Interesting topic for discussion, Chuck. I think we FIRST have to decide why we need to break the tie (and/or
if we need to) before anything else. In several sports, the tiebreaker is not the same as the game, and I totally struggle with that. In tennis and in baseball, at least in a tie-breaking situation you're playing the same game; basketball with a shot clock does so as well even if the period is shorter. In hockey, soccer, football, basketball without a shot clock, and heck, even snooker, the tie-breaking system is a totally different sport/game. So I am going to struggle with CTPs or putting contests for that reason. I agree they are fair, just that it bugs me that someone is the champion of the XYZ Disc Golf Open, when in actually they were the co-champion of the Open and the champion of the specially-created-for-excitement tiebreak contest. I feel the same when I see a soccer shootout after time -- PKs to decide the winner isn't the game; take defensemen off the field and it's just a shooter vs a goalkeeper one-by-one. Same with the NFL or NCAA overtime, the stall-ball till the last shot after getting the tip-off, etc. -- now the tie-breaker is not even the same event.
Every hole on the face of the earth is biased in some fashion or another- some are just more biased than others. I have not seen the video but from Chuck's post it sounds like a right handed player won it throwing a forehand- throwing forehand is a legitimate disc golf skill which it sounds like the other player did not possess. I doubt the runner up was ever mandated to not throw any forehands in his practice sessions. If a hole is good enough to be on the course for the competition to begin with then it is good enough to settle a playoff.
Sudden death playoffs are the ultimate drama. Any gain in "fairness" made by neutering them in some way is more than made up for in loss of entertainment value/drama.
Surely a guy's who's on this site and been playing dg for more than 20 years has seen the Toboggan hole 1. You just didn't know that's the one we're talking about. Btw, that's a vote to tie-break for entertainment value, in which case balance/fairness is less of a concern.
I don't think you should place so much emphasis on a playoff hole just because it is an extra hole. The playoff hole doesn't have any more impact on the final score than the other 54, or however many, holes you've already played. If a hole is so unfair that it can't be used as a playoff hole, then I don't think it should be used in a tournament. The sport shouldn't cater to whiners who think they've been treated unfairly because they aren't good enough at a certain skill and everyone in the tournament has to play the same course.
Also, why haven't you brought up a comparison to golf, which usually does a sudden death playoff?
I assume he hasn't brought up golf, because the golf (PGA) majors have three different tie-break procedures, and multiple formats. Some use a full 18-hole round on Monday, some use the sudden death starting on a certain hole and looping, some use the sudden death starting on a certain hole and going throughout the course, and some use the 4-hole playoff. So you can see they are not consistent. One hole is fair in one way – (it is the same for both players and the same game is still being played) but not in others, particularly if the course designer designed certain holes to turn left turn right, tight woods, wide open and long, etc. But even if a balanced hole was selected to start, at some point he course's imbalance comes into play, except on a very unusual set of circumstances and with a TD who intentionally wanted all playoff holes balanced.
Btw, sounds like a vote for let's get it done as quick as possible, as the reason for the tie-breaker.
Baseball is sudden death and one team could have best batters and other team worst in the first extra inning. Football the coin toss drastically favors one team. Basketball shortened overtime period where a couple lucky shots can make the difference. In any tiebreaker the pressure to perform immediately is there and you probably will be hoping for some luck. Win in regulation and you can avoid this. Ctp and putting would be dumb and luck and flukiness are still a factor. Can you imagine if ball golf did that? You could make it a mandatory 2 or 3 holes which would be OK with me, but if 1 hole favors a certain style and the other hole is fair the flukiness argument is the same. The playoff isn't and can't be 100% even, it's to decide a winner which is 100% fair.
Baseball isn't sudden death; it's a 1-inning playoff. And they keep playing 1-inning playoffs continuing with the same rosters, line-ups, players used/not used, etc., until a winner is determined. Baseball is one of the few that plays the same game to break ties. It's only a walk-off if a winner is determined. Basketball is the same game. Not sure what your side is on the reason to break ties (if at all), but sounds like a vote for let's get it done as quick as possible.
Regulation is fair, tiebreaker is to separate the two even performances and crown a winner. Ctp is dumb because the object of the game is to make the disc in the basket, why would a tiebreaker that is not even the same object and still susceptible to wind gusts, bad rolls, unfairness make the sport better?
I see that point, but we wouldn't be the only sport doing something different to break ties than in the regular game. Sounds like you think tie-breakers should be to "make our sport better"?
We're talking different types of fairness here. One is whether the tie-breaker is a suitable measure of skill to determine a winner, and not too dependent on luck; the other is whether it gives the competitors reasonably equal opportunities.
I think the second is important. As to the first, I don't know how important it is for the vast majority of events and divisions. We want a winner---nobody's happy with a tie---and we want more skill involved than a coin flip. But at your weekly C-tier, it's not a huge deal. A more extensive test like a 3-hole minimum might be appropriate for majors, or perhaps just Worlds, where there's a lasting title at stake.
Separate from deciding a starting hole, TDs should also consider specifying that players repeat a loop of 3 or 4 holes if ties are not resolved after 3 or 4 holes.
I agree with part of that -- it is best to specify the totality of playoff holes prior to the event. The idea that it be a loop without too far to go from tourney central sounds like something that should be part of the future TD guidelines. But why not leave the tie for 1st as a tie? The Scripps National Spelling Bee has had joint champs 6 times, including the last three years when they ran out of words.
Why play more holes? Just do a scorecard playoff and announce the holes before the pertinent round.
Wouldn't that "unfairly" reward the player that came from behind to force the tie? If all holes are supposedly equal and the whole tournament is the well-rounded test of skill, then doing something that amounts to choosing a random hole and elevating it above the rest seems no more fair (arguably less fair) than adding a single sudden death hole to the mix.
I would prefer declaring a tie (which I dislike a lot) to using anything which has already happened as a tiebreaker. This is a solution in search of a problem in general though.
Not totally unprecedented. In football and other sports conference or division champions often have a tie broken by things that have already happened. Often it's, 1st- head-to-head, then 2nd - division record, 3rd - conference record, 4th-point spread etc. Also, Doof says tie-breaks should be based upon data, whereas JC and Biscoe are against that, also due to unfairness.
In the NFL, teams know they need to play defense in theory as well as the other team's offense. But is it any surprise that with their previous sudden death process that teams who won the coin flip won significantly more often? Now, the team losing the flip gets a better chance to potentially get an offensive possession. College football tiebreaking process is more fair but perhaps not as dramatic as the NFL.
Again, what type of fair? The college football tie-breaking system has no reward (nor disadvantage) for teams with great (or bad) punters and kickoff specialists -- yet they are part of the regular game. People who like both offense and defense see it as fair, but not those who like all three phases.
