2021 NJO Qualifications

JO's
-32H20polo
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:13 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: fan

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby -32H20polo » Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:10 am

To those complaining about pool sites and rules for attendance. Stop complaining and grow up. At least there is J.O.'s this year. IF you do not like do not go and do not send your child! The sites have agreed to allow your child's team to play in their pool be thankful for that and shut the heck up.

Justafan22
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:56 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Just a fan of WP

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby Justafan22 » Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:38 pm

NewFan18 wrote:
jlweath wrote:I have tried to put together what I think are the auto qualifiers from the 16-18U's from the Coastal Zone. I have not seen anything official on the CCA site that explains how they are going about determining this. Only info I got was from people on this site. So I used that info and the cryptic results from their play-in games for the bottom tier of teams to qualify for the NJO. No results as of yet are on the site. Will update if I see any. But here is my best shot for the Coastal 16-18U's. Please give me any corrections if you see any thanks.

2021 Coastal Zone Qualifers for Championship

16U Boys (have 9 allocations, 6-9 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 14U boys finishes in 2019)
1 – Rose Bowl A
2 – Trojan A
3 – LA Premier
4 – Foothill
5 - Admiral
6 – SB Premier Blue
7 – South Coast
8 – Trojan B
9 – Commerce

16U Girls (have 8 allocations, 6-8 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 14U girl finishes in 2019)
1 – SB 805 A
2 - SB Premier
3 – Foothill
4 – Commerce
5 – Rose Bowl A
6 – LB Aquatics
7 – SB 805 B
8 – Rose Bowl B

Over the years, SB 805 has been a force to be reckoned with, on the girls side, up in Santa Barbara area, along with their three strong High school teams, San Marcos, Santa Barbara and Dos Pueblos.

I assume there are also just as many boys in that area playing Waterpolo, and at those high schools. What club or clubs do they play for ?

18U Boys (have 9 allocations, 6-9 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 16U boy finishes in 2019)

1 – Trojan
2 – Palo Verdes
3 – Rose Bowl
4 – LB Aquatics
5 – Foothill
6 – SB Premier Yellow
7 – South Coast
8 – LAWPC
9 – Commerce

18U Girls (have 10 allocations, 6-10 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 16U girl finishes in 2019)

1 – Rose Bowl A
2 – Commerce
3 – South Coast
4 – SB 805 A
5 – Offshore
6 – Rose Bowl B
7 – LB Aquatics
8 – SB Premier
9 – LAWPC
10 - Trojan

Doesn't affect which teams qualified, but in the 18 boys only 1-4 were predetermined. 5-9 went through qualifier.

Saveharts
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:02 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Fan

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby Saveharts » Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:00 pm

Justafan22 wrote:
NewFan18 wrote:
jlweath wrote:I have tried to put together what I think are the auto qualifiers from the 16-18U's from the Coastal Zone. I have not seen anything official on the CCA site that explains how they are going about determining this. Only info I got was from people on this site. So I used that info and the cryptic results from their play-in games for the bottom tier of teams to qualify for the NJO. No results as of yet are on the site. Will update if I see any. But here is my best shot for the Coastal 16-18U's. Please give me any corrections if you see any thanks.

2021 Coastal Zone Qualifers for Championship

16U Boys (have 9 allocations, 6-9 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 14U boys finishes in 2019)
1 – Rose Bowl A
2 – Trojan A
3 – LA Premier
4 – Foothill
5 - Admiral
6 – SB Premier Blue
7 – South Coast
8 – Trojan B
9 – Commerce

16U Girls (have 8 allocations, 6-8 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 14U girl finishes in 2019)
1 – SB 805 A
2 - SB Premier
3 – Foothill
4 – Commerce
5 – Rose Bowl A
6 – LB Aquatics
7 – SB 805 B
8 – Rose Bowl B

Over the years, SB 805 has been a force to be reckoned with, on the girls side, up in Santa Barbara area, along with their three strong High school teams, San Marcos, Santa Barbara and Dos Pueblos.

I assume there are also just as many boys in that area playing Waterpolo, and at those high schools. What club or clubs do they play for ?

18U Boys (have 9 allocations, 6-9 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 16U boy finishes in 2019)

1 – Trojan
2 – Palo Verdes
3 – Rose Bowl
4 – LB Aquatics
5 – Foothill
6 – SB Premier Yellow
7 – South Coast
8 – LAWPC
9 – Commerce

18U Girls (have 10 allocations, 6-10 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 16U girl finishes in 2019)

1 – Rose Bowl A
2 – Commerce
3 – South Coast
4 – SB 805 A
5 – Offshore
6 – Rose Bowl B
7 – LB Aquatics
8 – SB Premier
9 – LAWPC
10 - Trojan

Doesn't affect which teams qualified, but in the 18 boys only 1-4 were predetermined. 5-9 went through qualifier.



