Last weekend, we held the zone playdowns here. I am not posting this as a sore loser because it doesn’t effect me either way. However, the 3 teams played, Rupert lost to Smithers and tied Kitimat, at any rate, with the point system, as clearly defined, the coaches met and with the rules commitee and it was determined that Rupert and Kitimat would play in the finals for a place at the provincials in Creston. The game was played and Rupert won 6-2 ( I think!) At any rate AFTER THE GAME, on MONDAY a complaint was lodged that the way the final two teams picked was dealt with incorrectly that Smithers/Kitimat should have played. I should also state that the Kitimat coaches were disgusting, they kept on congratulating thier players for bad hits. and kep t tyring to taunt the other coahces on the opposing bench. In fact, the local PRMHA President was brought in and had to lay the law down to the coaches about their behaviour. Their head coach got ejected from the final game. At any rate, it was ruled that Rupert should not have played and now Kitimat and Smithers get to meet for a rematch. Had there been a complaint prior to the game being played I would not have a problem with it but lodging a complaint after really stinks of being a poor sport. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
I know nothing about the situation other than your post, but if Rupert lost to Smithers (I’m assuming it was a 3 team round robin), shouldn’t Smithers have been ahead of Rupert in the standings?
They lost 8-4 to Kitimat and tied Smithers 2-2. After looking at goals for and against (Smithers lost to Kitimat 5-1), Rupert beat Kitimat in the final 5-2.
The post below is from the end of our story coming out in tomorrow’s paper. Information is from the Prince Rupert bantam coach, and a full write-up of the tournament is posted at the link below:
However, the celebration was stilted on Monday as coaches received information from B.C. Amateur Hockey that Smithers had contested the decision given a possible error in the tie-breaking calculation that didn’t take into account the penalty minutes.
While Smithers may in fact have accumulated more penalty minutes on the weekend, the Seawolves spent a devastating two more minutes in the penalty box in the teams’ game against each other, which may end up being the deciding factor in the controversy.
Coaches were told that a final decision on the matter could be expected by [Wednesday].
What are the tie-breaking rules? Here’s a link to BC Hockey’s regulations. http://www.bchockey.net/Files/BCHOCKEY%20HANDBOOK%202008-2009%20FINAL%20WEB%20COPY%20-%203%20Regulations.pdf
The tie breaking protocol is at section 5.22:
Let’s review the situation:
Smithers and Rupert are tied at the end of the round robin.
Smithers and Rupert tied their head to head game.
Smithers has 3 goals for and 7 goals against (-4 difference)
Rupert has 6 goals for and 10 goals against (-4 difference)
Both goals for and against difference are the same (-4 goals)
Next is the the best goal average.
So let’s try this…
Smithers: 3 goals for divided by 3 goals for + 7 goals against.
3 divided by 10 gives a goal average of 0.300
Rupert: 6 goals for divided by 6 goals for + 10 goals against.
6 divided by 16 gives a goal average of 0.375
If the scores posted above and my calculations are correct, and if the northwest region governing body is using the BC Hockey’s tie breaking rule guidelines, **Rupert was ahead of Smithers **and was the proper choice to play Kitimat in the final.
Good luck.
That is what my peeps told me ! I understand rules but should they not have contested PRIOR to the game to alleviate this very thing from happening!?
I think Rupert should protest this as well.
From what I heard, the Smither’s team DID speak up and was told that they were wrong in their own calculations.
BCAHA and the Skeena Valley Committee have both reviewed this and both have come up with Smithers being the winner. The final game was played out again and Kitimat won by a score of 7 - 1 (I think it was).
The whole situation was very unfortunate and should never have happened in the first place.
I feel very bad for the kids from Rupert and I do wish them luck next season.
See you then!
It would be interesting to see what lead to the decision. I think my earlier post makes a good case for Rupert. Did they change the rules?
I would also like to know how the error was made. One of the kids told me it was based on penalty minutes, but according to the site Big Thumb posted, that tie breaker comes AFTER the complicated math work.
The boy was philosophical (I guess we weren’t meant to be champs) but he was clearly disappointed.
BigThumb’s link seems to list the order of tie-breakers as:
[quote]5.22: Tie Breaking Procedure:
In the event Teams are tied for a playoff position after a Round Robin series is completed, the following procedure shall be utilized to determine the placing of the tied teams:
a) If two (2) teams are tied, the winner of the Round Robin game between those two (2) teams will receive the higher placing. If three (3) or more teams are tied, the team which has accumulated the most points in games against the tied teams will receive the highest placing, the team with the next most points in games against the tied teams will receive the next highest placing, and so on.
b) Any teams remain tied after (a) then the Team with the most wins will receive the higher placing, and so on.
c) If any teams remain tied after (a) and (b) have been applied, then the team with the best goal average will receive the higher placing, and so on. The goal average of a team is to be determined by dividing the total number of goals for and against into the total number of goals for, with the Team having the highest percentage winning the higher position. (Example: Goals for 10, goals against 4; percentage is 10/14 = .714). The goal ratio shall be for games amongst the tied teams only.
d) If any teams remain tied after (a), (b) and ©, the team that received the least minutes in penalties in the round robin games between the tied teams will receive the higher placing, and so on.
e) If teams are still tied after all previous methods have been applied, then the winner of the playoff position will be decided by the toss of the coin.[/quote]
Here’s the important bit of section ©: “The goal ratio shall be for games amongst the tied teams only.”
So, between Smithers and Rupert, what is the goal ratio? Did they tie each other? If so, then yeah, you move on to (d).
Thanks Mig.
No wonder there is some much differing opinions about FOIPPA and city charters etc, etc. when minor hockey’s tie breaking system gets confusing.
Well my understanding is that Rupert and Smithers tied 2-2 and they both were tied in points, having both lost to Kitimat. But the goal ratio, as I calculated it, wasn’t the same. Rupert’s goal ratio (.375) was higher than Smithers’ (.300).
Again, unless they changed the rules from what is posted on that link, Rupert was the proper choice and if I was one of the Rupert persons involved, I would raise a lot of fuss over this.
Read this again, BigThumb: “The goal ratio shall be for games amongst the tied teams only.”
One only calculates the goal ratio for games amongst the tied teams. You used the goals from all their games.
So if they tied 2-2, then the goal ratio for them would be the same: 0.5 (Don’t include goals from games against other teams).
That means they are tied in goal ratio, and therefore penalty minutes becomes the tie-breaker.
I see that now. I think it was unclear because in this situation, only one game was played between the teams. If it would have been over a season ( for seeding purposes for example) then it would have been more clear as there would probably have been more than one game.