Registered: Apr 2015
Location:
Posts: 3

I just read up on the tiebreak rule changes made last year by the WCF. Rules can be read here:

http://www.worldcurling.org/rules-and-regulations

So I understand that basically, tiebreakers are reduced to at most one TB draw. Usually that means one game (if two or three teams are involved), but it can mean more than one game in one draw (e.g., four teams playing for two spots).

What I would like to know is what the reason was for this change. It's been a long-standing tradition (from what I understand) to have teams with a contending record to be eliminated only by virtue of losing a tiebreaker game. (That is, not by head-to-head record or by DTB.)

I figured that the reason for this rule change (which I don't like) was to condense the schedule. Usually, the schedule has to be made to allow for two TB draws, and usually they're not needed. This rule change would allow the schedule to be condensed.

But lo and behold, I see the schedule for this world championship, and there is absolutely room for a second TB draw. (Friday afternoon.) So what is the justification for changing the TB rules to only have one TB draw? I would think that the players would rather have a second TB draw, if needed. I'm sure the fans would. I could see schedulers and organizers only wanting one TB draw, but the schedule for this world championship totally allows for a second TB draw! So what, then, is the reasoning for reducing TB to a single draw? Is it that this world championship schedule was made well beforehand and predates the rule change from last year?

I would think that most people would rather have a full set of tiebreakers to not eliminate a team with the same record without playing.

(I realize that a painful example of non-playing elimination was the 2015 Brier. I note that that was Curling Canada rules, and also likely a scheduling issue, particularly since the play-in final was concurrent with the main round robin's first draw. But even then, there was a draw slot available in the morning for a tiebreaker game. I realize that for organizers, it's more complicated than simply having the time slot available, but still. I think all fans and players would rather play for elimination than not play and be eliminated.)

Mason

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

The answer to your question is 100%

Television

They hate, hate, hate not knowing exactly how much product they are getting and exactly when that product will be on the air.

The old scenario where there were 0-3 draws made TV producers lives miserable.

This way, they at least know that there will be one and only one TB draw, and when it will be. Yes, occasionally there may be zero, but generally, that one will happen.

Is that worth ruining the "Decide it on the ice!" rule that had been in place? Not IMO.

But, I'm not a money man, I'm just a fan.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

Ridiculous rule change. But whenever it comes down to tradition vs $$ [TV], tradition will always lose out.

Having said that, TV does not know until after the final draw whether there will be any tie-breaker games to telecast. So not sure how much it helps to know that IF there is a tie, there will be only one extra draw and it will be at a certain time.

Have to remember that this is the same WCF that is pushing for mixed doubles because that game works better for TV than real curling does.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2015
Location:
Posts: 3

Yep, what you two say makes sense. Sigh.

Thanks.

Mason

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

I'm not even sure television is a big factor here. Have the first tiebreaker in the morning and say to TSN, air it if you want. It does seem kind of dumb.

__________________
Not Pete Steski

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631

Having said that, you do leave things to chance when you go 6-5.

__________________
Not Pete Steski

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

TSN now has 5 channels and 2 broadcast crews. If they want to show a game, even 2 simultaneously, they can (and do, during the Brier). As for International TV-if other countries have commitments then isn't that what Youtube is for?

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by peteski
Having said that, you do leave things to chance when you go 6-5.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2015
Location:
Posts: 3

dbsdbs,

In the WCF rules that I linked to, it says that after the record, the first tiebreak *is* head-to-head (if two teams are tied) or the cumulative record against the other teams (if three or more teams are tied). So yes, the USA would be out against SUI and FIN regardless of DSC score. (Which I agree is the best way to do it.)

No, no team that is 6-5 should expect to make the playoffs, but certainly a three-way tie at 7-4 is entirely possible as well. In any case, I don't think anyone can say that the current system is "unfair" -- after all, the rules were set before play ever started and doesn't really favor any team over any other -- but it's also a question of what is preferable. I prefer to have the full set of tiebreakers. I realize that this is in large part due to how it was before.

Heck, the NFL there is a crazy set of tiebreakers which get used routinely since playing tiebreakers in American football just isn't practical. No one blinks an eye in that case since it's not practical to play tiebreakers and that's how it's always been.

I'm "ok" with the current scheme (or even no tiebreaker games at all). It's still fair. I just prefer with tiebreaker games.

Mason

Last edited by SongMonk on 04-02-15 at 06:36PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 39

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbsdbs


Bingo!

If it is decided that there can be only a single tiebreaker time, which of course is crazy, then it would be better to use head-to-head first and then DSC only as a last result. For example, if there is 3-way tie between USA, Finland and Swiss then USA should be eliminated because they lost to other 2 teams. If the 3 teams were 1-1 against each other, then perhaps the DSC could be used.

Instead, if there is a tie, USA apparently will advance to tiebreaker because of DSC. Ridiculous [and I say that as a USA curler and fan].

---

__________________
"'cause curlers are a rowdy bunch; they're boozers and carousers,
See them hanging out in matching sweaters, throwing rocks at houses,
They're afraid of linoleum, afraid of being chased
Around the kitchen with their socks on by a pack of timberwolves." --Dik Van Dykes

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2014
Location:
Posts: 10

It happened in the 2014 European Group A.

Norway, Czech Republic, and Russia finished the round-robin with a 5-4 record.

Czech Republic beat both Norway and Russia in the round-robin. Norway beat Russia, so Russia was out.

Czech Republic had a better record, but played one TB game against Norway.

