London 2012, Olympics — Page 8

Gaffer Tape said:

 The problem isn't that someone screwed up the timing. 

no, that is exactly what the problem is.  If the timing hadn't been screwed up, this situation wouldn't have happened.

 

Gaffer Tape said:

So, no, I'm not saying that a 15 year old is necessarily the ideal candidate.  But that's not the problem.  The IOC deemed him fit to officiate, so the IOC has to take responsibility for that decision and any mistakes that might come with it. 

I agree they have to take responsibility for that decision and any mistakes that might come with it.    But that doesn't mean that the fact that they were using a 15 year old, wasn't the problem.  

Gaffer Tape said:

Making a mistake isn't a crime.  Not rectifying it is.

I have seen a lot of mistakes in sports history that were not rectified.   I am all for rectifying the mistake, if rules and protocols of the sport in question allow it.  If they don't allow it, I am all for considering changing the rules to allow rectifying of such mistakes in the future.  What I am not for is ignoring and forgetting about the rules.   Sports aren't run by whatever the people officiating it think is  common sense, or whatever the spectators think is right and/or fair and/or justice, they are run by rules.   Sports are much better off if the officials are bound by rules instead of being allowed to do whatever they think is common sense.     

Gaffer Tape said:

As for your link, I can't watch video at the moment, but if that's something stating there is a precedent for bad decision-making, that doesn't change that it shouldn't be happening, and that it's not in line with the rules of the sport.  Otherwise you might as well not have a clock and just let someone make an arbitrary decision as to when something is over.

the link talks about the 1972 Olympic gold medal basket ball game. It is one of the most controversial endings of a basketball game ever and yes it involves timing issues.   You were talking about timing issues and basketball, so I  thought I'd link to it.

Gaffer Tape said:

Let's just make sure we're all on the same page here.  The fencing match had 1 second left, and all she had to do was not be scored on in 1 second.  That's the rule.  That's the protocol.

yes.   but sports also have rules protocol regarding how things can get reversed and what is and is not reviewable and/or reversible and when it can/can't be reversed .  They need to be followed too.  For example some sports do not allow officials to look at video replays to check and see if they made the right call.   

Gaffer Tape said:

 

 So common sense has to be used in order to uphold the rules and protocols, otherwise you're sacrificing the intent of the rule because freak occurrence and outside influence happened to lead to it uphold the letter of the rule...

I think maybe you left a few words out here.   Please correct this so I can better understand what you meant here.

Gaffer Tape said:

Warbler said:

And Gaffer you are wrong, a 15 year old has no place being any part of the officiating crew of an Olympic event.    

Really, Warb?  My opinion is wrong?  I did not think the definition allowed for that to be possible.  I guess I learn something every day.

Of course someone can tell you your opinion is wrong. What the heck, has the internet systematically erased humanity's knowledge of how arguing works? Opinions aren't sacrosanct, they are up for debate.

Gaffer Tape said:

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

 The problem isn't that someone screwed up the timing. 

no, that is exactly what the problem is.  If the timing hadn't been screwed up, this situation wouldn't have happened.

No, that's A problem.  It's not THE problem.  As I said, that could have easily happened with anyone.  Are you saying this wouldn't even be a blip on your radar if a seasoned timekeeper had screwed this up? 

of course it would still have been a big deal if a seasoned timekeeper screwed this up.   But  a seasoned timekeeper is a lot less likely to make mistakes like this.

Gaffer Tape said:

Or are you saying that all timing problems in sports are due to stupid teenagers?

of course not,  I just saying a teenager should not be keeping time at an event that has the stature of the Olympics. 

Gaffer Tape said:

I'm just not sure how to continue this conversation with you.  You're so dogmatic. 

?  what do you mean by dogmatic? 

Gaffer Tape said:

Even when the rules aren't actually even being followed, you're insisting they stick to the letter. 

I am insisting that they follow rules regarding how to deal with protests and appeals and regarding what can and can't be appealed/protested, and when things can and can't be appealed/protested and all other rules having to do with that kind of thing.  

You don't throw the rule book away just because of an officiating error.

