Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC second round

Notes for "guaranteed at least the Asian Cup Third Round" ...

This is classic overspecification. It's putting too many indicators on a table that will just confuse a typical reader. It's similar to why we don't put "(X) Safe from relegation" against Manchester City and don't put "(Z) Cannot qualify for Champions League Group Stage" against Sheffield United. They might be "facts" but it's too much and too confusing. Add in the fact that Japan almost certainly won't even play in the Asian Cup Third Qualification Round anyway and it seems overly pedantic to note that for a little while the current situation holds. 110.33.18.238 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You also might want to think through 'all the options adding the AFCQ implies you needing. You need a designation for "Eliminated from the World Cup" but some teams will also be guaranteed a Third Round AC spot but others won't etc. Alphabet soup at the end of each table is not a sensible procedure. Kuwait, for example, is likely to enter the final match with a string of trailing designations - Kuwait (H, Y, X) where H is Host and Y is "cannot win group but can advance as a runner-up" and X is "at least AFC third round". You could also ask why "Eliminated from World Cup" doesn't note "Cannot advance directly to AFC Asian Cup 2023 Finals". These notes are meant to be helpful, not show off how clever people are.

Very confusing

This doesn't make sense anymore. If I go to the "Schedule" section it says Matchday 9 is ... 11 June 2021, but that it was originally on 4 June 2020. However, if I go to the matches on 11 June 2021 (say Group C) there is a note saying they were originally scheduled for 31 March 2020. Why? 110.33.28.251 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I made the notes, checking the original dates in earlier versions of this page, as I couldn't find comprehensive pre-COVID schedules elsewhere. It struck me too that matchdays 8 and 9 seemed to have been swapped around in all groups. --Theurgist (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I can confirm that matchdays 8 and 9 have been swapped for some reason (mostly to facilitate the hosting nations). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawal of DPR Korea and its consequences on the second round groups runner-up ranking

After confirming the withdrawal of DPR Korea from 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification, the ranking of groups runner-up is to be modified accordingly as group F now has only 4 teams and which means that the runners-up results with fifth-placed team of each group are to be ignored (same proccedure was adopted during the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification, also in the 2021 AFC Cup). Another modification is to be considered as Syria now is already qualified to the third round; even if Syria loses its remaining 3 matches, it'll have 15 pts and it'll be in the second place of the group A, their win over Guam is to be ignored for the runners-up ranking. This will make Syria compete with 12 pts tally that is enough to be the 4th best runner-up in the worst case, and here is why :

[What if Phillipines win 3 games out of 3 and China win 3 games out of 4 - won't Syria be third in their group?]

In Group D :

KSA has already 2 draws, and Uzbekistan has already lost 2 matches, and they'll face each other in the last matchday ; If KSA wins it will top the group and Uzbekistan will only have 15 points (6 of them are to be ignored so it'll compete with 9 pts). If they draw, KSA is still winning the group and Uzbekistan will have 16 points (only 10 of them are to be included in the runners-up ranking), If Uzbekistan wins, it'll top the group and KSA will be second with 17 points (only 11 of them are to be included in runners-up ranking). Thus Group D runner-up will never reach the 12 pts mark that Syria has already guaranteed.

In group F :

Tajikistan and Krgyzstan have already drew once and lost 2 times so they can never reach the 12 pts mark. However, they both can still win the group just in case Japan loses its 3 remaining matches and in that case Japan will only have 15 pts (only 9 of them are to be included) so here too it's impossible for groupe F runner-up to reach the 12 pts mark.

In Group G :

There are three teams that still can reach the 18 pts mark (of which 12 pts are to be included); UAE, Malaysia and Vietnam. However, these three teams will face each other in the remaining matchdays. UAE and Malaysia have already lost 2 games so should they reach the 18/12 pts mark they must win all their games which is impossible as they'll face each other. So one of them is to be out according to the score of this match. The winner side (UAE or Malaysia) should beat Vietnam too to reach the 18/12 pts mark and in this case Vientnam (who already has 2 draws) will fall short with 17 pts, of which 11 pts are to be included) so it is impossible that Group G runner-up beats Syria's current points tally.

In Group H :

Only Korea Rep and Turkmenistan can reach the 18 pts mark. Korea has already 2 draws and Turkmenistan has already 2 losses, and they still have a game against each other. The same situation of the Group D between KSA and Uzbekistan. Thus this group runner-up can't reach the 18/12 pts mark too.

Four of the eight groups runners-up can not reach/beat Syria's current tally of points while only three can do that. That means that in the worst case Syria will be the 4th best runner-up which is enough to qualify to the next round. I also had done a mathematical simulation to figure out whether I forgot something here but the outcome that I had is that Syria has a 100% probability of reaching the next round.

I'd like to mention that this discussion has no refs as it is just a logical examination of the current situation of the AFC qualification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYFRA92 (talk • contribs)

@SYFRA92: Nice analysis! By the way, what are Lebanon's chances to qualify as one of the best runners-up if they beat both Sri Lanka and Turkmenistan, and draw v South Korea? And, what if they lose v South Korea, are the chances good enough? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks for your reply.. To answer your question we need to know how the AFC will consider the matter of DPR Korea withdrawal..

Currently, Group H has very low chance of getting one of the best runner-up seeds.. according to my simulation the probability is around 6% (the second lowest among the all groups).

However, if the AFC decides to cancel the already recorded results of DPR Korea in the qualification this will see Lebanon advancing to the second spot with 7 pts (from 3 games), Korea Rep will be first with 7 pts from 3 games too, while Turkmenistan will be third with 6 pts from 4 games). That would be a big push for Lebanon's chances of advancing as they'll only need 5 pts from the remaining 3 matches to hit the 12 pts mark (a win over Srilanka and 2 draws with Turkmenistan and Korea Rep will be enough to see the Arz team through the third round).

The last option is that the AFC decides not cancel DPR Korea results and then just forfeit the remaining matches.. that would be a K.O for the Lebanese side. In this case Lebanon will need to win all three matches and still be falling short with 17 pts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYFRA92 (talk • contribs)

@SYFRA92: I've continued the discussion on your talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Syria aren't guaranteed top 2 so the rest of the analysis is moot. 110.33.28.251 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

The designator for Guam as being eliminated (Z) condition, needs to be updated to (Y) condition due to the change in rules around qualifying (see https://m.weibo.cn/5961019705/4641443593850044) 110.33.28.251 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'd prefer a better source than Weibo. --Ferien (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Odd comment given it reflects changes to the rules that were otherwise accepted by you without question. But, because runner-up results against 5th -place teams are no longer included in the comparison, Guam CAN finish "ahead" of poosible runners-up in Groups B, C, D and E (but not F, G and H) therefore they COULD be the 4th best runner-up now 110.33.28.251 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@110.33.28.251: Guam only have two matches left and therefore can have a maximum points of six points. That is not enough to even get them in second place. Mwiqdoh (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Train wreck!

This page is a train wreck. Although it's not all our fault - For Maldives v Syria [FIFA here] says it's 15:00 on 6 June in China. But [FIFA also] says it's actually on the 7th. But [AFC] says it's really on the 4th in Sharjah (which, to be fair, is where the teams are rumoured to be), but then [AFC] also says it's really in China - although they hedge their bets by not being specific about the day. |This is probably the correct one (which doesn't have times yet) which Qby did reference in their edit.

