With two on first, who's second?

[James]

Mod Note: These posts were moved from the Women's WC thread....

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.

 

[dbostedo]

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.

It's not a "spot" for the third fastest time. Its a count of people. The person with the third fastest time had three people finish in front of her. Hence she finished fourth.

 

[karlo]

Yes. Solden, Oct 2002.

Hosp (AUT), Maze (SLO), Flemmen (NOR).

World Cup Soelden (AUT)

www.fis-ski.com

Do they all get points for 1st, or split in thirds the total points for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?

Shiffrin missed the fastest time by 1/100, then gets third.

And, gets the points for 3rd place.

 

[James]

It's not a "spot" for the third fastest time. Its a count of people. The person with the third fastest time had three people finish in front of her. Hence she finished fourth.

Yes, but that's just not in keeping with what's going on.
You race for the fastest time. Races sare decided on time. Time differences are always posted. You make two runs and they add the time. They don't add places, or average your places. It's based in time.

The person with the third fastest time...

Is the third fastest. And should be awarded 3rd place.

 

[S.H.]

Do they all get points for 1st, or split in thirds the total points for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?

And, gets the points for 3rd place.

I believe, and somebody can correct me on this, that at the time, the rule was to split the total points for the tied positions **except in the case of a tie for the win** - so in this case, all three would have received 100 points.

That rule was changed relatively recently, and ties receive the max points for the spot, i.e., if two racers are T3, both receive 60 points.

 

[S.H.]

Yes, but that's just not in keeping with what's going on.
You race for the fastest time. Races sare decided on time. Time differences are always posted. You make two runs and they add the time. They don't add places, or average your places. It's based in time.

Is the third fastest. And should be awarded 3rd place.

This is not how any sport ranking works?

 

[dbostedo]

Yes, but that's just not in keeping with what's going on.
You race for the fastest time. Races sare decided on time. Time differences are always posted. You make two runs and they add the time. They don't add places, or average your places. It's based in time.

Is the third fastest. And should be awarded 3rd place.

But they were the fourth fastest skier.

 

[karlo]

Yes, but that's just not in keeping with what's going on.
You race for the fastest time. Races sare decided on time. Time differences are always posted. You make two runs and they add the time. They don't add places, or average your places. It's based in time.

Is the third fastest. And should be awarded 3rd place.

But, none of those tied at the top are not the “fastest” either.

 

[James]

But they were the fourth fastest skier.

Third fastest, of four skiers. A tie is a tie. It's the same thing.

In the Olympics at least, the timing is done to 1/10,000 second. They just don't report that far out, for good reason. That came up in Sochi when Dominique Gisin and Tina Maze tied for first. The timer would not reveal the 1/10,000 timing.

Amazingly, both Maze and Gisin won their first wcup races in ties. Maze with the three way tie @S.H. posted, Gisin in 2009 with Anja Paerson, Altenmarkt DH.
www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/sports/olympics/womens-downhill-historic-tie.html
Shiffrin gets 60 points for her third place,(according to below), 2nd fastest time .01 difference.

https://assets.fis-ski.com/image/upload/v1565160338/fis-prod/assets/AL_WC_Rules_2020_06.08.2019.pdf

^ So no points if you're 108% of the winning time, regardless of finishing spot.

 

[karlo]

Shiffrin gets 60 points for her third place,(according to below), 2nd fastest time .01 difference.

I’d say that’s fair if the 180 pts for both 1st and 2nd are decided equally between the two that tied. If both get 100 pts, then I think Shiffrin should get the 80 pts. In the end, it’s the points that count toward the season and the globe(s)

 

[S.H.]

I’d say that’s fair if the 180 pts for both 1st and 2nd are decided equally between the two that tied. If both get 100 pts, then I think Shiffrin should get the 80 pts. In the end, it’s the points that count toward the season and the globe(s)

why? she was third. 60 points.

 

[James]

I’d say that’s fair if the 180 pts for both 1st and 2nd are decided equally between the two that tied. If both get 100 pts, then I think Shiffrin should get the 80 pts. In the end, it’s the points that count toward the season and the globe(s)

Winners, with the same time, each get 100 points.
Winners won, should get 100.
2nd fastest time, should get 80 points.

 

[S.H.]

Winners, with the same time, each get 100 points.
Winners won, should get 100.
2nd fastest time, should get 80 points.

I just don't understand this.

Why should the third-fastest person be rewarded as if they were in 2nd?

At the WC level ... placing matters. Distance behind the winner doesn't. If you are the third fastest person, you are in third.

 

[karlo]

why? she was third. 60 points.

Because the two that tied for “first” each got 100 pts. I.e., they both got a 20 pt bonus for not being convincingly and indisputably first

 

[S.H.]

Because the two that tied for “first” each got 100 pts. I.e., they both got a 20 pt bonus for not being convincingly and indisputably first

So, they both got a bonus because in your mind, they're "really" both in 2nd? That makes no sense.

They tied for first, which is 100 points.

The third fastest person was VERY CLEARLY the third fastest person, so gets 60 points ...

This is how literally every sport with rankings works (all racing - swimming/running/cycling/etc.), ranked stuff like golf, judged sports with points (e.g., ski jumping, figure skating, etc.) ...

 

[karlo]

in your mind, they're "really" both in 2nd?

No. In my mind, they are not, either of them, absolutely, completely first. Now, on the other hand, if they evenly shared the 180 total pts for 1st and 2nd, I think it would be fair that Shiffrin gets 60.

 

[S.H.]

No. In my mind, they are not, either of them, absolutely, completely first. Now, on the other hand, if they evenly shared the 180 total pts for 1st and 2nd, I think it would be fair that Shiffrin gets 60.

there is no way to claim the people who are T1 are receiving a "20 pt bonus" unless you consider them to "really" be in 2nd, and be "unfairly" rewarded for it.

 

[karlo]

in your mind, they're "really" both in 2nd

Put another way, they both got 100, for having fastest time. No one’s getting 80 for the second fastest time. Instead, the one with second fastes time gets only 60. That, along with not just splitting the 180, doesn’t seem fair

 

[karlo]

there is no way to claim the people who are T1 are receiving a "20 pt bonus" unless you consider them to "really" be in 2nd, and be "unfairly" rewarded for it.

That’s not it. I’m saying neither are convincingly first. They both have the fastest time. But neither was able to defeat the other, to be The One and Only Champion of the race, and they’re getting rewarded for that. So, it’s really not that it’s unfair Shiffrin gets 60. It’s unfair they got 100 each, rather than 90 each. To make up that unfairness, it would, IMO, be more fair that Shiffrin gets 80, and everyone else gets points associates with the next position

 

[S.H.]

Put another way, they both got 100, for having fastest time. No one’s getting 80 for the second fastest time. Instead, the one with second fastes time gets only 60. That, along with not just splitting the 180, doesn’t seem fair

Why?

A "placing" in a race is determined by [PLACING] = [HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE FASTER] + 1

This makes sense. It's logical.