Coastal Zone has 14 qualifiers for 16 and 18 boys. Top 9 go to Championship remaining 5 to Classic.

sbdad
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:06 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: parent, fan, player

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby sbdad » Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:36 pm

For the coastal zone qualifiers we have no clue who got the automatic spots they have not been listed.

16U boys, SB Blue was first seed in the tournament. There were 7 teams who finished ahead of SB in the 2019 JO's from this zone in 14U. This would indicate that 2 of those 7 did not field teams this year.
Rose Bowl for sure (they had a b team at quals)
Trojan for sure (they had a B and C team)
LA Premier?
Foothill?
Admiral?
PV?
south bay u? of the last 5 2 did not get an auto bid nor show up for quals.

For 18U boys. I don't think they actually used the 16U results from 2019. Most of the top finishers in that age group were at quals. I am guessing they used the 18U thus giving auto spots to
LA Premier
Pride
Trojan
SB (805) now SB Premier Blue
the remaining spots go to not sure about seeding
Foothill
LAWPC
SB Premier yellow
South coast
PV

Saveharts
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:02 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Fan

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby Saveharts » Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:11 pm

sbdad wrote:For the coastal zone qualifiers we have no clue who got the automatic spots they have not been listed.

16U boys, SB Blue was first seed in the tournament. There were 7 teams who finished ahead of SB in the 2019 JO's from this zone in 14U. This would indicate that 2 of those 7 did not field teams this year.
Rose Bowl for sure (they had a b team at quals)
Trojan for sure (they had a B and C team)
LA Premier?
Foothill?
Admiral?
PV?
south bay u? of the last 5 2 did not get an auto bid nor show up for quals.

For 18U boys. I don't think they actually used the 16U results from 2019. Most of the top finishers in that age group were at quals. I am guessing they used the 18U thus giving auto spots to
LA Premier
Pride
Trojan
SB (805) now SB Premier Blue
the remaining spots go to not sure about seeding
Foothill
LAWPC
SB Premier yellow
South coast
PV



16 Boys automatic qualifiers:
Rose Bowl A
Trojan A
Foothill
Palos Verdes

NewFan18
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:50 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Still trying to learn the sport. Have 2 boys that play

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby NewFan18 » Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:58 pm

Saveharts wrote:
Justafan22 wrote:
NewFan18 wrote:
jlweath wrote:I have tried to put together what I think are the auto qualifiers from the 16-18U's from the Coastal Zone. I have not seen anything official on the CCA site that explains how they are going about determining this. Only info I got was from people on this site. So I used that info and the cryptic results from their play-in games for the bottom tier of teams to qualify for the NJO. No results as of yet are on the site. Will update if I see any. But here is my best shot for the Coastal 16-18U's. Please give me any corrections if you see any thanks.

2021 Coastal Zone Qualifers for Championship

16U Boys (have 9 allocations, 6-9 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 14U boys finishes in 2019)
1 – Rose Bowl A
2 – Trojan A
3 – LA Premier
4 – Foothill
5 - Admiral
6 – SB Premier Blue
7 – South Coast
8 – Trojan B
9 – Commerce

16U Girls (have 8 allocations, 6-8 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 14U girl finishes in 2019)
1 – SB 805 A
2 - SB Premier
3 – Foothill
4 – Commerce
5 – Rose Bowl A
6 – LB Aquatics
7 – SB 805 B
8 – Rose Bowl B

Over the years, SB 805 has been a force to be reckoned with, on the girls side, up in Santa Barbara area, along with their three strong High school teams, San Marcos, Santa Barbara and Dos Pueblos.

I assume there are also just as many boys in that area playing Waterpolo, and at those high schools. What club or clubs do they play for ?

18U Boys (have 9 allocations, 6-9 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 16U boy finishes in 2019)

1 – Trojan
2 – Palo Verdes
3 – Rose Bowl
4 – LB Aquatics
5 – Foothill
6 – SB Premier Yellow
7 – South Coast
8 – LAWPC
9 – Commerce

18U Girls (have 10 allocations, 6-10 went through Qualifier, top 5 determined by coastal top 5 16U girl finishes in 2019)

1 – Rose Bowl A
2 – Commerce
3 – South Coast
4 – SB 805 A
5 – Offshore
6 – Rose Bowl B
7 – LB Aquatics
8 – SB Premier
9 – LAWPC
10 - Trojan

Doesn't affect which teams qualified, but in the 18 boys only 1-4 were predetermined. 5-9 went through qualifier.



