat Croatia by more than 24 (if it was exactly a difference of 24 they would have to overtake Croatia's overall goal average). I cannot begin to guess why the FIBA reporter got it wrong, but it is clearly incorrect.18abruce (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How are they going to decide the best third placed teams? If its by points then group A have a clear advantage because there are more teams in the group.

I don't see a anything in the rule book or the official site. My guess is that they will do the same thing that was done in 2009 and rate the third place teams against each other by winning percentage, then goal average.18abruce (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone can show how Bosnia will be at worst one of the four best third place teams they need to be removed.18abruce (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite simple, actually. The 3rd-placed teams in Group A and Group C will have 6/4 and 4/4 records at best respectively. 5/3 is better than either so anyone with 5 wins in groups B–F is through. In Group A both Israel and Serbia have lost only three games each but they'll play each other on the last matchday, so at least one of them gets the crucial fourth loss. Sue-Tomi (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So an assumption of how they will handle Group A is enough? I suppose the method they used in 2009, or the method UEFA uses would both render Group A's third place team with a maximum of less then 5/3. It is anything but simple to present something as true in an encyclopedia without a single source to support you, even though it is probably true.18abruce (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This article confirms but still screws up some of the details. It does not list Finland, but it confirms the argument for their inclusion.18abruce (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And this article confirms that the 3rd place finishers will be compared by winning percentage.18abruce (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct names of participating countries

In FIBA's official website, "Macedonia" is under name F.Y.R. of Macedonia. Is there any particular reason why here it is not mentioned with its official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.137.209 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). --Local hero ^talk 03:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Still I read this: "The country will be referred to in these contexts in the same manner as it is referred to elsewhere on the project." Doesn't this means that the name given by the official organizer (FIBA) should be respected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.137.209 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It means the country will be called the same thing it's called in most other contexts on Wikipedia, which is 'Macedonia'. --Local hero ^talk 01:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your conclusion is not supported by the article you linked me according to the following lemma: "No special rules will be used for international organisations which use "F.Y.R." to refer to the country." (since FIBA uses FYR of Macedonia). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.137.209 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, no special rules; it will be treated the same as any other situation. --Local hero ^talk 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tiebreakers.

Does anyone know what the tie-breaking criteria are?? I mean the cases where 2 teams have the same points, who is advancing to the next round, in cases of 3 or more teams with equal point what is the ranking etc. In the official http://www.eurobasket2013.org there is no mention of them!! UNBELIEVABLE!! FIBA is miles away from FIFA and UEFA as always. Anyone with an official link of the tie breaking rules?

It's on the official basketball rules. A PDF should be found at FIBA's website. In any case, the tiebreaking rules are:

1. Head to head records
2. Goal average on games among tied teams
3. Goal average on all games
4. Drawing of lots

–HTD 16:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. See section D here.

In short:

• If two teams tied, head-to-head match is the decider.
• If three or more teams tied, then separate table for them is created and tie is decided on points.
• If two teams are still tied by points in the separate table, their head-to-head match is the decider.
• If three or more teams are still tied by points in the separate table, the goal average between only the still tied teams is considered.
• For further ties, see pdf.

Eduardische (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said. What I didn't say is that the tiebreaker resets back to the 1st criterion once a tie has been broken. –HTD 04:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It still differs, I believe that according to D.1.7 it only goes back to head-to-head only if 2 teams are left (D.1.4) or we're still tied after goal average on all games. Which is weird, but that's what I'm reading.

Eduardische (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you misread D.1.7. It states "If at any stage of this procedure the number of teams with equal points is reduced to a tie still involving more than two (2) teams". If there are more than 2 teams, you'd go back to D.1.3; if there are only 2 teams, you'd go to head-to-head (unless it's also tied which is possible if the number of games contested by the tied teams is an even number). –HTD 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm stumped on how TPTB broke the tie that involved LTU. As per D.3.4, case I, the teams tied 1-2 should've been rebroken on head-to-head records on those 3 tied teams, not goal averages on games among the tied teams. If it was tied on head-to-head records, LTU (2-0) should've been ahead of LAT (1-1) and BIH (0-2). –HTD 04:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, LTU lost to BIH. So, all three teams have 1-1. Regardless it only comes back to separate classification back in D.1.7, so if the situation you described would have happened, then it wouldn't come back to D.1.3. (D.1.4 is special exception in case of two teams). Yes, it is really weird, that it takes into account only goal ranking between 3 teams (it's not 4, as then LTU would have been in front: 0.975 vs 0.973). It's not that important, as I believe, because the scenario is unachievable in 6 team groups (I might be wrong, but I couldn't get that in the third classification head-to-head records are still different).

