ACT pointscores post Bega & points allocation discussion.

[claude]

Spac could probably elaborate further on that presso situation.
There was an agreement reached just before the presentation....that clearly didn't eventuate.

We thought we were doing the right thing.....as per the agreement...untill nothing was awarded for silver cup.....

The whole award thing stunk IMO .....

The Vic Series had no probs awarding nearly every kiddy a prize....

[fro]

Originally Posted by Bogan

Countbacks to split ties over 100km (or sometimes 96) aren't fair, so award them both first place pointscore (because they both finish first, there's nothing in the regs. about "winning pointscore") and then skip any unawarded places.

I've obviously been unclear. I'm not concerned about whether you award an aggregate or equal points for the tied position.

Instead, I'm saying that if a position is tied, then you must have an unawarded place afterwards.:

If Competitor W finishes first, and Competitor X and Competitor Y tie for second, then Competitor Z should be counted as having come fourth, not third (because there have been three competitors in front of him already).

[mattj]

Yeah bega's presso wasnt the best, no trophies didnt worry me just if they got carl and i up on stage at the same time as claude & lizzy just to get the recognition would have done me & carl , he drove his guts out all day and would have been good to get up but we had no idea what was happening

[Spac]

Originally Posted by claude

Spac could probably elaborate further on that presso situation.
There was an agreement reached just before the presentation....that clearly didn't eventuate.

I don't have much to add, but here goes:

At the request of one competitor, the ACT Series Committee Organised trophies for the Bega-round-winners of Silver Cup, Clubman and Novice in addition to the 1st ~3rd trophies for Gold Cup.

When Claude/Lizzy and Carl/Matty dead-heated, I spoke to Claude about who would get the trophy on the night, and (after some alcohol induced? confusion regarding points vs trophies) we agreed that Carl should get it, as Claude was going to get the 3rd Gold-Cup trophy (and the chance to get up on the stage and have a say, etc). I offered Claude a piece of plastic that we'd arrange when we got back, but he declined.
As it turned out, the missing Novice trophy created combined with the fact that Carl/Matty's equal P3 1st placing was ignored, created some confusion and nobody actually got up and took the SC trophies.

[Michelle S]

For the pointscore i have to disagree with saying most sports having equal 1st and then jump to 3rd. Every sport I have been involved in over the years has been awarded first and if there are two people worthy of it they both get equal recognition(hence the term "equal") and then 2nd place was awarded because they were 2nd best behind the 2 people that were awarded equal first. I think its quite unfair and hopefully something is done about it next year so everyone is happy.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by Kagan

and for god's sake, at least name them when giving out awards, what happened at Bega was unbelievable, two cars tie, and only one car gets the prizes, and then the other car isn't even mentioned by the orgainsers, a member from the regonised car had to give them credit... Good on you Lizzy!!!!

Just to clear it up it wasn't any member of the ACT series that missed our first place, it was the piece of paper handed to Graeme and he missed that two people he tied. He has already made appoligies and im happy with that.

I don't want this to sound nasty there Spac, but why was the trophy thing sorted out with Claude and us left out of it?

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Stewy

I don't want this to sound nasty there Spac, but why was the trophy thing sorted out with Claude and us left out of it?

Because you were supposed to get the SC trophy, ya goose! Or are you going to tell me that you're offended that we wanted to give you the trophy!?
Actually, I think that you guys had gone back to the caravan park when I realised that your tie meant we had to deal with the trophy side of things.


I reckon anyone who ties in an event with another registered competitor should get zero points, simply because they've made life harder.

[tamsey]

Originally Posted by Michelle S

For the pointscore i have to disagree with saying most sports having equal 1st and then jump to 3rd. Every sport I have been involved in over the years has been awarded first and if there are two people worthy of it they both get equal recognition(hence the term "equal") and then 2nd place was awarded because they were 2nd best behind the 2 people that were awarded equal first. I think its quite unfair and hopefully something is done about it next year so everyone is happy.

Too right

It shouldnt matter if theres 2 equal fastest crews, they should both get the 22points and seconf fastest crew should get 17 and so on. They still got the 2nd fastest overall time so they should get the points.

[afifield]

Originally Posted by tamsey

It shouldnt matter if theres 2 equal fastest crews, they should both get the 22points and seconf fastest crew should get 17 and so on. They still got the 2nd fastest overall time so they should get the points.

But there are 2 crews in front of them, therefore 3rd.

[Kagan]

Its not about what number you have as your final times, its to do with your finishing position. E.G.

Spac - 1:47.23
Stewy - 1:47.23
Claude - 1:48.49

Clause is in third position, not second, there is no-one who came second because clause was the third car home (sorry Claude, should have put on new tyres at the service or something ). This is how the vast majority of sports do it, in fact I can't think of any sport that doesn't, the only one might be the olympics as Boges used in his example, if two people dead heat, do they award 2 golds a silver and a bronze?? Or just 2 gold and a bronze??

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by Spac

Actually, I think that you guys had gone back to the caravan park when I realised that your tie meant we had to deal with the trophy side of things.

Thats cool mate I was just wondering. I will just go back to my little piece of carpet in the corner and shut up!

[Miss]

Using the average is the correct method and is used in most sports. ie 2 points for a win 1 point for a tie and zero points for a loss seems to be the universal scoring system for one on one sports. Averaging is especially used where prise money is concerned, if there is a tie for first then the prize money for first and second is averaged between the two competitors, organisers don't turn around to sponsors and ask for them to supply two first place cheques.

While you can argue that because they were both not beaten by anybody they are equally first you could just as effectively argue that they were both only one place infront of third so therfore they were actually equal second. Looking at it from the POV of third place why do they both deserve to get the same lead on third as if they had both beaten third place by 2 place when neither of then have?

As for Stewy's point about someone with 2 destinct wins and a tie should get the same points as someone with 3 destinct wins this is the same as saying that a soccer team that has 3 ties should get the same points as a soccer team that gets 3 destinct wins because they both got the highest score in 3 of their matches. So then what happens, the team that lost all their matches wants to get the same points as the team with 3 ties because the team with 3 ties also had the lowest score in each of their matches. This is why the teams that get the ties have all the points available for the 2 positions (1st=2pts & 2nd=0pts) averaged between the them They didn't perform well enough to have the destinct highest score, but equally they performed better than getting the destinct lowest score, so they get the average between the two.

In the event that 10 people tied for first, is it fair that they they should all get 22 points but the next person only gets 2, is it also fair that each of these ten people, all of which have failed to beat 9 other competitors in the event should get the same number of points as someone who beats everybody?

If a tie is just as good as a wiin then why don't we just time events to the week and then we can all be happy, because we all won.

Pete

[Bogan]

Too much maths Pete.

If there's a dead heat for first you'd have two gold medals. Two first place payouts at the TAB. Sure prize money gets halved (or split) that's no worries, but you have to award first to as many people as get it.

Let's equate points to prizemoney if we must (I don't think we must) and average them, but what about if the Claude/Stewy tie happened at BRM (I know, Stewy didn't compete) and there were trophies? We don't give two 1½ place trophies, there should be two 1sts and a 3rd.

In the event that 10 people tied for first, is it fair that they they should all get 22 points but the next person only gets 2

Yep I think it is.

It's not about who you beat or who beats you, it's about where you place. In that case there's ten people in first place and one in eleventh. Do you really deserve second if you're ten minutes behind ten other competitors?

If a tie is just as good as a wiin then why don't we just time events to the week and then we can all be happy, because we all won.

Or we could time it to the thousanth of a second like the V8 Stupidcars? That's just ludicrous if you ask me. Seconds are good enough, and ties are an interesting and achievable outcome.

T.

[Stewy]

The best thing for me to do is just drive faster and beat Claude or just not register next year and just go back to enjoying stress free motor sport

[Spac]

I think we need to make the distinction between "winning" (ie: Beating all other competitors) and "being in first place" (ie: Not being beaten by anyone else).
Then the discussion needs to decide which is the one that matters most, before it can progress.

There's also the third option (which I think Michelle and Tamsey are basically talking about) where you look only at the ranking of your time...
Eg: Claude and Stewy both take 45:34 to complete the rally, which is the fastest time. Kagan takes 47:12, which is the second fastest time.
I don't think it's got much/any relevance to a sport like rallying, but apparently others do.