Gaffer Tape said:

Even when an obvious malfunction has occurred, you're insisting that the hypothetical swimmer be stuck with a completely inaccurate and absurd time of an hour and 16 minutes just because a clock wasn't stopped.

I am not insisting in that at all.  I am insisting that in attempt to fix that situation,  that you follow the rules were written in regard to getting something overturned.    Heck, for all I know there may be rules that allow for time to be adjusted in situations of obvious malfunction. 

I would really like to know exact why Shim's protest was overturned.  I would like to know what reasoning was used.   Did they make the right decision?  I don't know.  I don't know enough about the sport of fencing and its rules and protocols to say that. 

Gaffer Tape said:

It's not incorrect.  All the letters and words are there.  If you can explain what it is that seems to be missing, I can try to explain it to you.

well then I guess I do not understand what you meant.   perhaps your next post more clearly explains it.

Gaffer Tape said:

Okay, I have to leave for work in a minute, but I'll try to explain what I mean.

The rules are in place in order to avoid a situation like this.  There is a clear chronological boundary in place during which all scoring must be made.  That is the intent of the rule.  A timekeeper is in place in order to let all involved be aware of the timing.  His signal identifies the end of the match, so the letter of the rules states that the match ends when the timekeeper calls time.  So here we have a conflict of those.  The match technically ended after that one second was over, because that was the amount of time dictated by the rules.  However, due to a mistake, the match wasn't officially called until much later.  The referee only called a point in that time because he was unaware that the match should have been over.  And so the letter of the rule, that the match need be officially called, is tainted by the reality that the match was already over at that point. 

I certainly agree the thing was tainted.  The question is, what do we do now?  Do we forget the rules and do whatever we want, or do we go through the process written the rules for getting things overturned.   

Don't get me wrong, it would be very sad if this has to stand, but there is only so much that can be done to take care of unusual situations, and the things that can be done must be allowed by the rules.   It is the way sports work.  

Gaffer, I really do want you watch that video about the basketball game and tell me what you think.  

asterisk8 said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Warbler said:

And Gaffer you are wrong, a 15 year old has no place being any part of the officiating crew of an Olympic event.    

Really, Warb?  My opinion is wrong?  I did not think the definition allowed for that to be possible.  I guess I learn something every day.

Of course someone can tell you your opinion is wrong. What the heck, has the internet systematically erased humanity's knowledge of how arguing works? Opinions aren't sacrosanct, they are up for debate.

Maybe I came on too strong,  but I am 100% certain that a 15 year old should not be a timekeeper at an event of the stature of the Olympics.    As I said 15 year olds aren't even allow to keep time at high school football games in my state.    Which event do you think is a bigger deal?  a high school football game in my state, or an Olympic event? 

twister111 said:
the rules in fencing state that if you leave the piste(the platform where they fight on) you are stating that you agree with the judges decision. If you still disagree you must stay there.

that is a very strange rule.  It is begging for situation where someone has to stay until dragged off by security.    They need to change that rule so the athlete can leave the playing area without saying they agree with the judge's decision.

twister111 said:

All in all even if the clock malfunctioned or the timekeeper screwed up I read a comment elsewhere that makes sense out of this whole thing. "They just didn't want to piss off omega the olympic clock sponsor."

that sounds little far fetched.   why would correcting a time keeper's mistake, piss off omega?     Or are you saying it was a problem with the time keeping device and not the time keeper that caused the problem? 

Omega would be happy as long as they showed the agreed upon ads. 

twister111 said: Considering today's replay friendly climate. There's no reason they couldn't have just given her and everyone a simple straight hard proof. That according to the tapes the start of the match happened at such and such time and, the point was scored at such and such time.

 

do the rules of fencing allow a judge to use video replay to correct a timing error?  

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

I'm just not sure how to continue this conversation with you.  You're so dogmatic. 

?  what do you mean by dogmatic?

*sigh*

What is everyone's thoughts on Oscar Pistorius, the runner without legs who races on what are called racing blades.   Here is a picture:

Do you think he should have been allowed to run in the regular olympics?  

