Talk:2014 Women's Hockey World Cup

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's field hockey task force.

Guaranteed placement[edit]

I fail to see how the United States are already mathematically guaranteed of advancing to the next stage before the last round of pool matches have been played, given that the tournament regulations state that goal difference (over all matches) takes precedence over head-to-head results. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I though a 3-way tie would be used. Then, although unrealistic (while it's CHN vs. ARG) they are not through yet. Do you have a link to the regulations? Kante4 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Rabobank Hockey World Cup Tournament Regulations, Appendix 3. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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, based upon the points awarded in accordance with paragraph 2.1 of this appendix. If there remains equality, then the teams involved shall be ranked according to paragraphs 2. So, 3-way tie if i get that right? Which would mean that the US is through... Kante4 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading all the paragraphs as one text makes it obvious that the tiebreakers are being given in a non-ascending order of priority, making goal difference (paragraph 2.2.b) take precedence over head-to-head results (paragraph 2.2.d&e). -- Dissident (Talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it as when teams are tied, H2H is used with GD being the first tiebreaker. Kante4 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text repeatedly says how ties that still remain after applying earlier mentioned tiebreakers, should be resolved. Paragraph 2.2.e is simply making use of existing text to create more tiebreakers by restricting the matches to which they are reapplied. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine this hypothetical pool B standings after USA 0-7 RSA and CHN 4-0 ARG.

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
China	5	3	1	1	12	9	+3	10
Argentina	5	3	1	1	11	8	+3	10
United States	5	3	1	1	13	11	+2	10

Then, as the FIH regulations say, the 3 teams are tied with same amount of points and of won games. Qualiying teams are decided by goal difference, leaving USA out of the semifinals. It's highly unlikely but still possible. Then it is wrong to state that the USA is already qualified.--M&m89 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]