Also, when editting a single line, it helps to read the lines around it, for example TIL that on the 12th of March the AFC actually announced Group A would be in the UAE. [Note, all links as at now, they change fairly regularly] 110.33.28.251 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind as well that the AFC also posted an announcement on their site as well about the move to the UAE, as described here. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The comment was more to note that it fact it is not true that the AFC announced UAE as a host on 12 March as this article states. Nor is it true, as this article states, that the UAE is the top seeded team in Group A. 110.33.28.251 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've made the note regarding Group A in the Centralised venues section. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not vaguely good enough. READ THE SENTENCES YOU ARE WRITING IN TOTAL - NOT JUST INDIVIDUAL WORDS. It says "On 12 March 2021, AFC confirmed the hosts for the group stage scheduled to take place from 31 May to 15 June 2021. Group A: United Arab Emirates (China hosted Guam on 28 May.)". First, the 28 May thing is just entirely the wrong date - and second, the AFC did not name UAE as a host on 12 March, it named China. Either say China, or reword the whole section. These are sentences that have a meaning and interpretation in English and that is now utter, utter, utter garbage. As for the Indonesia thing - given that ALL THE OTHER teams that are eliminated note it, any normal reader - not some guy who spends too much time looking at the same page over and over again - would be utterly purplexed by the decision to have a "Q" - THE SAME THING THAT JAPAN HAS - next to it, yet it is in utterly to opposite situation. THINK THROUGH HOW A NORMAL PERSON WOULD INTERPRET THE TABLE AND FRANKLY BE BETTER. 110.33.28.251 (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The Q tag

Q tag specifically says Qualified to the phase indicated and has always been used to refer to the indicated round next to the team's position. In this case, as Indonesia can only reach a max of 7 points (as of 4 June), they are only able to qualify for the AFC Asian Cup qualifying round. I do not understand why Cococ2001 wants to insist the other case, since this article isn't only about World Cup qualifying. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Q should be used since, as you have pointed out, is it used to show that the team has qualified to the phase indicated (Asian Cup qualifying play-off round), ergo not the third round. The fact that Indonesia is eliminated from the World Cup is implied. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

We use a Q to indicate that a team has qualified for a relegation play-off so I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply here. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: The article is literally titled 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round. Also, a simple solution would just be to add a Q and a Z because both would be true. Mwiqdoh (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead reads: The AFC second round of 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification, which also serves as the second round of 2023 AFC Asian Cup qualification. The qualification process is valid for both the 2022 World Cup and 2023 Asian Cup. The reason why only Indonesia has Q, is because they are the only team that can mathematically only finish 5th. All other teams can mathematically finish 4th, meaning that theoretically they could qualify to the Asian Cup qualifying third round. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Do you mind pinging me so I can get a notification? And I'm aware that a team under second place having a Q means you cannot qualify for the world cup. But for the sake of simplicity and understanding for some readers, add a Z just to clarify they cannot qualify to the world cup, and q meaning they qualified to the phase indicated. It won't hurt just to add it. Mwiqdoh (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: I understand where you're coming from, but adding a Z alongside the Q is redundant. The only phase that lets you go on through the World Cup qualifications is the "Third round". If you have qualified for anything other than the third round, you obviously are eliminated from the World Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: It took me a while to understand "qualified to the phase indicated" but I understood because of the word indicated. So I'm talking about the wording of the Q note. So people don't have to re-read anything and can just take a quick look, you can add Z. Again, it only helps, not hurts. Mwiqdoh (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jufafa: May I please have your explanation for removing this tag here? Jalen Folf (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: oh, I didn't notice about this Discussion. Sorry. I think Japan has 'Q Tag' by 'World Cup 2022 Qualification Third Round'. Indonesia couldn't Qualify to 'World Cup 2022 Qualification Third Round'. so I think It maybe Vandal or some missed edit. I think it's not good idea using same tag for different qualifer. Jufafa (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed Footy2000 brought up that once this round of qualifiers is over that the letters will serve no purpose, and I have to agree with them here. Until then, the letters are necessary as this is still an ongoing qualifying event. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The comments by @JalenFolf: are spot on. I just edited the article and added some Z's to the teams that are also Q's, before reading the talk page. Removing the Z "cannot qualify" tag seems unnecessarily WP:POINTY, on the basis that something is implied and therefore does not need to be stated. Maintaining a country's status as both Q and Z for only a handful of days before the round is completed is simple, consice and unambiguous. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

