Then there’s the appalling loss of Roy Jones, Jr. in the Seoul Olympics. Some judges later admitted that they had been trying to make it a split decision for Jones instead of unanimous, which it probably deserved, but when too many people vote for the other guy…
Wasn’t Jones actually voted Athlete of the Games, despite getting “only” a silver medal that he refused to pick up, a la the '72 US Basketball team?
I thought that amateur boxing now used a system that awarded points only if a certain number of judges hit their scoring buttons after a punch, supposedly eliminating the abilty to arrange decisions. How could this most recent boxing problem have happened?
The score being “incorrectly calculated” does have a subjective component to it. My understanding is that one set of judges evaluates the actual performance (taking deductions) and another set determines the routine’s starting value based on the movements performed and their connections. They look at the actual performance and if a certain move isn’t performed, it doesnt count towards the start value. So there is a degree of subjectivity even to awarding start value. The Korean protest is based on the fact that Young’s same routine was given a start value of 10 in earlier performances but only a 9.9 in this one.
Sound to me like a valid protest. You are allowed to protest a start value score but not the performance score. However, there are time limits for filing the start value protest. The Koreans didn’t meet that timing. They accepted the score at the time and only filed the protest after the time limit had expired.
The point in bringing up that Young was not charged the full deductions for his holds wasn’t to call for a rescoring of the performance, but just to show another side of the “who should have won if the scoring was correct” argument.
The rules do say (at least to my understanding) that you can’t call for a rescoring of the performance, but they also say there’s a time limit for protesting a start value score. Why throw aside one rule and not the other?
I compete in a subjectively judged sport (with horses–not in gymnastics) and have had to learn that when you compete in a subjectively judged sport, you pretty much have to accept the judge’s calls or the sport falls into chaos. Sure, there are rules for when you protest a judge’s decision. But if you don’t follow those rules, you have to live with what you get. Now something like the judge collusion that occured in SLC is another matter entirely. But an honest judge making a call you don’t agree with is something to either protest within the rules or accept what you get in that competition.
The scoring seemed wonky for much of the gymnastics competitions. If there’s an underlying problem with judging that makes it unfair to the competitors, that should be dealt with–but by making changs for future competitions, not redistributing medals that were given out under the existing rules.
I think ESPN said last night that they still have not, and probably won’t, file a formal protest (does that mean they were only threatening to do so? I wasn’t paying enough attention it seems). Perhaps that’s because they know the rules don’t back them up? If I’m hearing and comprehending right, that makes it sound like the duplicate-gold solution the South Koreans were pushing for won’t happen.
First off, let’s keep this in perspective. As long as a group of people with inherent biases have the complete, unilateral power to determine the winners of a sport, there will be raging controversy. It’s like that for figure skating, it’s like that for skateboarding, and it’s like that for gymnastics. (Heck, college football adopted a winner-take-all championship game and the controversy hasn’t abated a bit.) Like Barbarian said, it’s not like it’s a real sport.
With that in mind, I really don’t think the Koreans have a case. Even if one of them was cheated out of a tenth of a point at that point, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t get undeserved points added (or subtracted) at a previous event. In fact, I dare say that there were so many numerous scoring biases and blunders leading up to that point that something as trivial as an incorrect start value was essentially meaningless.
Contrast that to a vault being set to the wrong height, for the women’s all around last Olympics, and the results for the entire event being allowed to stand. In virtually every soccer leage, if an official discovers at any point of a game that the ball’s diameter is even a half inch too big or small, the game is nullified and rescheduled. This was the equivalent of using a bowling ball, and yet all the results stood, making an utter mockery of the sport. THAT’S an outrage. A few judges fudging tenths of points is just par for the course, and every gymnast knows that going in.
Paul Hamm deserves everything he’s won. Keeping in mind that this is gymnastics, as opposed to a real sport, of course.
Hamm is refusing to share the gold. This is reminding me a lot of Blair Hornstein and her refusal to share the valedictorianship. (Go ahead; tell me why it’s not analagous.)
I believe that it is 3 of the 5 judges have to score the hit within a total time of 1 second.
The biggest problem of the olympics I saw in the scoring of boxing is that the judges did not score body blows. One of the Russians (I can’t recall his name, but he is called the Russian Tank) lost a bout because of this. He landed punch after punch after punch to the torso (scoring blows according to the rules) but got no credit for them. His oponent would land a relatively weak punch to the head and get a point, the Tank would land four or five (fairly heavy) blows to the body and not get anything for it.
Because Hamm has no voice in sharing the gold. The US committee has said they would have no problem issuing a second gold medal. It’s the FIG that won’t issue a second medal. Why complain about Hamm, he hasn’t done anything wrong?
Actually, the error was discovered half way through the rotation & all the gymnasts were given the option of going over, but Khorkina declined. She had already fallen on the uneven bars(?).
It’s not his to share. He is a competitor, not a judge of the competition. The judges have said (so far) that they’re not taking away Hamm’s gold or giving another one to the Korean gymnast. Now if they gave another gold to the Korean, and Hamm threw his away in disgust, there would be an analogy to Blair Hornstein.
