Official Head-to-Head Rule

[superhornet]

I was wondering if someone could give me the official ASA definition on head-to-head competition used for tie-breakers; when it is used, what exactly it means, and the exact rule #?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by superhornet
I was wondering if someone could give me the official ASA definition on head-to-head competition used for tie-breakers; when it is used, what exactly it means, and the exact rule #?

No such thing exists in ASA rules. It is mentioned as a tie-breaker in the code, but I don't believe it is defined. "Head to head competition" is pretty self explanatory.

[Andy]

This is one of those "outside the lines" questions. In other words, it is not related to the playing of the game and would not be covered in the rule book.

I'm not sure, but this may be covered in the ASA code. I would advise you to contact your local ASA commissioner with this question.

[superhornet]

We have a sort of, issue, in my league here and I wanted to find out all the information I could on how ASA uses head-to-head.

Let me give an example and maybe someone could help me...

Team A is at 16-3; B, 15-4; C, 15-5. A & B have one game left in regular season.

Some are trying to say that if A wins the game, C is in 2nd place because they have beaten A two times and B has won only once.

It was my belief that using head-to-head as a tie-breaker, the games between B & C should be used. If there is still a tie, say 2-2, then the last meeting between B & C would determine who placed 2nd and 3rd.

[mcrowder]

Your first and best option is to settle a tie on the field. But if time constraints prevent you from doing so, C's and B's games vs another team are irrelevant as far as "head-to-head" tiebreakers go. Only the games between B and C matter. I don't agree with your 2nd tiebreaker (who won the most recent game) if they are 2-2 against each other, and have never heard of that being used in any sports I've been involved with.

[superhornet]

The option of using the last game between the two came from another league's rules that someone found when trying to answer this question.

But I agree that the best bet would be to settle it on the field.

[emaxos]

Around here, with identical won/loss records, first tiebreaker is head to head record. If that doesn't work, then it goes to run differential between the two teams. Team that scored more runs against the other wins the tiebreaker.

[Blu_IN]

I have seen this method used for seeding tournaments incase of a tie in pool play:

1. Win-loss record.
2. If tie, head to head results.
3. If tie, the team with the fewer runs allowed in all games to that point.
4. If still a tie, the team with the most runs scored in all the games to that point.
5. If still tied, flip a coin.

[tcannizzo]

ASA Code provides for this

Article 510.J.01.c
Tied teams shall be determined by:
01. Head to head competition.
02. The team that advanced the farthest in the winner’s bracket.
03. Won-loss records.
04. The teams shall be ranked according to the fewest runs allowed
per game played.
05. If a tie still exists, the teams shall be ranked according to the
most runs scored per game played.
06. If a tie still exists, by a coin toss.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
ASA Code provides for this

Article 510.J.01.c
Tied teams shall be determined by:
01. Head to head competition.
02. The team that advanced the farthest in the winner’s bracket.
03. Won-loss records.
04. The teams shall be ranked according to the fewest runs allowed
per game played.
05. If a tie still exists, the teams shall be ranked according to the
most runs scored per game played.
06. If a tie still exists, by a coin toss.

I didn't look up the code to determine context (too lazy), but how can "03. Won-loss records." be used to break a tie when the tie itself means identical won-loss records??? Must be missing something.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota
I didn't look up the code to determine context (too lazy), but how can "03. Won-loss records." be used to break a tie when the tie itself means identical won-loss records??? Must be missing something.

Tied teams in this sense do not necessarily mean they have identical won-loss records. Here is one scenario that could get you into the third tie breaker.

Let's say that there is one team left in the winner's bracket and two teams in the loser's bracket and the tournament cannot be completed. In order to determine who gets 2nd place and 3rd place, it could have been:

Tied teams shall be determined by:
01. Head to head competition.
a.) Team A and Team B played each other twice and split.
- or -
b.) the two teams might not have faced each other.

02. The team that advanced the farthest in the winner’s bracket.
Both teams might have advanced to the 3rd round of the winner's bracket, but Team A was had a "play-in" game (in the winner's bracket) and Team B didn't.

03. Won-loss records.
If Team A won their "play-in" game and their record was 4-1 (.800)
Team B played one game less and their record was 3-1 (.750)

Team A wins here. If they have the same win-loss, then go to the rest of the tie-breakers which do not need much explanation.

[Edited by tcannizzo on Aug 6th, 2005 at 11:55 AM]