Photo: Argentina’s Soledad Garcia striding out during their winning 2010 World Cup campaign (Image Disclaimer: “Gryphon-Life is not a sponsor of the National Hockey Federation featured in these images or affiliated with adidas and claims no ownership rights to the hockey event”)
Following The Netherlands 2-0 win over Korea on Day 6 of the Women’s 2011 Champions Trophy, Korea thought they had done enough to qualify for the final on Sunday against number 1 ranked The Netherlands, and therefore relegating Argentina to play for 3rd place.
However following the succesfull appeal by the Argentinian team, the Final will now be between The Netherlands and Argentina. An explaination of Argentina’s number 2 ranking in this tournament, one place above Korea and therefore qualifying them for the finalm, is below. Argentina quite cleverly appealed their third place ranking (based on points, then goal difference, then goals for) against the written wording of the tournament structure which placed overall points, then overall wins above the usual aforementioned structure. The tournament director first dismissed the Argentinian appeal and upheld “The intention of the rule” to allow Korea to keep their #2 ranking. This was again appealed against by the Argentineans who argued that the rule should be interpreted as written, which resulted in their appeal being upheld and paved the way for their promotion to #2 overall in the tournament and therefore securing their place in the final at the expense of Korea.
The following Extract is from the FIH CT11 Tournament Site explaining the final decision.
International Hockey Federation (FIH)
Rabo FIH Champions Trophy, 2011, Amsterdam, Netherlands Appeal Jury
Lucia Caride, Team Manager, Argentina Women’s Team
Steve Japan, Chair Janet Ellis, Member Philip Kimberley, Member Roger Webb
The Appeal Jury (the Jury) convened a hearing at 8.30 pm on 2 July 2011 in accordance with articles 15 and 16 of the Tournament Regulations, FIH Champions Trophy (May 2011).
The Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Argentina Women’s Team is dated 2 July 2011.
As the decision of the Appeal Jury could potentially affect Korea, the Jury agreed that representatives of Korea could make separate representations at the Hearing.
Both the Argentina Women’s Team and the Korea Women’s Team appeared separately before the Jury.
The Argentina Women’s Team was represented by: Clara Vela, Lawyer, Confederacion Argentina de Hockey Sergio Daniel Marcellini, President, Confederacion Argentina de Hockey Gaston Bel, General Manager, Confederacion Argentina de Hockey Lucia Caride, Team Manager, Argentina Women’s Team
The Korea Women’s Team was represented by: Yoon K, Chairman, Korean Society, Netherlands Shin Jung Hee, Honorary Secretary, Korean Hockey Association Kim Heung Sin, Manager, Korea Women’s Team Lim Jung Woo, Coach, Korea Women’s TeamJurisdiction of the Appeal Jury
The Appeal Jury notes articles 15 and 16 of the Tournament Regulations in particular article 16.6: “The appeal … shall be limited to a review of the decision of the Technical Delegate to ensure
compliance with the Guidelines and principles of natural justice.” Discussion
The Jury is reviewing the Tournament Director’s Decision especially with respect to the “intention of clause 3.6” of Appendix 1 of the Regulations.
The Jury considered the written and oral submissions presented on behalf of the Argentina Women’s Team which submitted that according to article 3.6, 3.7 and 2.2 of the Regulations, the classification should be determined by the number of matches won (article 2.2) and on the basis of the total points for all matches played in the tournament (article 3.6). In this particular case, Argentina have won 3 (three) matches and South Korea 1 (one) match.
The Argentina Women’s Team submitted that the Regulations should be read precisely as worded and not in terms of intention as indicated by the decision of the Tournament Director. The Argentina Women’s Team therefore submits that they qualify to play in the final of the Champions Trophy.
The Korean Women’s Team submitted that, based on their previous tournament experience and their experience in other sports, the only results which should be considered were the pool C results including the result of their initial match against Argentina. They indicated that their understanding of 3.6 would not include any of the other points accumulated in pool A, other than the draw against Argentina. They submitted that this would result in both Argentina and Korea being tied with 4 points in pool C. They submitted that article 2.2 would then be referenced to determine the final rank in pool C. In their opinion, article 2.2 (c) should be the deciding factor for ranking and on the basis of Korea having 6 goals for and Argentina having 5 goals for they submitted that Korea should be ranked second in pool C and thus eligible to play in the final match against the Netherlands.
After considering the submissions of both Argentina and Korea, the Jury carefully reviewed the relevant articles of Appendix 1 in particular 3.6, 3.7 and 2.2 which are attached as an annex hereto.
After reviewing the above, the Jury concluded that the clear meaning of article 3.6 would include both the points accumulated by Argentina in preliminary round A (7 points) and the additional points accumulated in pool C (3 points with no duplication of the point carried forward from the pool A from their initial match against Korea) for a total of 10 points. In addition, the Jury calculated that the total points accumulated by Korea would include both the preliminary round A (3 points) and the additional points in pool C (3 points with no duplication of the point carried forward from the pool A for their initial match against Argentina). On the basis of the total points accumulated in the competition by each team, the Jury concluded that Argentina should be ranked second in pool C and Korea should rank third in pool C.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Jury rules that:
1 the appeal is allowed;
2 articles 3.6 and 3.7 of Appendix 1 of the Regulations indicate that the Argentine Women’s Team was ranked second (2nd) in Pool C as defined in the Regulations;
3 the Argentine Women’s Team thereby qualifies to play in the final of the tournament;
4 the deposit shall be refunded.
Steve Jaspan, Chair, FIH Appeal Jury Amsterdam, 2 July 2011
2.2 (a) (b) (c)
If at the end of the pool matches two or more teams have the same number of points for any place in a pool, these teams will be ranked according to their respective number of matches won.
If there remains equality among two or more teams, then these teams will be ranked according to their respective goal difference (which means “goals for” less “goals against”). A positive goal difference always takes precedence over a negative one.
If there still remains equality among two or more teams, then these teams will be ranked according to their respective number of „goals for?.
Should there still remain equality among two teams, then the result of the match played between those teams will determine the ranking of these teams.
If more than two teams are involved, then a ranking based upon the results of the matches among (only) them shall determine their respective position (Clause 2.1 of this Appendix). If there remains equality, then the teams involved shall be ranked according to Clauses 2.2(a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Appendix.
Should there still remain equality among two teams, then the result will be settled by a penalty shoot-out competition in accordance with Clause 4 of this Appendix between those teams.
If more than two teams are involved, then each team will play a penalty shoot-out competition against the other teams in the same sequence of play as per the order of play in the tournament, in accordance with Clause 4 of this Appendix, (but with 5 (five) shots only to be taken compulsorily by each team) in the same sequence of play as per the order of play in the tournament.
A ranking will then be established based upon the results of the round of penalty shoot-out only, with the award for each play of the respective penalty shoot-out competitions of 3 points to the team having scored or been awarded the highest number of goals, 1 point to each team having scored or been awarded an equal number of goals and 0 points to the team having scored or been awarded the lowest number of goals.
If equality remains then teams having an equal number of points shall be ranked according to Clauses 2.2(a), (b), (c) and (d) of this Appendix as applied to goals recorded during the penalty stroke competition.
If an equal position of three (or more) teams still remains thereafter, then the same procedure shall be repeated until the teams can be ranked. A draw shall take place to establish each sequence of play if such further rounds of penalty shoot-outs are required.
Teams will be ranked according to the number of points each has accumulated in the competition both in the Preliminary Round Pools (see Clause 2.1 of this Appendix) and Pools C & D. If there is equality between two or more teams, then the teams involved will be ranked according to Clause 2.2 of this Appendix on the basis of the total points for all matches played in the tournament.
The final rankings of the teams in Pools C and D will be determined in accordance with Clause 2 of this Appendix.
Image Disclaimer: “Gryphon-Life is not a sponsor of the National Hockey Federation featured in these images or affiliated with adidas and claims no ownership rights to the hockey event”