Talk:2009 IIHF World Championship

Overtime win and loss vs the shootout loss and win
Should not this be changed? I mean OTW/OTW is not the same as a shootout win or loss. For example in the SWE-LAT game, Sweden is listed as OTL and Latvia as OTW, but that doesn't really reflect how the game went. Norum (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the table? Because there a shootout win is an overtime win, and that's why it goes in the OTW column. A team gets 2 points in the standings for any win occurring after the end of regulation, whether by an overtime goal or by shootout. The match result template shows the shootout (compare LAT-SWE to SUI-GER). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but shootout is the next step after OT and it is used only if OT does not solve the problem.  True, the amount of points is the same, but I believe the table should be adjusted to show the difference. Norum (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like an unnecessary level of detail for a standings table. There is no difference, in terms of the standings. This is similar to the reason that 2008–09 NHL season, for instance, gives only W-L-OTL (with W including all wins, even overtime and shootout wins, while OTL includes all overtime losses including shootout losses). Those are the only things that matter for the standings there, just as W-OTW-OTL-L are what matters for standings here. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This as well is one of the reasons why Martin Brodeur has more wins than Patrick Roy. Norum (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual standings match our own: http://stats.iihf.com/Hydra/200/IHM200700_76_4_0.pdf MrArticleOne (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Check my math
OK, Russia has not yet clinched. According to my calculations, the only scenario that prevents Russia from moving on, is (a) they lose both of their remaining games (USA and LAT); (b) USA and LAT both lose in OT to FRA; (c) SWE beats FRA; (d) SWT beats USA; and (d) SWT/SWE goes to OT. In this scenario, the OT winner of SWT/SWE wins the group with 9 points, and then there is a 4-way tie at 8 points with RUS, USA, LAT, and the SWT/SWE loser. Whether it is SWT or SWE, RUS loses the 4-way tiebreaker and so they finish outside the top 4.

As a result of all of this, however, by my calculations a USA win over FRA (whether in OT or regulation) would clinch a Quarterfinal berth for RUS. That is because a USA win over FRA would not allow USA to finish in the 4-way tie at 8 points; USA would have at least 6 points, and the whole hypothetical is predicated on RUS getting 0 additional points, and since they play USA on Saturday, that bumps up USA to 9 points. USA therefore can't finish in the 4-way tie at 8 points, and RUS wins tiebreakers so long as USA and LAT aren't both in the group of tied teams. I plan on putting RUS in green if USA wins tomorrow, but if someone else can demonstrate that I'm wrong please do so. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you're correct. A simple brute force search of the remaining 4,096 possibilities proves that 3 or 2 points by USA today means RUS in the quarterfinals. I've added it to Portal:Current events/Sports as well. (I'm not sure how OR this is when it's so straightforward but somewhat computationally heavy.) — JAO • T • C 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The next complicated one is USA. By my calculations, there is not an outcome of the LAT/FRA game that would allow USA to clinch. On the other hand, I believe that 1 or more USA points against RUS would clinch a spot for USA. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite. A regulation time win for FRA today and neither FRA nor LAT can surpass USA (considering USA won over LAT) so USA will have clinched. Also, 1 point is enough in USA's game only if FRA has defeated LAT (on overtime). Otherwise, LAT can still surpass USA along with SUI and SWE. On the other hand, 2 points in USA's game is enough in any circumstance. — JAO • T • C 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem to take the possibility of a three-way tie on 7 (USA/LAT/SWE) into account though, does it? I'll check my brute-force program for errors... —JAO • T • C 10:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, my bad, not my program's. Forgot that USA defeated LAT in regulation, so they would turn up on top of that minigroup. —JAO • T • C 10:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If LAT loses to FRA today but beats RUS, they would finish with 7 points. If USA loses both remaining games, USA finishes with 7 points. If SUI beats USA and loses to SWE, SUI finishes with 7 points. And if SWE beats SUI and loses to FRA, SWE has 7 points. That leaves a 4-way tie at 7 points, with the top 3 advancing. In the 4-way tie, SWE has 6 points head-to-head, so they finish 2nd overall (1st in the group of 4 tied teams). SUI, USA and LAT would all be tied at 4 points head-to-head. The tiebreaking rules say: "If the number of points is equal between the teams in this special standing just from the results of their head-to-head (mutual) games, then the following tie breaking criteria applies (with no secondary return to the head-to-head results)". At that point it becomes goal differential and whatnot, which isn't "clinchable" in advance. That seems to suggest to me that even an FRA regulation win over LAT does not clinch a QF berth for USA. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're completely right, of course. I had been operating with a second minigroup, but that's not the rule. — JAO • T • C 16:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, you're right, assuming LAT beats FRA (which is looking likely), 1 point does not clinch a QF spot for USA today. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If SUI fails to beat USA, they are eliminated. If they win however, there's a 2, 3 or 4 way tie, depending on other results:
 * If SWE gains points vs FRA: 3-way tie where LAT has 2 points, SUI 4 points and USA 3 points. SWE second, SUI third and USA fourth. (Note: If Sweden gain points vs FRA, USA qualify for quarter-finals, even if they lose vs SUI.)

