First of all: it wasn't the Neustadt-Rule which was the decider, but the fourth criteria:Surely a decider game would be best, but i understand this is diffucult to organize. Nevertheless this does not change the fact that the "Neustadt-Rule" priviliges the higher seeded team without any reason which makes the rule simply unfair. You could flip a coin which would be even more fair. :ugeek:
If there is still a tie, the last tie-breaker will be the original seed of the teams.
The Neustadt-Rule is the deciding factor if for example Brazil A would've won 3-1 against Austria and China Frantic would've won 3-1 against Vietnam B.
Since Vietnam B is the higher placed team in the end (seeds don't matter) losing a game against them is better than losing a game against Austria, so China Frantic would've gone through.
For future tournaments who use the same format that the losing team gets to pick another homemap (out of a limited pool) I really like pedro's suggestion that the team who was losing at that point will get the lower seed.