This may be politically incorrect, but I don't think he should have allowed to run.   We opening up pandora's box.   I mean, where do we draw the line with this sort of thing.   The technology for artificial limbs is bound to improve and improve and improve.   What if it gets to point where they are like the bionic limbs of the six million dollar man and men with natural limbs stand no chance in races against those with "bionic" limbs?  And if a man with artificial limbs  its allowed to compete, why not a man in a powered wheelchair?   What if it gets to the point where normal runners want to cut their legs off so they can use artificial limbs so they have a chance against other runners using bionic limbs.   How far do we let this go before the whole Olympics is a competition between those with bionic/borgified attachments,  instead of a competition between those with natural athletic ability.    

and please don't take this to mean that I have no sympathy for those without legs or those disabled in some other way, that couldn't be further from the truth.     

Warbler said:

What is everyone's thoughts on Oscar Pistorius, the runner without legs who races on what are called racing blades.   Here is a picture:

Do you think he should have been allowed to run in the regular olympics?  

This may be politically incorrect, but I don't think he should have allowed to run.   We opening up pandora's box.   I mean, where do we draw the line with this sort of thing.   The technology for artificial limbs is bound to improve and improve and improve.   What if it gets to point where they are like the bionic limbs of the six million dollar man and men with natural limbs stand no chance in races against those with "bionic" limbs?  And if a man with artificial limbs  its allowed to compete, why not a man in a powered wheelchair?   What if it gets to the point where normal runners want to cut their legs off so they can use artificial limbs so they have a chance against other runners using bionic limbs.   How far do we let this go before the whole Olympics is a competition between those with bionic/borgified attachments,  instead of a competition between those with natural athletic ability.    

and please don't take this to mean that I have no sympathy for those without legs or those disabled in some other way, that couldn't be further from the truth.     

Well I think as long as it's clear that artificial limbs don't enhance performance, it's okay. And if they do, I don't think the Olympics would be okay with it. There are para-olympics. 

I feel it's great to let him run. I mean, this is a guy who has been without legs for all his life. It's great that with hard work, he has been able to go to the Olympics anyway. And I think it's important to say that just because he doesn't have legs doesn't mean that he doesn't have "natural athletic ability," because he clearly does. 

I watched him race, and he lost. So I don't think there should really be any controversy.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/diving/highlights-german-diver-lands-on-back.html

oops. 

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

  

What if it gets to the point where normal runners want to cut their legs off so they can use artificial limbs so they have a chance against other runners using bionic limbs.

LOL, thank you for this, I needed it.

just remember some of these guys have been willing to risk taking a drug that might make their testicles shrink, in order to gain an advantage. 

Mrebo said:

I'm very much in agreement with Gaffer on the fencing debacle. And I think way too much is being argued based on assumptions about teh rulez.

I am not assuming anything about the rules.   I  do not know the rules. 

Mrebo said:

I don't know why the same common sense application of the rules of the sport could not similarly be applied on appeal in fencing. I'm not going to assume they can't be.

nor am I, but I am also not going they can be either.   Boxing has its rules and fencing has its rules.  It is possible the rules could be different. 

Mrebo said:

And we're not talking about some subjective "common sense" of judges doing what's "fair." We're talking about abiding the rules of the sport, that all acknowledge were not followed.

I agree the rules were not followed, but that does mean you correct it by not following the rules again. 

Mrebo said:

Warbler, if you can find the rules of appeal for Olympic fencing and argue why they do not permit remedying the mistake, please do so. I know this isn't a fancy debating forum or anything...but pounding the table (metaphorically) and declaring the importance of rules without knowing what they actually are seems like a waste of time.

1. I don't think I was "pounding the table" metaphorically or otherwise.   

2. I never said that the rules of appeal for Olympic fencing do not permit remedying the mistake.   I only said the rules for appeal for Olympic fencing need to be followed, that they should not be ignored just fix this mistake.   Gaffer seemed to be arguing that if the rules didn't permit remedying the mistake, that we should just ignore the rules and fix the mistake anyway.  That is not how sports work.

I don't think you can call this thing cheating.   This was not Heidemann's doing or her fault.  

As for rendering the section that violated the rules null and void, you can only do that if the appeal rules of Olympic fencing allow you to.