Tie on Points Between Multiple Teams (Closed for comments)

Comments about this discussion:

Started 11 Jun 03:48

During a unicycle hockey tournament held outside of Germany, in which my team (Lilienthal near Bremen) took part, the following situation arose:

Three teams ended up with the same number of points. The match results were:

Team 1 defeated Team 2 by 5–4
Team 2 defeated Team 3 by 2–1
Team 3 defeated Team 1 by 5–3

The organizers were unprepared for this scenario and unsure how to handle it. They opted for a three-team penalty shootout.

This type of situation is not sufficiently addressed in the current international rulebook. I believe the German rules offer a clear approach and I recommend adopting a similar procedure internationally. Below is a translated excerpt from the German rulebook (Section 4.14.1):

Tie on Points Between Multiple Teams

When multiple teams are tied on points, a new table is created considering only the matches played between the tied teams. Rankings in this table are determined using the following criteria, in order:

Points earned in matches among the tied teams
Goal difference in these matches (goals scored minus goals conceded)
Total number of goals scored in these matches

Any team that can be clearly ranked in this new table is sorted accordingly. The process is repeated with the remaining teams, if necessary, using the same criteria.

If no clear ranking can be determined after this repeated comparison, a penalty shootout in round-robin format is conducted among the remaining tied teams. This method applies regardless of the number of teams involved. Each team plays one penalty match against each of the others.

If three teams are involved, three penalty shootouts are held. Each shootout consists of three attempts per team and ends after those attempts. The results of these penalty shootouts are then used to create a new comparison table, applying the same direct comparison rules—even if individual shootouts end in a draw.

Comment 19 Jun 05:12

I absolutely agree, that we are in need of a ruling here and i like the suggestion here as it's clear and fair.

Comment 29 Jun 02:22

I'm curious to hear what the others think – any comments or ideas?

Comment 29 Jun 11:41

I agree that there should be rules that address ties between two or more teams. However, I'm unsure whether this belongs into the international rulebook. We do not have any rules about the length of the game or how a tournament should be played (round robin or only knockout games, ...?). And I feel that these rules do belong together, thus in my opinion it's up to the organisers to define these rules.

Comment 29 Jun 16:26

I generally agree with Nicolai’s assessment: it makes sense to have rules in place for resolving ties between two or more teams. However, I also share the concern about including such details in the international rulebook, as it currently does not provide specific regulations on tournament formats (e.g., game duration, round-robin vs. knockout system, etc.). These aspects often depend heavily on local circumstances and traditions, which is why I believe it should remain the responsibility of the event organizers.

In regard to the original discussion post (by Malte), I would like to add some context. The situation he described took place at a tournament where the organizers were indeed prepared. The rules for the tournament stated that in case of a tie on points, a separate table would be created using only the results between the tied teams. Rankings were determined based on points earned, then head-to-head results, and finally a penalty shootout – but without considering goal difference. This approach was adopted based on feedback from the previous year, where many participants had expressed a preference to exclude goal difference.

To my knowledge, this rule was defined in advance, though I cannot say with certainty how clearly it was communicated to all teams, as I was not responsible for that aspect. The disagreement only arose afterward, when one of the affected teams (Lilienthal) expressed dissatisfaction and argued that goal difference should have been taken into account. In that sense, it was not a case of the organizers being unprepared, but rather a difference in expectations regarding the applied rules.

Of course, it would be ideal if tournaments around the world followed unified standards – but as Nicolai already pointed out, this likely goes beyond what an international rulebook should cover. There will probably always be minor differences in interpretation and implementation, and teams need to be prepared to adapt to local rules and conditions. It’s not realistic to insist on the rules one is accustomed to; rather, we must recognize that tournaments reflect the practices and preferences of the host country. That makes it all the more important for rules to be clearly and transparently communicated ahead of time – ideally in writing before the event begins.

Comment 30 Jun 06:22

It would be great to have a location where organisers of hockey tournaments can view different methods for deciding these things and have access to them (as potentionally some countries have systems that other countries may like to adopt if they knew what they were).

But currently it appears that Australia, Switzerland, Germany and the Country where Lilienthal competed all have their own versions of dealing with ties. At UNICON we stated what we would do in the instance of ties when we supplied the draw and allowed competing teams to comment before the tournament.

I am happy if we do not put this into the rulebook as it appears that it is somewhat individual preference.