- View Single Post - LIVE WTA Rankings
View Single Post
post #363 of (permalink) Old Aug 16th, 2012, 10:26 AM
country flag don99
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 21
Re: WTA Ranks Update Thread

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Originally Posted by don99
In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules […].
No, another time you failed (see WTA 2012 Rulebook, p 227-228)! The bullets from section ii. Ranking points treatment appear in chronological order [= lit (b), (d) and (e)].
Yes, there are numerous failures here, unfortunately they are not mine. How many facepalms should I post before pointing out page 223 comes before page 228?
  • The P5 rules on page 223 appear before the explanatory notes on page 228. The part relevant to the situation we were discussing is at the end of section XIV.A.4.a and reads, "In addition, a Top 20 Player’s WTA Ranking must include her best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results, if any." That is the natural place to start, in addressing how the P5 rules currently impact Fran. That is the point I chose to address first.
  • To see if the rules say anything else, one looks further and then finds on page 228, XIV.A.6.d "A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above." That is the part I addressed next.
On Earth, most people would agree that section 4.a appears before section 6.d, just as the common sense view is that page 223 comes before page 228. That is the logical order in which to evaluate how the rules impact Fran in 2012. (To paraphrase you, in looking only at section 6, "you have failed to take into account the ranking rules in their entirety" )

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Common sense has it that the expression in brackets offers additional information, or in other words: skipping this part will lead to different results [.....] Therefore those who formed this rule had situations in mind where 0 points count as best result although other better results are available. You don’t acknowledge that but I am confident that you realize that people who wrote the program (please mind: we are talking about a computer ranking!) have implemented the rule in question that way a long time ago!
It goes without saying, that is grasping at straws to try and salvage the situation, but at least you are finally responding to the issue originally raised. It only took how many pages of responding to insolent and divergent nonsense from you to get you to actually think before you post and realise this is the key phrase I zeroed in on in my very first comments!

The entire issue is "How much additional information does the bracketted phrase actually impart?".
  1. Your therefore is not a therefore, it is a leap off a cliff magically arriving somewhere else The only common sense information the part in brackets actually adds, is to imply that if there is a penalty 0 it will be treated as if it was a played tournament and as such it [u]MAY[/b] be one of her best two P5's. Ascribing any deeper meaning begs the question, if they had something else in mind, why not simply write it? Better yet, why use the word "best" at all? Simply leaving it out leads to what the programs are doing.
  2. Now your arguement is that the document must be interpreted the way the computer routines are written, not the other way around? Sorry, you have that completely backwards. If that where true, it would be completely worthless as a legal document. Furthermore, it's a complete cop out tantamount to simply having the rules say "the rankings will be done in accordance with the computer program".
  3. When a hole is found in the logic of the programs, they simply correct it. Why is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp, that the same is routinely done with the document and should be done to address this?
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer View Post
Yes, I have on several occasions! Independently, at this stage we should agree to disagree that we don’t find common ground in interpreting the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points).
You have in fact made only one serious attempt at addressing the simple issue I raised in my first post. That attempt is quoted and responded to above. You could have started with that. I could then have spared this forum pages of responding to your attempts at ridicule, ........ by simply pointing out that "1 is not better than 0" in the same universe where "223 is not before 228"
don99 is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome