I'm confused about the tiebreaking rules for Gold Cup. However, it doesn't specify how they'd apply it to breaking three-way ties. Often in tiebreaking regulations the rules would specify that the tiebreaks are applied until "one team is advanced or eliminated or both." That's not specified here and it could cause a problem in at least one potential scenario. Suppose, in Group C tomorrow, Canada defeats Panama 3-0 and United States defeats Guadeloupe 1-0. Our Group C table would look like this: Code: Team W L D GF GA GD Pts USA 2 1 0 4 2 +2 6 CAN 2 1 0 4 2 +2 6 PAN 2 1 0 5 6 -1 6 GPE 0 3 0 2 5 -3 0 So we have a three-way tie for first place. The first tiebreaker all involve the head-to-head among the tied teams. That table looks like this: Code: Team W L D GF GA GD Pts USA 1 1 0 3 2 +1 3 CAN 1 1 0 3 2 +1 3 PAN 1 1 0 2 4 -2 3 The first tiebreaker is head-to-head points. Okay, we're tied there. Second tiebreaker is head-to-head goal difference. This is where we hit the ambiguity. United States and Canada are tied there and Panama is behind them. How do we proceed from there? It's standard practice in tournaments to apply tiebreakers to 3+ teams until a team is advanced or eliminated, but that's not specified in the Gold Cup rules of competition. If they do apply tiebreakers until a team is advanced or eliminated, they'd declare Panama the third-placed team in Group C at this point and start over on tiebreakers using only United States and Canada. We'd go back to head-to-head points among those two teams, and obviously United States would then take first place in Group C by virtue of having beaten Canada 2-0, thereby taking three points to Canada's zero points in their head-to-head match-up. What if, however, they don't advance or eliminate a team first? They didn't specify that they'd do that. In that case we'd proceed with the original tiebreak hierarchy with United States and Canada. Next after the goal difference that would have eliminated Panama is goals scored in the head-to-head matches. United States and Canada are tied there, too, three apiece. Next is goal difference in all Group C matches. Tied again, both at +2. Then there's goals scored in all Group C matches. Still tied, both at four. Finally we have the dreaded drawing of lots. A coin flip I'm fairly certain that CONCACAF would follow traditional procedure by eliminating Panama from the tiebreakers and revert back to the beginning with United States and Canada. United States would then win the group and Canada would finish second. However, the tiebreak rules are ambiguous and leave room for an interpretation that could send the decision on the top two places in Group C to a coin flip. This scenario happens if United States beats Guadeloupe 1-0 and Canada beats Panama 3-0. But an ambiguous scenario would also happen if Guadeloupe were to beat United States 3-0 and Panama were to beat Canada 3-2. In that case Guadeloupe would finish second, but the United States-Canada tie may go to a coin flip. Unless, that is, they advance Guadeloupe and start over on tiebreaks with United States and Canada, in which case United States takes third in the group, possibly being eliminated depending on the outcome of tonight's Guatemala-Grenada match, and Canada is eliminated outright. Tiebreaking is tricky stuff sometimes. It'd be interesting to see how CONCACAF would resolve these scenarios if either one does come to pass.
Was thinking about this myself...Here's my interpretation. The first tiebreaker is goald difference between the teams. This results in Panama being locked in third. After that the rules specify to go to goals scored between the tied teams (there is no back to tiebreaker #1, as there is MLS tiebreakers). This would result in the US advancing, since it scored more goals between the tied teams of US and Canada (as Panama is no longer considered tied). The question in the ambiguity is whether the three way tie goes to two way after the elimination. The above interpretation however is contingent on whether the "more than two teams tied on points" stipulation on tiebreakers 2 and 3, continues to apply after Panama is locked in third. Again I cannot say that with certainty either.
I suppose that's a possible interpretation, but I don't think it's likely. If they're going to eliminate a team mid-tiebreak, they'd have to start over. Continuing mid-tiebreak with different team data (i.e. eliminating games involving Panama) doesn't make a lot of sense. The rationale I'd provide for the coin flip scenario would be that CONCACAF would want to completely order the teams 1-2-3 using the full tiebreaker rather than eliminating or advancing a team.
Eliminating teams mid-tiebreak is very common when not usign the H2H method, which is often used in FIFA competitions. Imagine a four team group where the A beat B 4-3 B beat C 1-0 and C beat A 4-2. Additionally, A beat D 1-0 B beat D 2-0 and C beat D 1-0. This would result in A, B and C tied on 6 points. A would have a GD of 0 B would have a GD of 2 C would have a GD of 2 I believe A would definitely be classed at 3rd, even though B and C would then be required to go to goals scored which would go to B (6 to 5) A would win on goal scored with 7, but they were already eliminated on the first GD tiebreaker. (a full ranking of 1,2,3 has not occured yet A's place has been locked). This I beleive is generally accepted when not using H2H as the first tiebreaker, I see no reason indicated why this methodology wouldn't apply when using H2H instead.