Hello,

I've created this topic following the misadventure I suffered in the LDC. Mind you, I'm not necessarily preaching to the choir and I've got nothing against Arnoldo, who experienced the good side of my misadventure.
We finished our LDC group campaign with a perfect tie.

image](https://i.imgur.com/vj5ISYJ.jpeg)

After that I thought I'd qualify for the next round, given the league table. But to my great amazement I saw that it was Arnoldo who had qualified. So I sent a message to Blago thinking it was a bug but he told me it was a draw. Socrate told me it was a question of URL.

So whether it was a draw, the result was totally ironic, but what about a question of URLs? In both cases it's not a question of quality on vf but just luck or seniority.

I'd like to suggest a new way of sorting all this out: The result of the direct confrontation.

Thanks for your feedback and once again, Arnoldo it's not against you at all 🫶

The result of a direct confrontation does seem the most coherent in this kind of situation... This already exists IRL and should therefore be taken into account on the game, unlike seniority on the game, which is not fair.

And what if there's a draw in the head-to-head plus a perfect tie overall? 🤔

That's a very good question.

I would say that you then have to look at the best attack, then the best defence.
I think the more you look at it, the less likely there is to be a tie.

It would actually make more sense for a qualification to be based on something 'sporting' rather than on a coin toss or seniority, but... good luck getting that changed.

Yes, that would be logical, but what if the match is a draw?

sanders: Et que faire s’il y à match nul dans la confrontation directe plus une égalité parfaite sur l’ensemble ? 🤔

No tie-breaking system is perfect (or will be perceived as perfect, especially by the person who has to pay the price!)

If the aim is to decide which team is the better of the two, and if there is a total tie on goal average (same attack and same defence), the best solution is indeed a direct confrontation between the two, but as there is a strong chance that the two teams will have drawn, so we need to come up with another criterion, and even though some people will argue that this is wrong, we could use the number of XGs in the head-to-head match (even though this isn't automatically 100% true, but in principle it's usually the one who was better in the match).

But what about the case that happened to me a long, long time ago, maybe forty or so seasons ago, where we were 3 ex-aequo in total. I remember I came second and I think it was seniority that decided. Well, maybe it wasn't, but the fact is that in my memory the first two were the two oldest.

In any case, one thing's for sure: no matter how good or bad the tie-breaking system is, it seems obvious to me that it should be written down somewhere what the rule is (even if it's a pure draw) because I can see that even the admins aren't saying the same thing!
Because when you're managing the last match, and if it's very close, it's still useful to know where you stand.

We can also count fair play in matches, with the number of cards shown

What could be interesting, in my opinion :

• direct confrontation in the group stage (criterion 1)
• best attack (criterion 2)
• vF ranking (criterion 3)

I'm not crazy about the last criterion, but there has to be one as a last resort, and I think it would be fairer than iud, which I think is the current criterion.

Demi-cerveau: Ce qui pourrait être intéressant, à mon avis :

• confrontation directe en phase de poule (critère 1)
• meilleure attaque (critère 2)
• fair play (critère 3)
• classement VF (critère 4)

C'est pas que le dernier critère m'enchante, mais il faut bien en trouver un en dernier recours, et je trouverais ça plus juste que l'iud qui est, il me semble, le critère retenu actuellement.

It already seems more logical, up to point 4 but, as you say, if nothing can break the tie... unless point 4 turns into a coin toss, unfortunately. In any case, let's hope we don't have to do it too often.
Well, I'm talking as if that's going to change, when we know it won't ^^

I find the debate very constructive and I have the impression that we've come across a semblance of a rule with the return of half.
Nevertheless, reading you, what's the point of creating topics on improvements if the main decision-maker doesn't read them?

Lucas Joe Hart: Je trouve le débat très constructif et j’ai l’impression que nous sommes tombé sur un semblant de règle avec le retour de demi.
Néanmoins à vous lire, à quoi bon créer des topic sur les améliorations si le principal décisionnaire ne le lit pas ?

That's the problem. There are always good ideas. Often, anyway. But then...

I completely agree with Demi... fair play has to be taken into account... but I think it's all a bit too hot to handle!