Gratz to Czech republic on beating Canada, well done ;) I actually cheered for CZE because of you, otherwise I would've wanted Norway to qualify, so I figured I'm congratulate you :P Lejman (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, saw you'd made a prediction of the IIHF ranking used to seed next year. I did the maths too and got the same result on most things (including Canada/Russia), but my result on Germany/Slovakia/Belarus is different.
My stats are:
- 8. Slovakia 3470 + 900 (12th) = 4370
- 9-10. Belarus 3400 + 940 (10th) = 4340
- 9-10. Germany 3145 + (1100-1200, rank 1-4) = 4245 to 4345, meaning they need to win the entire thing to pass Belarus, and can't pass Slovakia.
- Yeah, I thought the IIHF official ranking was for next year... silly me, apparently. Thanks :P And gratz on the win, that was indeed lucky. It takes skill for luck to be enough to win though, and Sweden played well as did Czech republic. Good luck in the final, we'll snatch the bronze from Germany :P Lejman (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Euro Hockey Tour 2011–12 final standings
Hello! I'm not sure you're correct in that head-to-head results is the first tie-breaker in Euro Hockey Tour standings. Judging by a Swedish newspaper article I read on 29 April 2012 (the same day as the final games were played), goal difference is the first tie-breaker when two teams are point-wise tied. Citation: "Although Sweden still have a theoretical possibility of winning Euro Hockey Tour, that would require a win over Finland by at least five goals" [while Czech Republic and Russia played a regulation tie and Czech won it in overtime or shootout]. And Sweden would have the worsest head-to-head record against Czech and Russia had they all finished at 19 points. Do you have any information that backs up your interpretation? Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 07:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
IIHF WC 2012
You are correct - I was looking at goal difference as opposed to head to head. Thank you!
2012 iihf whc
I believe you are right. they could finish in a big tie with nor, lat, but they have beaten both, and if they lose to the czechs, the czechs cannot be involved in the same tiebreaker. someone did a bizarre edit on the 2013 page, I reverted it, but take a look.18abruce (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you understand them, can you check that I got the diacritics correct for the Czech players, I am don't really understand them but I try to get them right. Thanks.18abruce (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Rus was indeed qualified as soon as Cze defeated Italy. I didn't check who did the edit (I don't try to point fingers) but I certainly don't blame anyone for that kind of slip, it's the kind of thing that easily gets overlooked when you're sitting there with all the numbers. Last time we reached different conclusions I was the one with the incorrect calculation :P (As evident above here :)) - Regards, Lejman (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I've replied to your message on my talk page. You're right, if Cze, Ger and Nor all end up with 11 points, Ger will be first, Cze second and Nor third, due to Cze having a better head-to-head record vs Norway. -- Lejman (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It is impossible to find a scenario where Canada is relegated. There are a total 84 points available, canada plays sweden still so sweden would claim 14 points at least leaving 70 points to divide among the other 7 teams. That means that canada could tie for last, but it would be a seven way tie where they would have 10 head-to-head points and slovakia and italy would have to have 7 because they would have wins against sweden that would not count in the tie breaker.18abruce (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
re: EURO U21 Draw seedings
Hi, Nice calculations but that is not enough as a reliabla source I am afraid. The info about the seeding is great (I will reinsert it) but i am afraid the seeding pots will have to wait until there is a reliable source for them. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
no worries at all, the TSN broadcast said so and so did two or three other users. I was starting to worry about the 3reverts rule so I tried to make it humorous. Thank you for the message.18abruce (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping up with all the promotion/relegation/etc. scenarios, it is greatly appreciated. Especially when I mess it up.
I had an additional question: do you know if the IIHF has ever specifically addressed the issue of the possibility of two teams being relegated from one group? It appears the logical outcome of how the rules read, but the IIHF adjusts their Division III rules (for example) to suit the situation.18abruce (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have no official information from IIHF. But I noticed that formulation has changed from "last placed team of each group will be relegated"(IHWC 2012, first year under current format) to "The overall bottom ranked two teams will be relegated to the 2014 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship Division I Group A. The 2014 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship will consist of 16 teams including the team of the organizing member national association, thus Belarus cannot be among the two relegated teams."(IHWC 2013)
This year is added of the final ranking (see below)(compare with 2015). With additional informations about France and Germany. So at all I think :-)it's the most logical interpretation. I don't remember any concrete situation under new format. But there's some kind of precedent at 2009 with Germany or in early 2000s with Japan and its Far East Qualification. But yes, it was only one relegation Group G.--CZMajkl (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, more or less the same things I had noticed. The actual rule book never changed when the format changed, it said the bottom two ranked teams are relegated and the rule book is explicit that the host get automatic qualification. 1998 and 1999 had hosts who were brought out of the 'B' pool, but those were strange qualifications in general.18abruce (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)