Tournament Tie-Breakers

CaDad:

I've run our association's tournament for a number of years. Tie breakers are always a sore spot, because someone is going home unhappy.

And although I flinched a bit at your shot at all tournament directors ("I look at this as what you can expect from tournament directors . . ."), I do agree with you.

Common sense tells you that a tie breaker does not decide the issue if it cannot determine a clear winner. Over the years I have reworked the language of our tie breaker to make that clear as I can. If application of one step of the tie breaker does not fully resolve the issue, move to the next step. And, under our rule, you would be in on runs allowed.

The reality of the situation, however, is that almost any tie braker applied to a situation in which the tied teams have not all played one another is vulnerable to the same sort of criticism. Reflect for a moment on runs allowed or runs scored. Unless each team plays the same teams the results of those numbers can also be skewed by who got an easier or tougher draw. It is for this reason that I resort to "pool play" only if I have to, due usually to an uneven number of teams. My preference is for round robin, which not only goes a long way toward eliminating your situation but also reduces some of the logistical uncertainties of double elimination (a benefit for me as director).

In your situation, I fault the tournament directors for not taking the time to mentally play out the various scenarios when preparing for the tournament and making sure that all are covered in the tie breaker as written and distributed. I am guessing that your unhappiness would be less if you had been given a full explanation of the rule coming into the tournament rather than at the end, even if the rule was one you personally would administer differently. A tournament (and tournament director) looks bad when there are major decisions being made by the seat of the pants. If nothing else, it opens the door to "homerism" criticisms in situations such as the one you describe (even if that is not the motivation).

But, managers attending a tournament also bear some responsibility in situations such as the one you describe. Even though tournament directors make ungodly amounts of money for their efforts, and get to wear really cool hats, they too are but human. In your situation, it may very well be that the directors never really understood all facets of their own rule. For their part, managers should read the tournament rules. I cannot tell you how many discussions I have had with managers in which it became clear that they had never actually read our tournament rules (my favorites being with managers from our own association). But, more than reading the rules, thinking over and seeking clarification on the "what ifs" is also a manager's responsibility. Even though I am enormously busy while the tournament is playing, I always appreciate and hopefully respond well to insightful questions regarding how the rules work in various hypothetical situations. If nothing else, such questions often lead to clarifications in the next year's rules, even if the hypo never arose in actual play in the year asked. Head 'em off at the pass I say.

I hope that your weekend ends well. If the other manager does not show I would be very dissappointed.

Neill