If SUI wins by one goal, then USA finish 3rd, LAT 4th and SUI 5th. If SUI wins by two to three goals, LAT finish 3rd, USA 4th and SUI 5th. If SUI wins by 4 to 5 goals, or 6 goals but make less than 10 goals in the process, LAT is 3rd, SUI 4th and USA 5th. If SUI wins by 6 goals and make more than 10 goals, or win by 7 or more goals, SUI finish 3rd, LAT 4th, USA 5th. (If they win by 10-4, it gets really tricky to decide between Latvia and Switzerland.)
 * If SWE doesn't gain points in their final game there's that 4-way tie mentioned above, where SWE finish 2nd, and goal difference between SUI/LAT/USA.

Latvia will qualify if:
 * SWE loses to FRA in regulation time, or
 * SUI fails to beat USA

USA will qualify if:
 * Swe gains points vs FRA, or
 * USA gains points vs SUI, or
 * USA lose by 3 goals or less vs SUI.

SUI will qualify if:
 * FRA defeats SWE in regulation time, and SUI defeat USA by 4 goals or more, or
 * SWE gain points vs FRA, and SUI defeat USA in regulation time.

Lejman (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule that if 3 teams remain tied, the head-to-head between them decide the ranking?--Nitsansh (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no secondary return to the head-to-head standings. If, in a 4-way tie, one team wins and the other 3 remain tied, the tie between the other 3 is resolved via the various goal scoring tiebreakers. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Group E is Group F?
Is there any specific reason that Group E (per the official reports) is called Group F here, and vice versa? — JAO • T • C 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that was a quick fix. Thanks, Nickst and Puffy25. — JAO • T • C 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is Russia added as 25 titles?
The titles do not belong to Russia entirely, 15 other nations were also dissolved from the Soviet Union. It's like giving all the glory to Serbia after Yugoslavia was splitted in 1991. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And giving Serbia the glory after Yugoslavia is what many sporting bodies do, the same with Russia/USSR... There's a long discussion at the Ice Hockey World Championship talk about this, IIHF for one considers Russia the lone successor of the Soviet Union chandler ··· 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't unique to hockey, you'll find that FIFA also considers the Russian football (soccer) team to be the USSR's successor, see the Honors table on the right. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this is what the media usually says. For example : "Russia, undefeated through the whole tournament, has won the World Championship for the second year in a row and 25th time in the history of national hockey." Offliner (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the IIHF website, Russia is considered to have been a member of the IIHF since 1952. http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-world-championship-oc09/teams/rus.html I read a source that showed how something like 99.5% of the players that played for the Soviet teams throughout the decades were Russian. That's like saying if Delaware broke off from the US and suddenly the US total resets to 0, or Prince Edward Island breaks off from Canada and their total resets to 0. Example of media - "Russia, which went unbeaten through the tournament despite trailing in six of its nine games, holds a 25-24 edge over Canada in total world titles." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0IeYs31X_DWMO81ajxtZ0cQkp5wD983MAC80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquari (talk • contribs) 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian team began competing separately from the other former SSRs, the IIHF recognized the Russian team as succeeding to the Soviet Union's position in the elite group (which I believe was called "Pool A" at the time), in much the same way that the United Nations recognized Russia as succeeding to the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the Security Council. I think it's important to maintain a practical eye, here; there's no per se rule. Consider the hypothetical of Texas seceding from the United States (as the deranged Governor claims they can); one doubts that this would affect the essential character of the United States' hockey heritage. It would be somewhat different if, say, Minnesota did the same. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

IIHF officialy confirmed that Russia has inherited medals from Soviet Union. We had a discussion about it earlier. Andreyx109 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)