To echo @Mwiqdoh: for the sake of simplicity and understanding for some readers, add a Z just to clarify they cannot qualify to the world cup, and q meaning they qualified to the phase indicated. It won't hurt just to add it. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Firstly, I do not understand why WP:POINTY applies here. The Q and Z matter is just simple logic. Secondly, I suppose we have a consensus here, after Fauzannaufan's, JalenFolf's, Nehme1499's and my related edits; also Stevie fae Scotland's comment. Centaur271188 (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: I have to concur with Centaur271188 that WP:POINT doesn't really apply. The Q tag indicates that team's final position if there are still matches to play. The Z tag for a team which can only mathematically finish in 5th place is unnecessarily redundant. That's how these tables have been set up for the past few World Cup qualifications, and it's still the current consensus. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting up article

The current article is no longer readable because you no longer can collapse a section and navigate wherever you want. I propose that this article should be split into two sections: Group A-D and Group E-H.

Footy2000 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't that problem only occur on mobile devices? This problem does not exist for users on PC. But I don't think it's right to do that just for the reasons you gave. If you look at the 2018 article, it also contains all the groups. Then why only the 2022 article must be split, while the 2018 article is not? You have to provide a rationale for it. Because if this article is split, then the 2018 article should also be split because both have the same content, just different years. Also, are there any other articles that split its content due to a similar issue? Fauzannaufan (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does occur on mobile devices, but the thing is majority of the views are from mobile devices. The article currently looks like it is all over the place without proper organisation, it also turns lagy as you scroll through it. The 2018 version of the article won't have much users compared to the current one. If we are able to split this, then we can do it for the 2018 version too. And as far as other articles are concerned, I have no idea, but the closest thing that I saw which was similar was SpaceX Starship article. It was proposed to be split into two sections: Booster stage and upper stage. Footy2000 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Runners-up ranking (continued)

I am sorry for not clarifying in edit summary, but after calculating other groups, I am very sure that Australia qualified for 3rd round even if they do not win group B. In group C, the best case scenario is Iraq finish 2nd with 17 points (defeat Hongkong then lose to Iran, and Iran defeat Cambodia) -> 11 points in 2nd-place ranking. Group G is the same, my national team Vietnam defeat Malaysia, lose to UAE, then UAE defeat Indonesia -> 17 and 11 points respectively. In group F, Kyrgyzstan/Tajikistan can have at most 13 points -> maximum 10 points in runners-up ranking (they lost once against Mongolia/Myanmar). Meanwhile AUS already have 18(12) points. Centaur271188 (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes like you said Australia has a very high chance of going to the third round no matter getting first or second in the group; and also similar to other teams in other groups, but it's best to wait until the team is confirmed to go for the third round because well firstly, we can't just predict what the result of a match is anything can happen(example Mongolia managed to beat Kyrgyzstan 1-0 in which no one thought that would happen because Mongolia is weaker than them), and secondly, it will confuse readers so its best to just wait until a team is confirmed to go like-if Australia wins the next match then they qualify to third round and win the group. Jr2006Venz (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fauzannaufan and Jr2006Venz: I am glad to hear any counter-arguments, but please do it specifically. Fauzannaufan said in 3rd round article's edit summary that a team right now needs 13 points in runners-up ranking to qualify (top 5), but how do you calculate it? Centaur271188 (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: I have seen your explanation, but I don't agree with you. I have counted all the possibilities and currently the points needed for best runner-ups are 13. This is because all group runner-ups excluding group F can reach 12 points. So you need 1 points more to ensure qualification to Third Round. Here is the best case scenario for each group.

• Group A : China (13 points)
• Group D : Saudi Arabia/Uzbekistan (13 points)
• Group H : South Korea/Lebanon (13 points)
• Group C : Iran (12 points)
• Group E : Oman (12 points)
• Group G : UAE (12 points)
• Group F : Kyrgyzstan/Tajikistan (10 points)

