3 ms·

Winner of a game in a normal football is also the one who cedes the fewest goal of the two.

glaberficken 8y ago
But crucially here is that on a 3 sided game that rule is not symmetrical anymore. On 1v1 saying that the winner is the one who concedes the least or that scores the most is equivalent. Whereas on a 3 sided game it is not equivalent. See this example below (if you change the rule a different team will have won the game): Team X: Scored/Conceded Team A: 4/5 Team B: 5/3 (winner if highest scorer wins) Team C: 1/2 (winner if lowest "conceder" wins) [Edited to make the total scored and conceded add up to the same number.]
- YokoZar 8y ago
  How do you have 11 scored goals and only 7 conceded goals?
  - JoeSmithson 8y ago
    They got A the wrong way around
  - glaberficken 8y ago
    Yeah, sorry edited fixed!
- irishsultan 8y ago
  An alternative measure would be "best goal difference", which also would make team B the winner in your example, but wouldn't necessarily be the same as highest scorer, or lowest conceder. As seen in an alternative outcome, this gives us 3 potential winners. Team X: Scored/Conceded Team A: 6/4 (winner if best goal difference wins) Team B: 7/6 (winner if highest scorer wins) Team C: 0/3 (winner if lowest "conceder" wins)
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    This would fail to penalize a team that accidentally knocks the ball into their own goal, unless you add a special case rule for that scenario.
    - YokoZar 8y ago
      And if you didn't special case it would lead to an "interesting" strategy of trying to score on yourself whenever you were in serious danger of having someone else score on you.
- mrkns 8y ago
  It would often be quite impossible to determine which team scored a goal, for instance in 'scrimmage' situations, or own goals. Plus it would create weird situations where a attacking team would stop a goal from the other attacking team on the line and try to get in on their own name.
  - oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
    That's a problem in 2-team football, anyway (the individual who scored always has to be identified), although the point you raise about own goals is an interesting one. Maybe an own-goal should award half a goal to the other two teams?
    - dexterdog 8y ago
      The player who scored is identified, but it doesn't really matter because it goes to the scoring team regardless of who scored it.

But crucially here is that on a 3 sided game that rule is not symmetrical anymore. On 1v1 saying that the winner is the one who concedes the least or that scores the most is equivalent. Whereas on a 3 sided game it is not equivalent. See this example below (if you change the rule a different team will have won the game): Team X: Scored/Conceded Team A: 4/5 Team B: 5/3 (winner if highest scorer wins) Team C: 1/2 (winner if lowest "conceder" wins) [Edited to make the total scored and conceded add up to the same number.]

YokoZar 8y ago
How do you have 11 scored goals and only 7 conceded goals?
- JoeSmithson 8y ago
  They got A the wrong way around
- glaberficken 8y ago
  Yeah, sorry edited fixed!
irishsultan 8y ago
An alternative measure would be "best goal difference", which also would make team B the winner in your example, but wouldn't necessarily be the same as highest scorer, or lowest conceder. As seen in an alternative outcome, this gives us 3 potential winners. Team X: Scored/Conceded Team A: 6/4 (winner if best goal difference wins) Team B: 7/6 (winner if highest scorer wins) Team C: 0/3 (winner if lowest "conceder" wins)
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  This would fail to penalize a team that accidentally knocks the ball into their own goal, unless you add a special case rule for that scenario.
  - YokoZar 8y ago
    And if you didn't special case it would lead to an "interesting" strategy of trying to score on yourself whenever you were in serious danger of having someone else score on you.
mrkns 8y ago
It would often be quite impossible to determine which team scored a goal, for instance in 'scrimmage' situations, or own goals. Plus it would create weird situations where a attacking team would stop a goal from the other attacking team on the line and try to get in on their own name.
- oneeyedpigeon 8y ago
  That's a problem in 2-team football, anyway (the individual who scored always has to be identified), although the point you raise about own goals is an interesting one. Maybe an own-goal should award half a goal to the other two teams?
  - dexterdog 8y ago
    The player who scored is identified, but it doesn't really matter because it goes to the scoring team regardless of who scored it.