With Two on First, Who’s Second?

[James]

I’m proposing we move the tied for first, Mikaela gets third discussion here. Post 531 on could be moved in one shot. Starts from the quote below.

In Sestriere, the women’s gs had Brignone and Vhlova tied for first with Shiffrin 0.01 behind their time and awarded third, per the rules.

531:

I don't understand why when there's a tie for first, the next fastest gets third, and the third fastest gets screwed. Shiffrin missed the fastest time by 1/100, then gets third.
Makes no sense. They tied for one spot, you shouldn't skip a spot.

http://medias2.fis-ski.com/pdf/2020/AL/5070/2020AL5070RLR2.pdf

 

[teejaywhy]

In golf anyway, it's a money thing. Although there can never be a tie for first (playoff will break the tie), if two people tie for second, they split 2nd and 3rd place money. Next person is fourth. If three people tie for second, they split 2nd, 3rd and 4th place money and the next would be fifth place. etc. That's not skiing I understand, but I'm familiar and comfortable with the concept.

 

[François Pugh]

If you are in a race and two people beat you, you're in third place.
If you tie for first, you are in first place; there is no second place. It seems simple enough.

 

[Jwrags]

It would seem that in this case Shiffrin had the second fastest time but was only the 3rd fastest racer, therefore, 3rd place. I could support the idea that the two first place people split the top two place points, but I do not find the current system egregious.

 

[karlo]

Copied from World Cup thread

If you don’t want the point race to be close at the end of the season then leave no doubt....

I think that’s fair in the context of uncertainties in the timing device. For example, in tennis, there has always been grudging acceptance that the call might be wrong. Even with Hawk-eye review, there is a degree of uncertainty of the call, a far lower degree, but there. Over three or five sets, one must perform convincingly to win. However, the allocation of points needs to be fair for a fair outcome of the match.

The allocation of points is a different matter. In the tennis example, one wouldn’t say, wow, that ball was so close to being out, so thrilling, let’s give you 2 points. Anyway, I look at points like they’re money, that’s why I looked at what happens in betting.

I found this,

Site Maintenance in progress

I didn’t notice it before, but there’s a downloadable spreadsheet with which one can determine the outcome of one’s bet. I used 1:1 odds, betting $1.00

Betting on 1 horse to win and there’s a dead heat, I lose $0.50. I lose money of my horse is not an absolute winner.

Betting on both horses to win and it’s dead heat, I breakeven. There’s no bonus for them having tied.

From a betting perspective, when money is involved, that’s fair. Points from races are money. They determine the Globe, Globes have financial value, in prize and endorsements.

I wonder how purses are disbursed in horse racing, for dead heats and runner ups.