Norway beat Czech Republic. Then, they beat Switzerland in the 3-4 game. Then Italy that had been defeated by Sweden in the 1-2 game. Finally, they lost to Sweden in the final.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2013
Location: Brooklyn Park, MN
Posts: 33

quote:

---

Originally posted by SongMonk
Heck, the NFL there is a crazy set of tiebreakers which get used routinely since playing tiebreakers in American football just isn't practical. No one blinks an eye in that case since it's not practical to play tiebreakers and that's how it's always been.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

There are powers that be inside the WCF that want to see Tiebreakers disappear altogether.

The reason is for tightening up the schedule and condensing the event. Why it hasn't changed yet, I'm unsure but presume it's because this event was already planned out and scheduled before last summer's decision on the tiebreakers was made.

With only 1 tiebreaker, they can move some more round-robin games into Friday and condense the weekend somewhat. If they have to allow for up to 3 tiebreaker games, it does put the weekend schedule into a bit of a mess should there been the need for that many games.

So with the decision made, it was a compromise between no tiebreakers and at most 1 tiebreaker, which does allow for the situations to be solved where teams lost 4 or fewer games.

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

While I dislike the idea of eliminating tie-breakers and instead using DSC to determine who advances, I must admit that the idea of condensing the event makes sense. I have been to several Briers/Worlds/Trials where time has been left in the schedule for multiple tie-breaker draws. After watching 3 draws each day for a week, it is frustrating to then have no curling to watch at all because no tie-breakers are needed. I always find myself hoping for tiebreaker games just to fill in some otherwise long days. Without the USA v Finland game tomorrow afternoon, there would be no curling until Friday evening at this Worlds, then only 2 draws on Saturday and only one draw that counts on Sunday. That can make for a long weekend. At nearly all of the events I have attended, there ended up being no tie-breakers and I know a lot of people who, having spent the entire week watching curling decided to go home and watch the playoffs on TV rather than have so much down time over the weekend. So I can understand the desire to eliminate tiebreakers.
Having said that, it seems so wrong to use DSC to break all ties that cannot be broken by H2H. If the WCF is convinced that multiple tie-breakers have to be eliminated, I hope they will at least continue to allow for a one tie-breaker draw so the use of the DSC to determine who advances to the playoffs can at least be minimized.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612

Gotta say I agree with those opinions on the drawn out playoffs. And I've done exactly that. Watched round-robin all week. Then, not gonna stay for three days of dragged out matches, waiting for the final.
Condense the event by one day. Have the 1-2 and 3-4 on the Friday night. (right now the one-two game is not do-or-die, so not so compelling to attend. Add a 3 vs 4 game though...) Semi-final Saturday afternoon and the final Saturday night. TSN could cover the bronze match played concurrently with the Championship final on TSN 7 for those interested, ha ha ha..

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

Whats wrong with the use of the DSC? I don't understand the argument that it cannot be used.

I am familiar with the tradition of using games, but as far as I am concerned, the DSC is the basic fundamental to the game, and is a very fair way to settle team skills.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

Because it's not a fair representation of all of the skills of curling.

It's a fair representation of your ability to make an unguarded draw to an open house button. On manicured ice, at the World Level, 0.0's *should* be the expectation.

Head to Head results from a full round robin works as a tiebreaker, as "Hey, we beat them already" makes logical sense, the game happened, the result should stand.

And then there's history....curling has had 50 years of "We'll break the tie on the ice"...and it's being abandoned because...well...for no actual competitive reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431

The other two wrinkles to this are the change to have all players on the team throw the last shot draw and two players each game. There are a set number of draws each player must make and they must alternate between clockwise and counter clockwise.

The other wrinkle which I think will be added next year is that a rock covering the pin is not always a 0.0. There is a complicated measuring system that is being tested where the outside of the rock is measured at the tee and to the top of the house. This is plugged into some formula that returns a "measure".

I think that these where put in place after the Chinese Men's team covered the pin on every draw in the last Olys.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlanMacNeill
Because it's not a fair representation of all of the skills of curling.

It's a fair representation of your ability to make an unguarded draw to an open house button. On manicured ice, at the World Level, 0.0's *should* be the expectation.

Head to Head results from a full round robin works as a tiebreaker, as "Hey, we beat them already" makes logical sense, the game happened, the result should stand.

And then there's history....curling has had 50 years of "We'll break the tie on the ice"...and it's being abandoned because...well...for no actual competitive reason.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2002
Location:
Posts: 612

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlanMacNeill

It's a fair representation of your ability to make an unguarded draw to an open house button. On manicured ice, at the World Level, 0.0's *should* be the expectation.

---

quote:

---

Head to Head results from a full round robin works as a tiebreaker, as "Hey, we beat them already" makes logical sense, the game happened, the result should stand.

---

quote:

---

And then there's history....curling has had 50 years of "We'll break the tie on the ice"...and it's being abandoned because...well...for no actual competitive reason.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

When did it suddenly become necessary for our sport to kowtow to the great God television?

If a network is unable to cover a tie breaker game, who the hell cares? We're going to kiss their ass and penalize teams just to satisfy some executive what has likely never thrown a stone?

When did we become sheep?

The answer is simple people. You tell them: no.

They won't stop broadcasting curling. Makes them too much money. Stop being bullied. Stop appeasing them because you fear losing something that you won't. Stop letting television dictate how we play our sport.

In short, grow some steelies and stop being doormats. Because right now they're in control and laughing at us.

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2012
Location:
Posts: 136

If head to head is the first tie-breaker, why have a tie-breaker game at all when there are only 2 team with the same record? One of these teams beat the other one (because we don't have ties in curling) so even though both are 6-5 one of them did "better" by beating the other 6-5 team.

The only time a real tie-breaker game would be needed is if 3 teams had the same record and each one beat the other. In that scenario a tie-breaker game make senses to me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged