PDA

View Full Version : 2012 London Olympic Games - Day Three - General Thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

Skittl1321
07-30-2012, 09:25 PM
It's the piste.

All of the reports I saw mentioned that she had to stay to protest.

Thanks :)

All the early reports I read just say she refused to leave, and was in tears. All the ones now have updated that she was required to stay to protest

Lorac
07-30-2012, 09:26 PM
Thanks for the article!


How awful:(

I think the crowd were booing the officials - not the fencer - she appeared to get a standing ovation.

SHARPIE
07-30-2012, 09:27 PM
Snarky volunteer (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180936/London-2012-Olympics-Games-volunteer-wows-spectators-Opening-Ceremony.html?ICO=most_read_module)

PML! :rofl:


Bahahahaha!!!!!!!!!


I seem to have a tribute to Mitch Gaylord going on on my FB page - As you do!

reckless
07-30-2012, 09:34 PM
I just looked at the rules from US Fencing and there does appear to be nothing about rounding up time. The timekeeper is supposed to start the clock when the referee calls the start.

And even if the fourth and final touch was actually .86 of a second, the three prior touches that took place after the clock hit one second had to collectively take more than :14 of a second. It also doesn't explain why, after the third touch, several seconds elapsed and then the clock moved from :01 to :00.

l'etoile
07-30-2012, 09:34 PM
Oh, I knew that the booing was for the officials, not the player;) I was stating how awful this situation is for Shin.

Skittl1321
07-30-2012, 09:43 PM
I figured out the "sum of money" thing.


Every appeal must be accompanied by the deposit of a guaranty of US$80, or its equivalent in another currency; this sum may be confiscated for the benefit of the
FIE if the appeal is rejected on the grounds that it is ‘frivolous’; this decision will be taken by the juridical authority responsible for hearing the appeal. However, appeals against the decisions of the Referee do not require the deposit of the guaranty mentioned above

mazzy
07-30-2012, 09:52 PM
And even if the fourth and final touch was actually .86 of a second, the three prior touches that took place after the clock hit one second had to collectively take more than :14 of a second.
Of course, the total of the actions took more than 1 sec. However, to determine that you would need to measure in finer increments which is not done. You basically have a zero/one situation: either the second was used up in one action or it was not. In the second case, a whole second remains and the game can be repeated ad infinitum.

It also doesn't explain why, after the third touch, several seconds elapsed and then the clock moved from :01 to :00.
No idea. Apparently, the judge decided that it was a timekeeping mistake. It seems that the Koreans would have had to refuse to continue fencing if they wanted to challenge that. Technicalities being technical, I guess.
From a purely spectator pov, Heidemann has the better claim IMO. She did score one more point than her opponent in the time given by the judge, while Shin would basically be the profiteer of a coin toss.

I also loved that Heidemann actually went for the final point in the OT of the final despite having the advantage on her side.

tralfamadorian
07-30-2012, 09:54 PM
^^ I don't understand, why did they say the Koreans were supposed to pay then, wasn't this appeal against a referee's decision?

mazzy
07-30-2012, 09:58 PM
^^ I don't understand, why did they say the Koreans were supposed to pay then, wasn't this appeal against a referee's decision?

Standard practice in most sports to prevent feds from appealing every single decision a judge makes. This way only appeals that actually have a decent chance of success will be submitted.

homura
07-30-2012, 10:04 PM
Image of the Day: The People's Champion - South Korean Fencer Shin A Lam
https://twitter.com/ESPNOlympics/status/230031841875337217/photo/1

allezfred
07-30-2012, 10:09 PM
Friggin hell. One protest and now she's Princess Diana. :lol:

Skittl1321
07-30-2012, 10:10 PM
^^ I don't understand, why did they say the Koreans were supposed to pay then, wasn't this appeal against a referee's decision?

I THINK (though I have no idea, this is my interpretation) that is if they are appealing the decision on the first appeal. It sounds like they can take a decision "up the chain" once.

The whole rulebook, in English, is here http://www.britishfencing.com/uploads/files/book_t_23:04.pdf

That or because there is a difference between a referee and a judge. Perhaps the appeal was against a judges decision?

PDilemma
07-30-2012, 10:17 PM
A bit of volleyball snark:

What kind of parents name their child Destinee Hooker?

I remember seeing her in Big 12 matches when she played at Texas and thinking if your last name is Hooker, you probably want to name your daughter something normal and nondescript...Sarah, Beth, Jane...

Good then she grew up tall and strong!

I'm loving that NBC is actually showing volleyball live. Shocked by it, though.

reckless
07-30-2012, 10:19 PM
Of course, the total of the actions took more than 1 sec. However, to determine that you would need to measure in finer increments which is not done. You basically have a zero/one situation: either the second was used up in one action or it was not. In the second case, a whole second remains and the game can be repeated ad infinitum.

Except the clock is supposed to be continuous. The rules say the overtime period is one minute. And according to the rules, if there is a problem with the clock, it is up to the referee to determine how much time has elapsed. So the referee should have looked at the video and considered the time that elapsed once the clock hit :01 and determined the proper amount of time. If the referee concluded that more than one second elapsed before the fourth, scoring touch, the referee should have called it for Shin.

Obviously, a lot of this problem could have been avoided if the clock had tenths or hundredths of a second. Then, when the referee ordered time placed back on the clock, she could have set it for less than one second, which it obviously should have been.


No idea. Apparently, the judge decided that it was a timekeeping mistake. It seems that the Koreans would have had to refuse to continue fencing if they wanted to challenge that. Technicalities being technical, I guess.
Again, that is obvious. However, it indicates that the timekeeper was not keeping proper time. When a clock only moves several seconds after it should have stopped, it indicates something is wrong. Most evident is the fact that the time did not start when the referee called for the fencers to start.


From a purely spectator pov, Heidemann has the better claim IMO. She did score one more point than her opponent in the time given by the judge, while Shin would basically be the profiteer of a coin toss.
Except that is the rule for extra time, and fencers adjust their strategy to the rule. If Shin did not get that advantage, she might have fenced the end of the semifinal completely differently.


I also loved that Heidemann actually went for the final point in the OT of the final despite having the advantage on her side.
I don't think that Shin was extraordinarily conservative in the OT. She had eight touches in the OT that were deemed simultaneous with Heidemann's touches. They just have different styles. It looks to me that Shin tended to rely on countering when Heidemann attacked. Shin did that even when she was behind in the scoring. Heidemann, who is much taller, probably favors an aggressive style that seeks to rely on her reach advantage.

Domshabfan
07-30-2012, 10:20 PM
IOC should get ready to receive at least a million emails as complaints from Korean netizens... good luck IOC