Japan embarrasses itself at World Cup. Advances on "fair play" points while losing 1-0 & not trying last 10 minutes of game

Japan will very likely lose to Belgium on Monday and it'll all be in the past

head to head wrote:

I don't really understand the fair play tiebreak. Why not just advance whichever team won the head-to-head matchup?

Just to give a quick breakdown, there are 8 groups of 4 teams. 2 teams from each group will advance to the next round. Every team plays every other in their group (3 games per team) and is awarded 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw or 0 points for a loss. (For non-soccer fans keep in mind that POINTS are different from GOALS.) If two or more teams finish with the same number of points......

1st tiebreaker: Highest goal differential (Goals scored minus goals allowed)

2nd tiebreaker: Most goals scored

3rd tiebreaker: Most points (not goals) scored in matches between tied teams. When only two teams are involved in the tiebreak this is equivalent to head to head.

4th tiebreaker: Fifa fairpoints play. (Fewest yellow cards)

5th tiebreaker: Drawing of lots.

So head to head actually is prioritized higher than fairplay points but the matchup in question (Japan vs. Senegal) had ended in a tie. I agree that the tiebreakers could be prioritized differently and possibly make more sense but they are a known factor and this is actually the first time in world cup history that a tie has had to be broken by fairplay points.

On a personal note, regardless of how tiebreakers are drawn up, I very much enjoyed the first group of games on Wednesday (Mexico vs. Sweden & Germany vs. South Korea) as well as the first group on Thursday (Japan vs. Poland & Columbia vs. Senegal) because they ran simultaneously and very much impacted each others strategy and results.

Again for those who may be only partly tuned in, all the rest of the games in the world cup are single elimination and will end in a win for one team even if it comes down to extra time and possibly penalty kicks. Very high energy and high stakes.

Not a soccer fan at all, haven't watched the World Cup, yet this thread intrigues me, I've been thinking about it for days.

This isn't a problem with Fair Play, any tiebreaker can lead to what Japan did. Even if it was the fairest most awesomest tiebreaker imaginable, if Japan knows they're ahead in it, they can still shut down at the end.

If you want to make it interesting (not necessarily more fair), make latest goal scored in the final match a tiebreaker, that's one that no can be certain they'll finish ahead until the other match ends.

While a unique idea, your proposal wouldn't actually change anything because if Senegal scored in the other game the tiebreaker wouldn't have even been needed as they would have earned a draw and been ahead of Japan on points. Japan was already betting on them not scoring, so changing the tiebreaker doesn't change anything.

1. Playing KeepAway is very hard to do against a motivated defense.

2. It is AWESOME that FIFA came up with a tiebreaker other than a coin flip.

3. You sound like one of my students begging for .2 of a point at the end of the semester, not realizing how many grades go into that average. Sad.

Stop it right now wrote:

Many of you fair weather fans may understand very little about the game, but quit whining about competition. Sports are about TACTICS. Just like the aforementioned tactical 1500 race, you do what you need to in order to win/advance. Japan competed for 70 minutes, saw they were advancing, then brought on a defensive player. Why would they risk exposing themselves by pointlessly attacking? Sure, let’s throw bodies forward just for the hell of it! As for Poland, they are winning 1-0, so they would press Japan why exactly? AND...if you want to talk about sportsmanship...talk about the lackthereof from Senegal in their CHEAP goal in the first game.

This is letsrun, we are Americans here! To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

If a competition ends in a score of 1-0 did anyone really “win”?

Every team knows the rules going in...

totally support the fair play idea.

FIFA World Cup 2018: Mexico Coach Angry After Team Suffers 24 Fouls Versus South Korea

https://www.news18.com/news/sports/fifa-world-cup-2018-mexico-coach-angry-after-team-suffers-24-fouls-versus-south-korea-1788383.html

ever play against a dirty team? where you risk injury many times per game? penalize the bassstards.

teams that foul more than 20 times in a game should be simply disqualified also or awarded a penalty at the 20th foul or some such. or perhaps when you have a dozen more fouls than the opponent..

Racehorse wrote:

It's soccer. Who cares?

More people care about the World Cup than care about running, that's for sure.

Longjack has a feeling for the game. It is a much better game when cards are not necessary and trainers do not need to enter the pitch. My league uses cards as a tiebreaker, and reds sometimes cost the team a point in standings.

Hey how is the USA doing?

Oh yea thats right they can't beat a 3rd world country

I'd think "net yellow cards" is more representative than the method chosen.

Why not make it a differential, as with goals?

excellent tactics by Japan to advance.

Hdgjj wrote:

If a competition ends in a score of 1-0 did anyone really “win”?

Yes.

heartland runner wrote:

Hdgjj wrote:

If a competition ends in a score of 1-0 did anyone really “win”?

Yes.

Maybe in a coin toss - but in 80+ minutes of kicking a ball around a field?

heartland runner wrote:

Hdgjj wrote:

If a competition ends in a score of 1-0 did anyone really “win”?

Yes.

I once had a roommate that was a soccer coach. I would often ask him, how did the game go? One time he said something like "great game , back and forth, great battle, etc. " I said oh yea, what was the score? He said, we won 1-0. The next week I asked the same thing. How did the game go? His response , "Oh, we completely dominated, controlled the ball the whole time, they couldn't do anything, etc." Again I asked what the final score was. He said 1-0

Info wrote:

heartland runner wrote:

Yes.

I once had a roommate that was a soccer coach. I would often ask him, how did the game go? One time he said something like "great game , back and forth, great battle, etc. " I said oh yea, what was the score? He said, we won 1-0. The next week I asked the same thing. How did the game go? His response , "Oh, we completely dominated, controlled the ball the whole time, they couldn't do anything, etc." Again I asked what the final score was. He said 1-0

Compare that to running.

Q: How was it?

A: I ran great! Came in 5th.

This sort of thing often happens in tournaments with a round robin style in the opening round. Frequently the last game is meaningless for the teams that have already qualified (England vs Portugal) and so both teams rest their best players and treat the game as a gentle training session. The last thing either team wants is for someone to get injured so they just back off on the riskier plays.

In other match ups a certain result is acceptable, either to guarantee passage to the next round or to get a preferred opponent in the next round. The ultimate example of this is the 2012 Olympic badminton competition where four teams were thrown out for deliberately trying to loose to get a weaker opponent in the next round. The teams were playing each other and in both matches both teams wanted to loose.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/sport/olympics-badminton-scandal/index.html