Thinking about this yesterday, I came up with a much better analogy. Suppose you work very hard on a project at work, and are subsequently given a raise for your performance. Shortly thereafter, your boss realizes that one of your co-workers was not given enough credit for hard work he did on a different project, and he really was the one who should have been given a raise. The boss then tells you that the company has a policy of not rescinding raises, although they might give a raise to your co-worker in the future. But he feels that because of his mistake, out of the goodness of your heart, you should just write a check to your co-worker for the amount of the raise. Do you do it? Because that’s what Paul Hamm is being asked to do. He won the gold medal, and if they want to take it away from him, they should come and take it from him, not tell him to correct their mistake.
But see, this is how the media gives wrong impressions. I read about Hamm giving interviews, and being asked if he would share the gold, and answering, as if it is up to him. Shouldn’t someone from the IOC or the US committee have told him to keep mum? Or at least state that it’s not his decision?
Far from stating publicly that the decision wasn’t Paul’s to make, they basically threw it at him, saying that even though by all the official rules and policies of the sport, the medal was his, he should give it up anyway. Which is why I think that my work/raise analogy is so appropriate. Either he won the medal, which is what FIG and the IOC have clearly said, and he shouldn’t have to share it, or he didn’t win it, and, following equitable sporting rules, they should take it away. But to tell him that he won it, but he should give it up anyway, is cruel and heartless, and Paul Hamm, who did nothing but perform brilliantly, does not deserve that.
Hamm did his routine better than Tae Young did his, plus he did it without an extra illegal move. The Koreans have no case, Grandi’s a fool, and Hamm should feel perfectly justified in keeping his gold and telling the rest of the world to fuck right the hell off.
You are using flawed logic. I haven’t read this entire thread yet, so this may be addressed already. Just because the commentator was a former Olympic gymnast doesn’t really hold a lot value, unless the gymnast was also a judge.
As an ncaa college umpire I am constantly amazed at how little the players and coaches know about the actual rules of the game.
“The hands are part of the bat!” :rolleyes: So if he drops the bat, his hands will stay attached to it?
“The ball hit the plate! That’s an out!” :rolleyes: Wow, I didn’t realize that home plate was a magic out!
One of my favorites: “That’s interference, the player can’t just stand there!” :rolleyes: Uh, coach, I think you want obstruction, unless you WANT me to call your runner out!
Anyway, my point is that athletes are taught what to do, but not always taught why they are doing it. Many times they don’t know the subtlies of the rules.
If it were me (and I admit that I have a martyr complex), I’d not only give up my gold, but ALL my medals, and encourage the rest of my teammates to do the same – as a protest to how screwed up the gymnastics judging was at this Olympics.
I certainly wouldn’t want to keep anything that’s going to be judged, criticized, and/or ruled unworthy for the rest of my life.
The scoring error has to be disputed immediately, before moving on to the next event, and that makes sense. Isn’t the reason for rules like this at least in part so everyone knows that posted scores are accurate–i.e., they know the score they have to beat? I’m not saying that this would necessarily have changed the outcome of Hamm’s last event (hell, I’m not even sure in what order this stuff all happened), but I do see the reason for the rule.
It’s analogous to golf, I think. If you sign for a higher score than you actually shot (as opposed to a lower score, which will disqualify you), then too bad, that’s your score. The rest of the field has to rely on the posted scores, and that can affect the strategies they employ, and whether or not they go for broke or play it a little safer. Isn’t that a factor in gymnastics as well? Again, I don’t know in what order this stuff occurred, but if Hamm’s last event came after the scoring foul-up, who can say for sure he wouldn’t have come up even bigger, knowing he had to, if the Korean’s score had been accurate?
Anyone who knows more about these events or gymnastics (that would be practically anyone), feel free to point out if this is faulty logic.
I, for one, agree with the Koreans that the routine Yang Tae-young did on the parallel bars should be rescored and the medal results adjusted accordingly. Any gymnast who won a medal higher than he otherwise would have should voluntarily give his medal up to the next lower scoring gymnast and gracefully accept the lower placement he deserves.
Come on, Yang Tae-young, step up to the plate, do the right thing, and give Ioan Silviu Suciu the bronze medal he rightfully won
Hamm isn’t being asked to share the top spot, he’s being asked to give it up to Yang Tae-young. All the reports I’ve seen seem to indicate that he and the US Olympic Committee would be open to awarding a second gold to Tae Young. Hornstein wouldn’t have had to give up valedictorian, she merely would have had to share it, but this was unacceptable to her.
Hamm has said that he will abide by whatever decision is made by the FIG, the officials who are responsible for making such determinations. The head official for the FIG has said that they cannot take away Hamm’s medal. Hornstein refused to abide by the decision made by the administration and the superintendant of her school district, organization and the the head thereof responsible for making such decisions.
Hamm did nothing wrong at any time during his performance, his preparation for his performance, or since. The entire controversy was created by mistakes others made. Hornstein created the controversy in her case, and in doing so, brought attention to the fact that she had been regularly plaigarizing others during the time she was earning the valedictory title.