Eduardische (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL sorry about that. The teams tied with 1-2 on the first tiebreaker were all tied 1-1 on the second tiebreaker. –HTD 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Well what you ask about Lithuania is easy. See the mentioned link with the tie-breaking criteria. On page 68 we apply the rule D.1.3 to the 4 tied teams and after we have the new classification(among the 4 teams tied):

• Serbia 6 points (3-0)
• Lithuania 4 points (1-2)
• Latvia 4 points (1-2)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 points (1-2)

We have a new tie between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia and Lithuania.

So we go to D.1.4. That is irrelevant as we can't apply it here.

So we go to D.1.5 so we apply the Goal Average in the 3 teams that are tied. And we apply it, as per D.1.5 says, only in the games between the 3 tied teams.

My question now is why the wikipedia article in the final table of the classification for Group B says for example for Lithuania, in the tie section: 1–2, 1–1, 1.015

Why the 1-1 is relevant?

• The 1-2 is the 1 win and 2 losses that Lithuania has, in the Serbia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bosnia second group that had been formed as per rule D.1.3.
• But then what the 1-1 is for?? I get that whoever wrote it means and believes that a third group of the 3 new tied teams(Lithuania, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) is formed, and the results between them is again 1-1(for Lithuania as also for the others) so we then calculate the Goal Average to find the final rankings.
• BUT this is completely wrong! The tie breaking procedure on the FIBA rules, does not say anything about creating a third group between the tied teams! It only says (as per D.1.5 rule) that if 3 or more teams are still teams with equal point, like here, the goal Average rule should be applied(in the games between the 3 tied teams).

So we don't care about the points/results between the 3 tied teams. We care only about Goal Average.

So if for example Lithuania had 2-0 against the other 2(Latvia and Bosnia) and Bosnia 0-2 and Latvia had 1-1, then Latvia could still have a better Goal Average and be ahead of Lithuania despite it would have less points(3 versus Lithuania's 4) in the matches between these 3. As according to the tie criteria we go directly to Goal Average to determine the ranking if there are 3 or more teams tied after the second group(of D.1.3) is formed.

Am i mistaken?

If not the article has to be corrected.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.153.198 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, when I added it, it was just 1-2, 1.015. I believe we should remove it until arguments for it in the Talk section appear.

Eduardische (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, the four teams tied are first broken in the head to head records amongst them.

Therefore, it is SRB 3-0, LAT 1-2, LTU 1-2, BIH 1-2.

Then you'd break the tie among the three teams with 1-2 head-to-head records on the head to head records amongst those 3, excluding games involving SRB. You'd go back to step one to break a new tie. Rule D.1.7 is relevant:

If at any stage of this procedure the number of teams with equal points is reduced to a tie still involving more than two (2) teams, the procedure, beginning with D.1.3 above, is repeated.

Rule D.1.3 states:

If there are more than two (2) teams in the classification with equal points, a second classification will be established, taking into account only the results of the games between the involved teams.

But on our case, all three have 1-1 records against each other. So we'd go to GAvg on games against each other. This is where the 1.021 number start to go. If the three teams had 2-0, 1-1, 0-2 records, we wouldn't go to GAvg. –HTD 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the rule book states this exact case at D.3.4, then case I. In case I, it tells you to refer to D.3.3; it shows both head-to-head records and GAvg. Since the D.3.3 example had the teams all tied at 1-1, it resorted to GAvg. If it wasn't tied at 1-1 (which means it's 2-0, 1-1 and 0-2), it won't have to resort to tiebreakers. –HTD 14:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The procedure of FIBA for the ties is ambiguous. These rules are ambiguous.

D.1.5 and D.1.7 are ambiguous. One can't decide which to apply and there are cases like that i described where we lead to different ranking by applying either D.1.5 or D.1.7.

D.1.7 and D.1.6 lead to ambiguity also.

All in all D.1.7 is problematic the way it is stated. It actually leads to an infinite loop in some cases so that makes things even worse. It is also not well stated(as what "reduced to a tie" means? A tie on points or a tie on ranking after applying the criteria?)

FIBA managed to screw things up once again.