Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification

Host in qualifiers ?

Does the host automatically get a position in the finals, or only if they are one of the 24 qualifiers? If its automatic, what does that do to the Round 3 (or is it assumed that the hosts will qualify earlier?)? Matilda Maniac (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the hosts automatically qualify no matter what their qualifying results are. So there are three possibilities:

Hosts finish 1-12 in second round (i.e. advance to 3rd round of FIFA World Cup qualifying). Then teams 13-36 compete for the remaining 12 slots.
Hosts finish 13-36 in second round. Since hosts already qualify, there are 11 slots left. AFC could either a) Have 23 teams (teams ranked 13-36 minus hosts) competing for 11 slots. b) Add the 37th ranked team to make it 24 teams competing for 11 slots. c) Have the hosts still "play" in the AFC qualifiers third round but their results do not "count" (similar to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I and 2017 Africa Cup of Nations qualification).
Hosts finish 37-40 in second round. Since hosts already qualify, teams 13-36 compete for the remaining 11 slots.Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair if they take part at all under scenario 2(c) as they unbalance the competition - groups of 3 instead of 4 - scenario 2(b) is more equitable. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Play-off round Format

Potentially the format changes after the second round, as the AFC have just added 4 match days for "ACQ PO" in the 2016-18 AFC competition calendar. ^[1] A second chance for teams 29-40? Or part of a scheme to whittle down to 20 teams in Round 3 instead of 24? Hopefully they will make it clear at the draw in a week's time. However, at this point before anything has been announced properly - as we do not yet know what the format really is - should this yet be reflected in the article, or wait until AFC announcement before changing ?Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure how it's meant to work. I don't think it can be as simple as "two rounds of home-and-away two-legged play-off matches" as the article currently states (note the reference just states 2 Rounds of play-off matches). There will be 24 teams in the 3rd round of qualifying - 16 of these qualify directly from the 2nd round, leaving 8 spots for the remaining 12 teams. If the first round is an ordinary two-legged play off, that puts 6 teams through, leaving just 2 spots for 6 teams. Unless I've completely misunderstood something (which is possible).Richjhart (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section describing the play-off round makes the square root of no sense. I genuinely have no idea how that's meant to work. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes no sense, I've updated it to only include what's actually stated in the reference. At least that way we're not guessing about the format.Richjhart (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the calendar only specifies two match days, so it can't be two rounds of two leg matches. The most logical with that in mind is 4 groups of 3 teams, with 2 going through from each group.Richjhart (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - there are 4 match days. Still, the two-leg match idea doesn't work number-wise so I think best to leave it out for now.Richjhart (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits from 76.10.156.20 do not have any references:

teams which were eliminated in Round 1 are no longer eliminated;
Northern Mariana Islands are suddenly in;
seeding is based on Round 2 performance (rather than perhaps by FIFA Rankings).

Nothing is published from the AFC (although that in itself is not necessarily uncommon) other than the line items in the competition calendar. Are the edits on 19-April speculation, or its there something that can back this up? If it is not verifiable, those 6 edits should be removed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up ?

Have tidied up the article, as it is slowly but increasingly having speculative edits and additions to competition format that have not been announced. As soon as there are references available to support these 'aspirations', then, and only then , GO FOR IT !! Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there apparently is no speculation - the article here states they have been eliminated (they are red on the map) - therefore they must be. Do you have a definitive source that says these teams have been eliminated or is it just your assumption. The AFC states that the 4th/5ths go through to a play-off, but do they say they are the "only" teams that go to a playoff? Seems some types of assumptions are valid and others aren't.134.159.131.34 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are quite right. it is getting somewhat confusing what has or has not been announced. The only article referred to that has generated all this - including the inference that NMI are now taking part in the playoff round - has been the 2 sets of match dates in a calendar, with the comment that is for teams ranked 29-40. Therefore teams 41-46 (those 6 teams eliminated in the 1st round) are still out. If you believe the map is factually in error, you need to either provide a reference to back it up, or discuss here why - with the (unfortunately normal) lack of information provided by the-AFC - the onus should be the other way around, where an assumption now needs a reference to disprove it. I specifically removed the text about NMI participation, not because there is a reference to prove they're not involved, but because of the lack of a reference to say that they are. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the question was to what was the source for the claim (which I have bolded) in the previous section. It is really currently only by inference from things that are now not true (ie because they didn't allow for a play-off round, and we know seem a agree there definitely is a play-off round) and - this is obviously a personal opinion - don't and can't be true given the claim of two rounds of play-offs (2 rounds to reduce 12 teams to 8 makes no sense). Therefore, the inference is that you can't claim anyone has been eliminated without a definite source of that claim. You really have to admit you have no idea what the actual state of affairs is and should mark the map accordingly. Alternatively, you could provide a source for the elimination. 180.200.156.150 (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Wikipedia should be about facts. However, there's no reference to say that Brazil isn't part of these playoff rounds, so therefore should they be assumed to be in the competition until someone can provide a source to prove that they're not ? i dont think so. I think it safest to hide the map for the time being until its confirmed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overplaying it - previously we had a document that said who would be eliminated when (41-46 are out and 37-40 would be eliminated in Rd 2) but no-one would claim that document didn't imply Brazil weren't in the tournament. But that document has been changed, therefore the inferences made from that document are not solid - they need a different source (and we clearly still have a source for say, how the Round 2 qualifiers work for the WC), but that doesn't mean a free-for-all as we still have an entrants list - plus we have rules about who could enter (it does probably mean the NMI stuff is a no-go even though it could be, and might well be, true under the AFC Asian Cup rules, which is not true for Brazil obviously). So effectively we can't say anything about elimination of 41-46, and I presume the AFC won't tell us anything definitive for months sadly. This article still seems to imply a definite twelve teams in those play-offs, which I think is questionable at best. 180.200.156.150 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "AFC Calendar of Competitions 2016 - 2018" (PDF). AFC. Retrieved 1 April 2015.

Seeding

There's a comment on Facebook - FIFA ranking will be used for seeding.

https://www.facebook.com/fft.tj/posts/1851263295102805:0 (see the comments)

I suppose this doesn't count as valid source.Edgar (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timor L'este disqualification

Retrospective disqualification from this tournament and others due to fielding ineligible players . . . AFC Statement, plus expulsion from the 2023 Asian Cup and further referral to FIFA for 7 games under their jurisdiction for the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification

Do the matches get treated now as if they were 0-3 ?
How does this affect the treatment of goalscorers for their opposition ?

I'll put a link to here for the other affected tournaments and friendlies. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't really clear about it. Probably the goals against Timor Leste are deleted, but we should follow sources, and I think it will be hard to find a updated one for past tournaments. So I'd probably just leave it as it is and add a note includes goals against Timor Leste. FIFA has not yet announced anything I guess?-Koppapa (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "AFC Calendar of Competitions 2016 - 2018" (PDF). AFC. Retrieved 1 April 2015.

[1]