footbag.org

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:14 am Post subject: Match order in pool play

Hi all,

This is a subject that probably should be clear by now, but anyway I run a double check here. I am revamping our pool sheets and wondering whether I've got match orders 'correct' or not. I don't really know if IFPA has an official match order... Anyway, we heard a couple of complaints at Worlds 2005 that the last two rounds in a pool of 5 should have been switched. And if there's any other corrections of thoughts (perhaps new ideas) on these, feel free to reply.

This is how we've done it so far (I believe I copied the match order from pool sheets by david Butcher):

Pools of 4:

round 1:
1 vs 3, 2 vs 4
round 2:
1 vs 4, 2 vs 3
round 3:
1 vs 2, 3 vs 4

Pools of 5:

round 1:
1 vs 5, 2 vs 4
round 2:
1 vs 4, 3 vs 5
round 3:
1 vs 3, 2 vs 5
round 4:
2 vs 3, 4 vs 5
round 5:
1 vs 2, 3 vs 4

Thanks.

Grischa Tellenbach (grischa.tellenbach) · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject:

Sorry I don't know if there is an official match order recommended by the IFPA. But isn't it a disadvantage for seed #1 not to play round 4 just before facing seed #2 (who plays round 4) ?

G*

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject:

I'm not sure about that.... But I think that was why some players wanted to switch the last two rounds in Helsinki 2005

Steve Goldberg (brat) · Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Match order in pool play

Steve Goldberg (brat) · Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject:

Oh, and I forgot. The sample pool sheets are actually in the official rule book, however, for some reason when they were made for the recent set of updates for the 2006 rule book, they were done incorrectly.

Nobody has, to my knowledge, sent out any kind of errata sheet on it. It's kind of bad.

So, if you have a 2006 rule book (printed one) and open it to the page with same pool sheets for net, you'll see it completely wrong. (I won't put it in a tabular format so nobody sees it and mistakes it for right here, but it basically says 1v2, 3v4 is the first match!)

Would be nice if we had more volunteers like you, Olli, who were competent and willing to spend time helping get this stuff right.

Steve

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

Thanks, Steve! For answers and wishes. Wink

This time I'm asking these things because me and Jani Markkanen are trying to formalize (net) tournament running here in Finland. It is like mini-TIB we're working on, so if we ever make it ready it surely will be useful when implementing TIB, as well. Different technologies are used (just to get something ready before Finnish Open) but anyway all the issues and logics stay the same.

I would like to here everybody's opinions on pool of 5. Especially you little green men in California!

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:

Steve, just to make it clear I wasn't calling YOU names, when talking about little green men! Laughing

Christopher Siebert (conan) · Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject:

The #1 seed in pool of 5 plays all the way through without breaks, I believe. Straight up the ladder 1-5, 1-4, 1-3, 1-2. So, in pool of 5, 1-2 is not the last match of the pool, as in pool of 4.

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:34 am Post subject:

Thanks Conan!

Should the match order be an official rule that must be obeyed? Or should it perhaps be one of the things that tournament director decides?

Anyway, I want to use the order that's most widely accepted, if not official. Hence, bring in more of your opinions.

Andrew Ronald (mongoose) · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:55 am Post subject:

Hey Olli

I think the tournament director should always have freedom in this area.

I can see a well planned tournament where the best matchups in pool play can be set aside to be played on court #1. These matches would probably have to be played out of order from regular pool order format but the value of always having a show of the best matches available to keep spectators interested cannot be underestimated. Especially if the conditions on court #1 wont be degraded by constant use.

Andy

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject:

Thanks Andy!

That's a good point.

While tournament director having the freedom to alter things, which one of the match orders you'd prefer by default (in pool of 5)?
1 vs 2 last? Or 1st seed "down the ladder" as Conan presented it?

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:

UP the ladder! Bugger. Embarassed

Andrew Ronald (mongoose) · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject:

I dont like pools of 5. Unless there are only 5 players or teams in the whole event I would rather pools of 3 if it doesnt break down to pools of 4 evenly. Pools of five just take way too long.

The final match order is not that critical in a pool of 5 either I think. As long as the top teams get at least one or two warm up games against the lower seeds before they play the important matches against their peer seeds that will threaten them for position. The same goes for the lower seeds. They should each get warm up games against the top seeds before they play their important matches against their own peer seeds, jockeying for ranking points.

In other words I dont think it matters which order you choose.

Andy

Olli Savolainen (opa) · Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: