Hi Sarah. Thank you very much for your interesting message and the attachments. I read them carefully and below are my observations:

1. Aaron is absolutely correct in that the rules given by Article 39.5 are ambiguous. Moreover, his example exposes the ambiguity.

2. When the rules (d) through (g) are applied it must be explicitly stated in the "Article 39.5" that when a team (or in general a nonempty subset of teams) advances and there is still a tie for some of the remaining teams how to proceed from that point. The trouble occurs in this example when in the application of rule (e) Chile clearly advances and there is still a tie between Morocco and Turkey. One interpretation (FIFA's) continues to use the 3-way table; another interpretation (Canadian Soccer Association's) makes a new table using only the matches between the teams in the remaining 2-way tie. Actually, in this latter interpretation there is an added ambiguity (should we go back to rule (d) or continue to rule (f)?)

Since there is a clear ambiguity, I would say FIFA has to modify/clarify the rule to make it well-defined.

If you would like to talk, you can reach me on my cell phone today: (xxx) xxx xxx.

Best wishes,

--Levent


Return to Aaron's homepage