Talk:EuroBasket 2013

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball articles

Slovenia Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl)
Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations
Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle
Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308
Expand: Education in Slovenia
Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska
NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band)
Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
Help assess the quality of 35 unassessed articles
Take/Add requested photographs

clinched nations

fiba's website is reporting that Croatia has clinched, however that is clearly not true. According to the rules (pg. 68/section D) Hungary could still overtake Croatia by winning all their remaining games, Croatia losing their remaining games, and Hungary must beat Croatia by more than 24 (if it was exactly a difference of 24 they would have to overtake Croatia's overall goal average). I cannot begin to guess why the FIBA reporter got it wrong, but it is clearly incorrect.18abruce (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are they going to decide the best third placed teams? If its by points then group A have a clear advantage because there are more teams in the group.

I don't see a anything in the rule book or the official site. My guess is that they will do the same thing that was done in 2009 and rate the third place teams against each other by winning percentage, then goal average.18abruce (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can show how Bosnia will be at worst one of the four best third place teams they need to be removed.18abruce (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple, actually. The 3rd-placed teams in Group A and Group C will have 6/4 and 4/4 records at best respectively. 5/3 is better than either so anyone with 5 wins in groups B–F is through. In Group A both Israel and Serbia have lost only three games each but they'll play each other on the last matchday, so at least one of them gets the crucial fourth loss. Sue-Tomi (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So an assumption of how they will handle Group A is enough? I suppose the method they used in 2009, or the method UEFA uses would both render Group A's third place team with a maximum of less then 5/3. It is anything but simple to present something as true in an encyclopedia without a single source to support you, even though it is probably true.18abruce (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article confirms but still screws up some of the details. It does not list Finland, but it confirms the argument for their inclusion.18abruce (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this article confirms that the 3rd place finishers will be compared by winning percentage.18abruce (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct names of participating countries

In FIBA's official website, "Macedonia" is under name F.Y.R. of Macedonia. Is there any particular reason why here it is not mentioned with its official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.137.209 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). --Local hero ^talk 03:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Still I read this: "The country will be referred to in these contexts in the same manner as it is referred to elsewhere on the project." Doesn't this means that the name given by the official organizer (FIBA) should be respected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.137.209 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means the country will be called the same thing it's called in most other contexts on Wikipedia, which is 'Macedonia'. --Local hero ^talk 01:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your conclusion is not supported by the article you linked me according to the following lemma: "No special rules will be used for international organisations which use "F.Y.R." to refer to the country." (since FIBA uses FYR of Macedonia). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.137.209 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, no special rules; it will be treated the same as any other situation. --Local hero ^talk 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreakers.

Does anyone know what the tie-breaking criteria are?? I mean the cases where 2 teams have the same points, who is advancing to the next round, in cases of 3 or more teams with equal point what is the ranking etc. In the official http://www.eurobasket2013.org there is no mention of them!! UNBELIEVABLE!! FIBA is miles away from FIFA and UEFA as always. Anyone with an official link of the tie breaking rules?

It's on the official basketball rules. A PDF should be found at FIBA's website. In any case, the tiebreaking rules are:

Head to head records
Goal average on games among tied teams
Goal average on all games
Drawing of lots

–H T D 16:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. See section D here.

In short:

If two teams tied, head-to-head match is the decider.
If three or more teams tied, then separate table for them is created and tie is decided on points.
If two teams are still tied by points in the separate table, their head-to-head match is the decider.
If three or more teams are still tied by points in the separate table, the goal average between only the still tied teams is considered.
For further ties, see pdf.

Eduardische (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. What I didn't say is that the tiebreaker resets back to the 1st criterion once a tie has been broken. –H T D 04:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still differs, I believe that according to D.1.7 it only goes back to head-to-head only if 2 teams are left (D.1.4) or we're still tied after goal average on all games. Which is weird, but that's what I'm reading.

Eduardische (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread D.1.7. It states "If at any stage of this procedure the number of teams with equal points is reduced to a tie still involving more than two (2) teams". If there are more than 2 teams, you'd go back to D.1.3; if there are only 2 teams, you'd go to head-to-head (unless it's also tied which is possible if the number of games contested by the tied teams is an even number). –H T D 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I indeed missed the word "any" and interpreted it as "this". Thanks. That makes the rules a lot more sensible.

Eduardische (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stumped on how TPTB broke the tie that involved LTU. As per D.3.4, case I, the teams tied 1-2 should've been rebroken on head-to-head records on those 3 tied teams, not goal averages on games among the tied teams. If it was tied on head-to-head records, LTU (2-0) should've been ahead of LAT (1-1) and BIH (0-2). –H T D 04:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, LTU lost to BIH. So, all three teams have 1-1. Regardless it only comes back to separate classification back in D.1.7, so if the situation you described would have happened, then it wouldn't come back to D.1.3. (D.1.4 is special exception in case of two teams). Yes, it is really weird, that it takes into account only goal ranking between 3 teams (it's not 4, as then LTU would have been in front: 0.975 vs 0.973). It's not that important, as I believe, because the scenario is unachievable in 6 team groups (I might be wrong, but I couldn't get that in the third classification head-to-head records are still different).

Eduardische (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL sorry about that. The teams tied with 1-2 on the first tiebreaker were all tied 1-1 on the second tiebreaker. –H T D 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Well what you ask about Lithuania is easy. See the mentioned link with the tie-breaking criteria. On page 68 we apply the rule D.1.3 to the 4 tied teams and after we have the new classification(among the 4 teams tied):

Serbia 6 points (3-0)
Lithuania 4 points (1-2)
Latvia 4 points (1-2)
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 points (1-2)

We have a new tie between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia and Lithuania.

So we go to D.1.4. That is irrelevant as we can't apply it here.

So we go to D.1.5 so we apply the Goal Average in the 3 teams that are tied. And we apply it, as per D.1.5 says, only in the games between the 3 tied teams.

My question now is why the wikipedia article in the final table of the classification for Group B says for example for Lithuania, in the tie section: 1–2, 1–1, 1.015

Why the 1-1 is relevant?

The 1-2 is the 1 win and 2 losses that Lithuania has, in the Serbia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bosnia second group that had been formed as per rule D.1.3.
But then what the 1-1 is for?? I get that whoever wrote it means and believes that a third group of the 3 new tied teams(Lithuania, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) is formed, and the results between them is again 1-1(for Lithuania as also for the others) so we then calculate the Goal Average to find the final rankings.
BUT this is completely wrong! The tie breaking procedure on the FIBA rules, does not say anything about creating a third group between the tied teams! It only says (as per D.1.5 rule) that if 3 or more teams are still teams with equal point, like here, the goal Average rule should be applied(in the games between the 3 tied teams).

So we don't care about the points/results between the 3 tied teams. We care only about Goal Average.

So if for example Lithuania had 2-0 against the other 2(Latvia and Bosnia) and Bosnia 0-2 and Latvia had 1-1, then Latvia could still have a better Goal Average and be ahead of Lithuania despite it would have less points(3 versus Lithuania's 4) in the matches between these 3. As according to the tie criteria we go directly to Goal Average to determine the ranking if there are 3 or more teams tied after the second group(of D.1.3) is formed.

Am i mistaken?

If not the article has to be corrected.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.153.198 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, when I added it, it was just 1-2, 1.015. I believe we should remove it until arguments for it in the Talk section appear.

Eduardische (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, the four teams tied are first broken in the head to head records amongst them.

Therefore, it is SRB 3-0, LAT 1-2, LTU 1-2, BIH 1-2.

Then you'd break the tie among the three teams with 1-2 head-to-head records on the head to head records amongst those 3, excluding games involving SRB. You'd go back to step one to break a new tie. Rule D.1.7 is relevant:

If at any stage of this procedure the number of teams with equal points is reduced to a tie still involving more than two (2) teams, the procedure, beginning with D.1.3 above, is repeated.

Rule D.1.3 states:

If there are more than two (2) teams in the classification with equal points, a second classification will be established, taking into account only the results of the games between the involved teams.

But on our case, all three have 1-1 records against each other. So we'd go to GAvg on games against each other. This is where the 1.021 number start to go. If the three teams had 2-0, 1-1, 0-2 records, we wouldn't go to GAvg. –H T D 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the rule book states this exact case at D.3.4, then case I. In case I, it tells you to refer to D.3.3; it shows both head-to-head records and GAvg. Since the D.3.3 example had the teams all tied at 1-1, it resorted to GAvg. If it wasn't tied at 1-1 (which means it's 2-0, 1-1 and 0-2), it won't have to resort to tiebreakers. –H T D 14:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed the word "any" in D.1.7. Now I agree with you, so I put back second tie of 1-1 in the table. Thanks.

Eduardische (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The procedure of FIBA for the ties is ambiguous. These rules are ambiguous.

D.1.5 and D.1.7 are ambiguous. One can't decide which to apply and there are cases like that i described where we're led to different ranking by applying either D.1.5 or D.1.7.

D.1.7 and D.1.6 lead to ambiguity also.

All in all D.1.7 is problematic the way it is stated. It actually leads to an infinite loop in some cases so that makes things even worse. It is also not well stated(as what "reduced to a tie" means? A tie on points or a tie on ranking after applying the criteria?)

FIBA managed to screw things up once again.

Basically, FIBA is telling us what I said above:

Head to head records first.
If all teams are tied, then rank via goal average on games among tied teams.
If all teams are tied, then rank via goal average on all games.
If all teams are tied, then rank via points scored.
If all teams are tied, then draw lots
If there are teams that are still tied, but not all of them, go back to step 1 to break the ties individually. Teams which are no longer tied with another team are "locked" there and won't be affected by further tiebreaking on other teams.
If there are no more ties, you're done.

Also, the example at Group tournament ranking system#Tiebreaker criteria (head-to-head) is a nice example, but it's football. –H T D 15:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in association football it depends on the competition. For example, in Premier League, it is a lot easier: just points, goal difference, goals scored. If all of it is the same, teams occupy the same position (with the exception that for special places the separate play-off match is organized). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardische (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. The example given there though is quite similar to our case here with multiple tiebreaks. In fact, as long as we're dealing with tiebreaks in groups of two (like four teams tied, then 2 teams at 2-1 and 2 teams at 1-2), we won't have to go to goal averages anymore... –H T D 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter-finals

Why Lithuania - Italy? Shouldn't it be E2 - F3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.249.251 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italy will finish as F3 because SLO has the tiebreaker against them. Kante4 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:FIBA EuroBasket which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EuroBasket 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328065513/http://www.eurobasket2013.org/en/cid_8Xfg3jZMG1QuJnp6pnUWd3.pageID_aTcLMGRDIbQDv-4D8DuYu0.compID_qMRZdYCZI6EoANOrUf9le2.season_2013.html to http://www.eurobasket2013.org/en/cid_8Xfg3jZMG1QuJnp6pnUWd3.pageID_aTcLMGRDIbQDv-4D8DuYu0.compID_qMRZdYCZI6EoANOrUf9le2.season_2013.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on EuroBasket 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Arena Zlatorog.png used in this article has been nominated for deletion but was kept

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]