Coastal Zone has 14 qualifiers for 16 and 18 boys. Top 9 go to Championship remaining 5 to Classic.


Yes, you're right, I was only referring to the 9 in championship div. The only point to my comment was that in the 18u boys, only 4 teams didn't have to play to qualify, the 5th team on the list, Foothill, did have to play quals.

NewFan18
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:50 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Still trying to learn the sport. Have 2 boys that play

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby NewFan18 » Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:49 pm

sbdad wrote:For the coastal zone qualifiers we have no clue who got the automatic spots they have not been listed.

16U boys, SB Blue was first seed in the tournament. There were 7 teams who finished ahead of SB in the 2019 JO's from this zone in 14U. This would indicate that 2 of those 7 did not field teams this year.
Rose Bowl for sure (they had a b team at quals)
Trojan for sure (they had a B and C team)
LA Premier?
Foothill?
Admiral?
PV?
south bay u? of the last 5 2 did not get an auto bid nor show up for quals.

For 18U boys. I don't think they actually used the 16U results from 2019. Most of the top finishers in that age group were at quals. I am guessing they used the 18U thus giving auto spots to
LA Premier
Pride
Trojan
SB (805) now SB Premier Blue
the remaining spots go to not sure about seeding
Foothill
LAWPC
SB Premier yellow
South coast
PV


The way my son's coach explained it to me was that 16u boys did use results from 14u in 2019. Any team that qualified for championship that year, automatically qualified this year. In 2019 there were 6 14u teams from CCA in the championship div, RB, Trojan, LAP, Foothill, PV, and Admiral. I believe Admiral is not fielding a team this year, thus only 5 teams were automatically qualified. SBU is the only team that finished higher that SBP in Classic that year, but for whatever reason they didn't participate in quals, that's why SBP was the top seed in quals. SBU is the only mystery to me in 16s, because the 18s had a team in quals, not sure what the deal is here.

Not so familiar with the 18s, but I agree with you that it looks like they used 18u results from 2019. I guess we just have to wait to something official gets posted so we know for sure.

ltoddnelson
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:44 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Photographer
Contact:

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby ltoddnelson » Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:15 pm

I can't wait to hear how SOPAC figures out to fix the fiasco they caused the teams in the 16U Girls 5-12 bracket on Sunday before JOs.

Still several teams places up for grabs with no actual results after protests were filed.

Potential teams affected ... Vanguard Blue A (5th?), SoCal Gold B (6th?), SC Tritons (7th?), Riverside A (8th?), SET Pink (9th?) and Vanguard Red A (10th?)

sbdad
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:06 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: parent, fan, player

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby sbdad » Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:41 pm

Fiasco? More info would be appreciated it looks like final placing is posted on the so pac web site.

ltoddnelson
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:44 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Photographer
Contact:

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby ltoddnelson » Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:51 pm

sbdad wrote:Fiasco? More info would be appreciated it looks like final placing is posted on the so pac web site.


Three of the 4 teams in Group G (5-12 Bracket) had identical records after 3 games (2 wins, 1 loss). SET Pink beat Socal B 4-3, Socal B beat Riverside A 4-3, Riverside A beat SET Pink 4-3 and all 3 of those teams beat Socal C by varying scores -- Riverside won 12-1 (11 goal diff), SET won 13-6 (7 GD) and Socal B won 11-3 (8 GD).

The problem started when it was determined there would be a 3-way shootout between the teams that tied for the best record in the Group G -- instead of going to goal differential; which I thought was typical. If it was goal differential, Riverside would have played in the 5th place game, Socal in the 7th place game and SET in the 9th place game.

The shootout was a comedy of errors -- which would have easily been resolved if the one ref on the score table side hadn't have gotten so frazzled and the tournament had clear outlined rules regarding tiebreakers.

As brief as I can but with some detail, the following are from my observations, what players and coaches told me, and was overheard by the SET 18U girls coach (also tournament director?)...