So to be among the top 5, you need 12+1 = 13 points. Australia can also advance with 12 points but it will be down to goal difference and we can't be sure for that until the last match has been played. So to be certain, get 13 points, and you're qualified to Third Round and Asian Cup. Hopefully that's clear Fauzannaufan (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fauzannaufan: It is impossible for Iran/UAE to have 12 points (+6 vs Cambodia/Indonesia =18) and still finish 2nd. If they have 18 points then they already defeat Iraq/Vietnam to win their group. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: Iran/UAE still can finish 2nd if they don't win against Cambodia/Indonesia. You just assumed that Iran/UAE will certainly win against Cambodia/Indonesia but it's possible that they don't. If they don't win, then their points will be 15/16 which mean they can finish 2nd in their group. Fauzannaufan (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fauzannaufan and Jr2006Venz: sorry, my bad :| I have undone my WP:TooSoon edits. Centaur271188 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs and Centaur271188: I think the 5th best runner-up should qualify for the Asian Cup directly. If the 5th best runner-up team don't qualify for Asian Cup, then how can they qualify for it? They cannot play in ACQ Third Round, because they have to play in WCQ Third Round. Some matches in WCQ and ACQ will be played on the same date (Nov 21, Feb and Mar 22), so it won't be possible to play in both competition Fauzannaufan (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fauzannaufan: Reasonable thought. But I think it would be a WP:OR case if we state that the 5th best runners-up qualify for Asian Cup directly. If China do not finish in top 5 runners-up, we will have 14 teams (8 group winners, 5 best runners-up and China) directly qualified, so there are only 10 berths left for the Asian Cup 3rd round. Meanwhile AFC official regulations ([1] page 26) say that the 3rd round must consist of 24 teams, drawn into 6 groups of 4, then 2 leading teams in each group (12 total) qualify. I think the best we can do is follow the sources, and reinstate the old form of runners-up ranking [2]. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

P/S: After rethinking for a while, I must say that old form is not correct either. If this round is meant to choose 12 teams directly qualified for Asian Cup, then the correct form must be 8 group winners and only 3 best runners-up; if China win their group (impossible now) or are in that top 3, then the 4th best runners-up qualify. I only care much about World Cup aspect of this round, so I have been unaware of this mess. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the fifth best runner-up will now qualify for the World Cup qualifiers third stage, but surely they won't also have to go to the Asian Cup qualifiers third stage as well? The citation given doesn't directly support this.Paladisious (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Paladisious: No sources say the 5th best runners-up qualify for Asian Cup directly, that is our speculation. I know it looks really ridiculous, but... Centaur271188 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs: I must place my explanation for revert here, because it is a little bit lengthy. Your argument is that in 2018 campaign, we also said "if UAE do not qualify then there are 11 slots available". I admit that we did, and the fact is we cited NO sources for that statement. Thankfully, an archived version of 2019 Asian Cup official regulations is available: [3]. Like a carbon copy of the present one, it said nothing about such reduction. We speculated 4 years ago, and we are doing the same now. The different thing is 4 years ago, World Cup did not take place in Asia, and conveniently UAE (the Asian Cup host) qualified for World Cup 3rd round, therefore no awkward scenarios emerged. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Centaur271188 and Paladisious: I think the current best runner-up table should be corrected. As we know, the top 12 teams will qualify for Asian Cup from Second Round, while the other teams which not belong to the top 12 will compete for remaining 12 slots through the Third Round. Host country (China PR) is given automatic slot to the Asian Cup according to the regulations, but we don't know exactly which slot will be reduced (Second Round or Third Round). What will happen to the Asian Cup if Qatar win the group and/or China doesn't qualify for World Cup are not specifically stated, so I think edits about these what-ifs better be avoided for now since it is just speculation and also fall into WP:OR category. I will apply what the regulations certainly stated to the article. Fauzannaufan (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@JaParGet and Fauzannaufan: I appreciate that you guys are trying to fix this mess, but it is not our job. The current form of runners-up ranking still implies more than 12 teams will qualify for Asian Cup directly, against the official regulations. Centaur271188 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Centaur271188 and JaParGet: OK thanks. I will wait for the official release after the qualifiers finished. But because I'm curious, I have asked AFC through email and they confirmed that the 5th best runner-up will also qualify to the Asian Cup Finals. So more than 12 teams will qualify directly after the Second Round. Of course the email can't be used as reference in the article. But we can expect some scenarios that AFC might take to resolve this issue. Fauzannaufan (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

