by Joel Aufrecht 10:32 AM, 18 Jun 2006
Here's a little logic puzzle for you.

Four football teams form a set. Each team plays the other three teams once each. The two top teams advance to the next round. A victory is worth three points, a tie one, a loss none. Should two or more teams be tied on points, the winner by the first applicable method from this list (p17):

  1. greater number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
  2. goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
  3. greater number of goals scored in the group matches between the teams concerned;
  4. goal difference in all the group matches;
  5. greater number of goals scored in all the group matches;
  6. drawing lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup™.
For convenience, let's call the teams Italy, Ghana, the Czech Republic, and the United States. And let's say, for the sake of the logic puzzle, that each team has played twice, with the following results:
  • Czech 3, US 0
  • Italy 2, Ghana 0
  • US 1, Italy 1
  • Ghana 2, Czech 0

Under what conditions will the US team advance?

Answer: The US team will advance if it beats Ghana and one of the following is true:

  • Italy beats the Czech Republic
  • Czech beats Italy, and the US and Czech win by a combined six or more goals
  • Czech beats Italy by one goal, and the US wins by four goals.
  • Czech beats Italy by two goals, and the US wins by three goals, and Ghana score two or more goals more than Italy.
  • Czech beats Italy by two goals, and the US beats Ghana by three goals, and Ghana scores one more goal than Italy, and the "Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup™" randomly draws the US instead of Italy.
Hypothetically speaking.

Addendum: both Yahoo Sports and ABC TV indicate that the US could advance if Italy ties Czech and the US beats Ghana by enough goals. They must be looking at some different rules than I saw. If Czech ties Italy, the US and Czech are tied for second in the group with four points each. Then it goes to "greater number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned." In the only group match between the US and Czech, Czech got three points and the US zero. Goal differential doesn't even come into play. End of story.

Further Addendum 20 June: It turns out that there are indeed two different sets of rules up on the FIFA website. This page, which is labelled "Preliminaries", has Regulations 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™, which were ratified in March 2003. But this page, labelled "Tournament" but otherwise identical in appearance, has Regulations 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™, ratified in December 2005. The tie-breaking rules were changed between the two versions. The apparent reason is that "having b) as the first tie-breaking criterion avoids the absurd situation [...] in group G, where even if France wins 10-0 against Togo, if Switzerland and Korea draw 2-2, Switzerland and Korea make it through. [...] It is the same situation that saw Italy off in euro 2004, when Sweden and Denmark needed a 2-2 to go through and they did. Their supporters came to the game with “2-2″ banners and it was just ridiculous...." —Mircia, commenter, New York Times World Cup Blog. The analysis above is correct for the 2003 rules, but the rules now in effect are:

The ranking of each team in each group will be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.

If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:

d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup™.

Under these rules, the US can advance even if Italy and Czech tie; see this comment for an updated analysis.
Categories: Comments (2)
XML

Archive

June 2006
S M T W T F S
        1  2  3 
8  9  10 
11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
18  19  20  21  22  23  24 
25  26  27  28  29  30   
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
April 2001

Notifications

You may request notification for Joel's Blog.

Syndication Feed

XML

Recent Comments

  1. Victor Koledoye: A Religion ticket
  2. Joel Aufrecht: from a senior roboticist
  3. Jeff Davis: Source?
  4. Kathryn Schild: quick question
  5. Tai Yan Lim: Trip Back Home - Joel
  6. José Rodrigues: Hello
  7. Guan Yang:
  8. Erika Graffunder: Canada
  9. Erika Graffunder: Per capita emissions
  10. Erika Graffunder: Policy - should you keep evaluating or focus on solutions