    - Riverside won the coin toss and got a 'bye' in the first round of the shootout (to play for 5th or 7th place game). SET Pink vs Socal B in round 1 of shootout (loser to play for 9th, winner to 2nd shootout round with Riverside).
    - The goalie for SET Pink got excluded for "unsportmanslike conduct?" and Socal shot (and scored) with no one in goal (Protest #1 [by SET?] because someone should be in goal?)
    - The SET goalie got put back in goal and the shot was done over (same shooter) and the Socal player missed this time (Protest #2 [by Socal?] because goalie should not have been permitted to participate?)
    - The Socal coach lost his $#!+ at the score table (IMO should have been red carded) and eventually Socal ended up losing the "1st round shootout" -- which put them in the 9th place game
    - SET celebrated and jumped back in the pool for round 2.
    - Shootout between SET and Riverside stared but then was paused. Riverside got out of the pool; SET and Socal jumped back in the pool to return the their shootout when the goalie was excluded.
    - This time the SET goalie that got excluded was removed from the cage and a SET field player placed in goal. The Socal player scored and Socal ended up winning the shootout -- IDK? Now SET submitted another protest -- #3? I believe -- (after being placed in the 9th place game) and Socal is jubilant to continue to round 2 against Riverside.
    - The round 1 shootout took about 45-50 minutes between all the starts, stops and discussions.
    - Round 2 was without drama (relatively) and Socal won the shootout. Which placed Socal in the 5th place game vs Vanguard Blue, Riverside in the 7th place game vs SC Tritons, and SET in the 9th place game vs Vanguard Red.

Continuing on...

    - The Vanguard Blue team (1st in Group F) waited over an hour before their game actually started for the shootout to complete.
    - Vanguard and Socal played in the 5th place game. The controversies and delays continued after the 3rd period. For what? I can only suppose to discuss more info for protest #3?
    - Vanguard ended up beating Socal in the 5th place game.
    - Riverside and SC Tritons (2nd in Group F) played in the 7th place game.
    - This game was paused after the 2nd period after the SET 18U girls coach (also tournament director?) told the referees this game should not continue due to protest #3.
    - Players for Riverside were told the 7th place game would not count because the tiebreaker should have been based on goal differential against the 4th team in Group G.
    - SC Tritons beat Riverside in the 7th place game. There was little celebration from what I could tell from the Tritons team.
    - Riverside were told they will be playing Vanguard Blue at a later date (before JO seeding) in the 5th place game.
    - SET Pink and Vanguard Red (3rd in Group F) played in the 9th place game -- which SET won.

That's why I referred to it as a fiasco and placement still unsettled based on what has been told to the players and coaches.

It'll will be interesting to see what SOPAC does.

mwb2001
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:13 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Player

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby mwb2001 » Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:10 am

ltoddnelson wrote:
sbdad wrote:Fiasco? More info would be appreciated it looks like final placing is posted on the so pac web site.


Three of the 4 teams in Group G (5-12 Bracket) had identical records after 3 games (2 wins, 1 loss). SET Pink beat Socal B 4-3, Socal B beat Riverside A 4-3, Riverside A beat SET Pink 4-3 and all 3 of those teams beat Socal C by varying scores -- Riverside won 12-1 (11 goal diff), SET won 13-6 (7 GD) and Socal B won 11-3 (8 GD).

The problem started when it was determined there would be a 3-way shootout between the teams that tied for the best record in the Group G -- instead of going to goal differential; which I thought was typical. If it was goal differential, Riverside would have played in the 5th place game, Socal in the 7th place game and SET in the 9th place game.

The shootout was a comedy of errors -- which would have easily been resolved if the one ref on the score table side hadn't have gotten so frazzled and the tournament had clear outlined rules regarding tiebreakers.

As brief as I can but with some detail, the following are from my observations, what players and coaches told me, and was overheard by the SET 18U girls coach (also tournament director?)...

    - Riverside won the coin toss and got a 'bye' in the first round of the shootout (to play for 5th or 7th place game). SET Pink vs Socal B in round 1 of shootout (loser to play for 9th, winner to 2nd shootout round with Riverside).
    - The goalie for SET Pink got excluded for "unsportmanslike conduct?" and Socal shot (and scored) with no one in goal (Protest #1 [by SET?] because someone should be in goal?)
    - The SET goalie got put back in goal and the shot was done over (same shooter) and the Socal player missed this time (Protest #2 [by Socal?] because goalie should not have been permitted to participate?)
    - The Socal coach lost his $#!+ at the score table (IMO should have been red carded) and eventually Socal ended up losing the "1st round shootout" -- which put them in the 9th place game
    - SET celebrated and jumped back in the pool for round 2.
    - Shootout between SET and Riverside stared but then was paused. Riverside got out of the pool; SET and Socal jumped back in the pool to return the their shootout when the goalie was excluded.
    - This time the SET goalie that got excluded was removed from the cage and a SET field player placed in goal. The Socal player scored and Socal ended up winning the shootout -- IDK? Now SET submitted another protest -- #3? I believe -- (after being placed in the 9th place game) and Socal is jubilant to continue to round 2 against Riverside.
    - The round 1 shootout took about 45-50 minutes between all the starts, stops and discussions.
    - Round 2 was without drama (relatively) and Socal won the shootout. Which placed Socal in the 5th place game vs Vanguard Blue, Riverside in the 7th place game vs SC Tritons, and SET in the 9th place game vs Vanguard Red.