In Group F, Tajikistan is already out. Even if they win their final round against Myanmar, they would only have 13(7) points, behind the current ones. However, Kyrgyzstan still has a chance. If they win the next two rounds they would be at 13(10) points, so that would then depend on the other groups. NoNews! 17:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Newfraferz87, Not entirely the case. Should Myanmar lose both their matches and give up enough goals to let Mongolia take 4th, Tajikistan can still finish in second and have 13(10) in this case. In practice, it may seem impossible, but we should never discount the impossible scenarios in any probabilistic calculation. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

Change 82.57.82.174 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

I see symbols like (Q) in the table being misused Viethai3a5 (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This was discussed above at #The Q tag. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Lebanon, directly to the Asian Cup or?

I'm very confused, what is Lebanon's situation right now? Are they qualified to the 2023 Asian Cup, or do they have to play the third round of qualifiers (for both the World Cup and Asian Cup)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are qualified to 2023 Asian Cup directly, and no need to play in Asian Cup qualifiers. But currently there are no source which can be used as a reference. Fauzannaufan (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the AFC: All 12 teams also confirmed their tickets to the AFC Asian Cup China 2023 by qualifying for the final round of the Asian Qualifiers for the FIFA World Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fauzannaufan and Nehme1499: And that AFC's post says nothing about Qatar, or the 12-team problem in their regulations. Will they really make Qatar play Asian Cup 3rd round? Centaur271188 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: Why should Qatar play the 3rd round? They qualified directly to the 2023 Asian Cup. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: If Qatar have to play the 3rd round, then the 12-team problem no longer exists. In the above section, I and Fauzannaufan talked about the AFC regulations, which say that 12 teams will qualify after 3rd round - while we already have 13 teams qualified now (if Qatar are included). Centaur271188 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

About the fourth-placed team

Per AFC Asian Cup regulation section 8.3, "8.3. There shall be two (2) rounds played in a knockout format." After add-up calucations, it is impossible that two rounds could be played to decide the 9 teams to the play-off round by 11 teams. According to 4th Worst 4+5th, Round 1 have 10 teams, 5 qualify, and the remaining six teams for three slots. The final slot will be disappeared. Following this calucation, it could be easily conclude that Hong Kong, the best 5th placed team, will be lifted up to the third round to maintain the number balance. As a result, I have edited the table. KyleRGiggs (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs: If Hong Kong moved up then only 10 teams in the play-off competing for 8 slots. It also won't be possible for two rounds to be played. I suggest that we wait for a more valid reference and currently write a neutral content in the section (without stating how many teams in play-off, how many qualify to the Third Round and so on), since we can mislead the visitors if we don't have a valid reference. Maybe something like this, "Since there are changes to the qualification format compared to previous edition, AFC will announce the new qualification format for this round" Fauzannaufan (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@JaParGet and KyleRGiggs: I am with Fauzannaufan. We should avoid any kind of speculation. JaParGet's edit about reduction to 11 berths, and Kyle's one about promoting Hongkong are both WP:OR. Centaur271188 (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it may be WP:OP. I understand there is some contradiction in the ruleset, for example, Section 8.10. However if according to Section 8.7, Hong Kong would be promoted to the Third Round, otherwise the number should be incorrect. I believe there will have announcement in the very future. KyleRGiggs (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignore what I say please. New announcement here. KyleRGiggs (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

WTF! Taliban flag for Afghanistan matches?

Are you kiddin' us? Is this a bad joke or propaganda? Please, remove this anachronism that sounds like a very bad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.47.28 (talk)

Maybe it's just me, but I see the correct flag displayed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there no political clash on China vs Chinese Taipei?

UEFA keeps teams apart in separate groups if there would be political issues, which is seen most often in Russia vs Ukraine.

Given that China has a political issue with Taiwan, does the same not apply in keeping China and Chinese Taipei (which represents Taiwan) apart in different groups? 108.175.235.216 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Na no such division has been done in the AFC competitions so far. The closest thing the AFC does in similar conditions is to hold the match at a neutral venue. Anbans 586 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)