Talk:1986 Ice Hockey World Championships

notes on Group B tie breaker
the primary source used is passionhockey.com, but they have some of the information wrong. some of it is simply a question of math, some of it perhaps debatable.

1. their contention that seven of the teams were still in danger of relegation on the final day is false: the only way to be relegated would be to finish with 2 wins (Japan, Netherlands, Yugoslavia still could), or to finish at the bottom of a four or five team tie at three wins, which only the aforementioned three countries and Austria could do.

To prove this draw up mini groups of the eight possible situations for ties at three wins. First, you have to assume that NED will beat AUT or the tie breaker loser will be no lower than 6th and not relegated. Then assume GDR loses, you have either France or Italy (but never both because they play each other) and either Yugoslavia or Japan. In head-to-head match-ups Italy, France, and GDR always have at least 2 wins, and one of YUG, JAP, or NED has only one win. Do the same assuming GDR wins and France has two wins while either AUT, NED, or YUG has one. If Italy had lost to France and Japan had won, Italy would be safe with two head to head wins and Japan would be even with Austria with one. If Italy loses and YUG wins, then ITA, AUT, and YUG all are at one win and two losses, and Austria would be last on goal differential.

2. they list the secondary tie breaker (after head-to-head wins) as goal differential. that would be true if all teams involved were still tied. they were not. Observe the 1992 world junior group B and examine how Japan finished first. they were in a four way tie, together with Poland they two wins and one loss head-to-head, and they were even on head-to-head goal differential, behind on head-to-head goals scored, behind on overall goal differential. they finished ahead of Poland because they beat Poland. The current tie-breaking rules states very clearly that after each tie-breaker you reduce the subgroup to two teams (if you can) and judge them by who beat the other, the difficulty is proving that the rules were the same in 1986. And since, by chance, either rout leads to the same result, it could be debatable.18abruce (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)