Continuing on...

    - The Vanguard Blue team (1st in Group F) waited over an hour before their game actually started for the shootout to complete.
    - Vanguard and Socal played in the 5th place game. The controversies and delays continued after the 3rd period. For what? I can only suppose to discuss more info for protest #3?
    - Vanguard ended up beating Socal in the 5th place game.
    - Riverside and SC Tritons (2nd in Group F) played in the 7th place game.
    - This game was paused after the 2nd period after the SET 18U girls coach (also tournament director?) told the referees this game should not continue due to protest #3.
    - Players for Riverside were told the 7th place game would not count because the tiebreaker should have been based on goal differential against the 4th team in Group G.
    - SC Tritons beat Riverside in the 7th place game. There was little celebration from what I could tell from the Tritons team.
    - Riverside were told they will be playing Vanguard Blue at a later date (before JO seeding) in the 5th place game.
    - SET Pink and Vanguard Red (3rd in Group F) played in the 9th place game -- which SET won.

That's why I referred to it as a fiasco and placement still unsettled based on what has been told to the players and coaches.

It'll will be interesting to see what SOPAC does.


I thought fiasco was a stretch but holy [email protected]#t that sounds comically bad.

kernsting
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 4:39 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Daughter plays in Pacific zone. Dad and photographer.

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby kernsting » Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:45 am

ltoddnelson wrote:
sbdad wrote:Fiasco? More info would be appreciated it looks like final placing is posted on the so pac web site.


Three of the 4 teams in Group G (5-12 Bracket) had identical records after 3 games (2 wins, 1 loss). SET Pink beat Socal B 4-3, Socal B beat Riverside A 4-3, Riverside A beat SET Pink 4-3 and all 3 of those teams beat Socal C by varying scores -- Riverside won 12-1 (11 goal diff), SET won 13-6 (7 GD) and Socal B won 11-3 (8 GD).

The problem started when it was determined there would be a 3-way shootout between the teams that tied for the best record in the Group G -- instead of going to goal differential; which I thought was typical. If it was goal differential, Riverside would have played in the 5th place game, Socal in the 7th place game and SET in the 9th place game.



Agreed that it sounds like a fiasco and many poor decisions in the first shootout.

This is the typical tie breaking process and what is used at JOs:
"Three Way Ties - BL 9.6.3.2
If three (3) or more teams shall have equal points, further classification shall be established as follows:
BL 9.6.3.2.1 : The results among the tied teams shall determine which team is placed highest.
BL 9.6.3.2.2 : If at any time during the application of the procedure set our in this BL 9.6.3.2, the number of tied teams is reduced to two (2), then BL 9.6.3.1 shall be used to determine which of the two (2) remaining teams is placed higher.
BL 9.6.3.2.3 : "The comparison shall be made upon first, the points of the games among them, next the goal difference, and next, based upon goals scored.""

While not clearly worded or explicitly stated, I think that the interpretation of this is that the phrase “games among them” also applies to the goal differential and goals scored. Also not clear from this is if you place the highest or lowest place team first as that decision will impact the other positions. I think it has been customary to place the first place team by either goal difference or goals scored, however placing the last place team as the first decision may lead to a different winner once head to head is applied. (The other provisions are about placing a team in the higher position, so I think that carries thru to the final provision). More clarity in this process would be welcome.

If this typical process were followed then all teams in this case had the same number of points in games among them, they were 1-1 with no shootouts. The also had a goal differential of 0 in games amongst them (all were 4-3 wins or losses). I don't think the games against SoCal White/C count in the goal differential or goals scored calculation. The next tie breaker is goals scored, again all had 7 in games among them. So going to a shootout does seem the correct path.

