Debate on the Tiebreake Rules

To the kind attention of Mr. Platini

UEFA President

Nyon- Vaud- Switzerland

2 Major Critics on The Way to Determine The Best Third for Euro 2016

or Generally Speaking a Debate on The Tiebreake Rules for  Cross-Groups Qualification

For Euro 2016, due to  prime number (53) of participants, it is required to qualify a best third team, by way of a tiebreake rule.

Thanksfully, Turkey, scored a unic level that doesn’t give way too much (not at all) debate… But will it be always so with current way of determining the “best”, apart of ranking the teamsaccording  to their scores?
This years’ problem had a prerequisite; to levigate, the number of teams in each group; but the solution to this, was interdependently determining the final qualification, the best third The rule was, to equalize the number of teams within each group, through eliminating  of the last rank team of larger groups, with all outcomes. . That one is really a criticable rule due to its bias-relatedness with the next step, i.e. the adopted rule, determines also the next phase, best third, as it happend this time.. .

That’s a way! Within 8 groups with 6 teams, last rank team is eliminated with all outomes, in order to be equal by number to the 9th group of 5 teams. And that one was done after the qualifications of first 2 teams within each group; Thanksfully, the ranking of first 2 doesn’t change in any of these groups, after the groups after the elimintion; but it may not be always so, in one of the days, it  may effect the ranking of first 2 and even more than 2.

That’s a way, once again! But instate of eliminating last rank team of larger groups with all their results, it mght be thought to duplicate the last rank team of smaller groups with all their outcomes and making the qualification for the best third than after. In our real case, the first 2 ranks does not  effects in any of the groups, but Turkey looses level, and Hungary and Norway promote to the best third.

Which way is better? Generaly speaking, a model with higher number of trials (here number of matches) is much more up to more accuracy, statistically; taken for granted, the groups are at same level of hardness. Therefor, duplicating  the last rank of smaller groups, with all the outcomes (including card penalties also) seems to be better, besides reduces the task to evaluate.  But, the equality of hardness of groups, is not totally free of discussions; especially with minorly populated countries; therefor reducing the size of groups, deserves always some considerations.  

But, the problematic doesn’t end here. Where we will stop reducing the size of groups, stays critical here. Taking into consideration mostly adopted and accepted as  tiebreake rules, especially the rule for deadlocked competitors. Decreasing the number of competitors, one by one in each group in order to determine the qualifed team(s) (here the 3th rank), and make the cross-groups qualification(s), (here the best third) then after.

In such a case the results will be as follows.

For Group A, Iceland, should be winner; Czech Rebuplic and Turkey will be at tiebreake, and Turkey should be qualified as runner-up according the tiebreake rule 2 (Superior goal difference resulting from the matches played between the teams in question), and Czech Rebuplic should wait to be evaluated for best third.

Group A

Pos.	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
1	Iceland	4	2	0	2	6	4	2	6
2	Turkey	4	2	0	2	4	5	-1	6
3	Czech Republic	4	2	0	2	4	5	-1	6

Last word; as it can be seen, the chosen method, also may qualify the winner, runner-up. Therefor this is just the  time of to reconsider, the qualification rules, within a group and accross-groups.

A model interrelatedly causing less bias, should be evaluated as the best; in our case, a model with minimum nominees for qualification.

Truly yours

Dogan Ozkan

Economist (M.A)