However, once one team is eliminated or declared winner, then the tie breaker reverts to head to head between the remaining two teams in a two way tie according to 9.6.3.2.2.
"Two Way Ties - BL 9.6.3.1
If two (2) teams shall have equal points, further classification shall be established as follows:
"...The team winning the game between the two teams shall be placed higher..." (no other provisions apply)"

So if SET was relegated to 3rd in G, by losing the first shootout, then there is no reason to continue the shootout. Head to Head between SoCal Gold/B and Riverside should determine G1/G2. Since SoCal Gold won the head to head, they should be G1 and Riverside is G2, no need to continue the shootout. Luckily, it sounds like that is the way the second shootout ended up anyway...

Justafan22
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:56 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Just a fan of WP

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby Justafan22 » Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:04 pm

kernsting wrote:
ltoddnelson wrote:
sbdad wrote:Fiasco? More info would be appreciated it looks like final placing is posted on the so pac web site.


Three of the 4 teams in Group G (5-12 Bracket) had identical records after 3 games (2 wins, 1 loss). SET Pink beat Socal B 4-3, Socal B beat Riverside A 4-3, Riverside A beat SET Pink 4-3 and all 3 of those teams beat Socal C by varying scores -- Riverside won 12-1 (11 goal diff), SET won 13-6 (7 GD) and Socal B won 11-3 (8 GD).

The problem started when it was determined there would be a 3-way shootout between the teams that tied for the best record in the Group G -- instead of going to goal differential; which I thought was typical. If it was goal differential, Riverside would have played in the 5th place game, Socal in the 7th place game and SET in the 9th place game.



Agreed that it sounds like a fiasco and many poor decisions in the first shootout.

This is the typical tie breaking process and what is used at JOs:
"Three Way Ties - BL 9.6.3.2
If three (3) or more teams shall have equal points, further classification shall be established as follows:
BL 9.6.3.2.1 : The results among the tied teams shall determine which team is placed highest.
BL 9.6.3.2.2 : If at any time during the application of the procedure set our in this BL 9.6.3.2, the number of tied teams is reduced to two (2), then BL 9.6.3.1 shall be used to determine which of the two (2) remaining teams is placed higher.
BL 9.6.3.2.3 : "The comparison shall be made upon first, the points of the games among them, next the goal difference, and next, based upon goals scored.""

While not clearly worded or explicitly stated, I think that the interpretation of this is that the phrase “games among them” also applies to the goal differential and goals scored. Also not clear from this is if you place the highest or lowest place team first as that decision will impact the other positions. I think it has been customary to place the first place team by either goal difference or goals scored, however placing the last place team as the first decision may lead to a different winner once head to head is applied. (The other provisions are about placing a team in the higher position, so I think that carries thru to the final provision). More clarity in this process would be welcome.

If this typical process were followed then all teams in this case had the same number of points in games among them, they were 1-1 with no shootouts. The also had a goal differential of 0 in games amongst them (all were 4-3 wins or losses). I don't think the games against SoCal White/C count in the goal differential or goals scored calculation. The next tie breaker is goals scored, again all had 7 in games among them. So going to a shootout does seem the correct path.

However, once one team is eliminated or declared winner, then the tie breaker reverts to head to head between the remaining two teams in a two way tie according to 9.6.3.2.2.
"Two Way Ties - BL 9.6.3.1
If two (2) teams shall have equal points, further classification shall be established as follows:
"...The team winning the game between the two teams shall be placed higher..." (no other provisions apply)"

So if SET was relegated to 3rd in G, by losing the first shootout, then there is no reason to continue the shootout. Head to Head between SoCal Gold/B and Riverside should determine G1/G2. Since SoCal Gold won the head to head, they should be G1 and Riverside is G2, no need to continue the shootout. Luckily, it sounds like that is the way the second shootout ended up anyway...


Very clear explanation thank you, and it seems like that's the way it ended up sorted out. I also agree that the goal differential vs Socal White should not be taken into account. One coach may have been happy with a simple win and played their bench more, where another coach, that played Socal White later, could have pushed hard longer and run up score more.

What are the odds of all those games finishing with 4-3 scores :shock:

The good thing is that all three teams in question qualified. What a nightmare if one of those got knocked out, due to all this confusion

Justafan22
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:56 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Just a fan of WP

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby Justafan22 » Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:06 pm

Apparently, there is also a Classic division on the girls side also now

Gobama
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:24 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Yes

Re: 2021 NJO Qualifications

Postby Gobama » Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pm


Return to “US Junior Olympics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest