# Thread: Why does a shared placement omit the placement that follows?

1. ## Why does a shared placement omit the placement that follows?

I have wondered about that for a while, most recently again in the Ladies' Downhill results. Why is there no silver medal? It doesn't make sense to me - there are two first places, which, in theory means, the next one should be the silver medal winner and the next one the bronze medal winner since they were second and third best.
It's one of the big mysteries I haven't been able to solve but maybe someone knows why?

2. Because the bronze medalist was the third person to cross the line. First and second just happened to share a time.

3. I can see your point in let's say, a 100m race, however, in sports like biathlon, skiing, speed skating etc, everyone is crossing the line individually. The one with the fastest time wins, so why doesn't the person with the second fasted time get the silver medal, just because two people were faster than him/her? Because, no matter how many had the fastest time, that person still was second fastest.
I guess, it's a logic that'll always be beyond me.

4. Originally Posted by ballettmaus
I can see your point in let's say, a 100m race, however, in sports like biathlon, skiing, speed skating etc, everyone is crossing the line individually. The one with the fastest time wins, so why doesn't the person with the second fasted time get the silver medal, just because two people were faster than him/her? Because, no matter how many had the fastest time, that person still was second fastest.
Giving that person a bronze makes perfect sense to me. Why should the third person to cross the line get a windfall silver just because the first two people happened to tie?
Would you suggest also giving the fourth-place person a bronze medal?

5. Originally Posted by ballettmaus
I can see your point in let's say, a 100m race, however, in sports like biathlon, skiing, speed skating etc, everyone is crossing the line individually. The one with the fastest time wins, so why doesn't the person with the second fasted time get the silver medal, just because two people were faster than him/her? Because, no matter how many had the fastest time, that person still was second fastest. I guess, it's a logic that'll always be beyond me.

How is that any different?
Since placements determine 1st best, 2nd best, 3rd best, 4th best...regardless of the sport.

If two athletes tie for first (gold), the third best athlete (third best, as in the athlete finishing behind the top 2) is just that: THIRD BEST. Why should he/she get a free pass just because the top 2 happened to both tie? He/she is deemed the third best, so should get bronze. If say, there was no tie amongst the top 2, and the 2nd place finisher was slightly behind 1st but higher than 3rd, would you still give the 3rd place finisher silver? Of course not. Same logic applies to the 4th place finisher and why they shouldn't win bronze if they are not THIRD BEST (ie. as in 3 or more athletes have higher placements than him/her).

No offense but I don't see why this logic is so hard to understand.

6. Originally Posted by ballettmaus
I can see your point in let's say, a 100m race, however, in sports like biathlon, skiing, speed skating etc, everyone is crossing the line individually. The one with the fastest time wins, so why doesn't the person with the second fasted time get the silver medal, just because two people were faster than him/her? Because, no matter how many had the fastest time, that person still was second fastest.
I guess, it's a logic that'll always be beyond me.

If two people share first place, the person who finished behind them has the third best time/result.

7. On another note, though, I kind of don't agree that we need convoluted tiebreakers in subjectively judged sports when 2 people have a tie score, when timed sports are perfectly happy to award 2 gold medals (or whatever place tied). In a subjectively judged sport, if they were so close it could have come down to one judges slightly different opinion than another, just say they're tied if they end up with the same total! IMO.

8. It wouldn't make any sense to give the 3rd best person in the competition the silver medal. I just don't think you are completely understanding how a tie works.

9. Originally Posted by ballettmaus
I can see your point in let's say, a 100m race, however, in sports like biathlon, skiing, speed skating etc, everyone is crossing the line individually. The one with the fastest time wins, so why doesn't the person with the second fasted time get the silver medal, just because two people were faster than him/her? Because, no matter how many had the fastest time, that person still was second fastest.
I guess, it's a logic that'll always be beyond me.
Because it is not the time in itself that is rewarded, but the athlete's placement. Two athletes may share the same time, but those are still two completely different performances.

10. I would like to see when there are ties that the person who comes next finishes in the number behind that. So if two tie for gold I would like to see the next get silver, and the one after that get bronze. I also hate the tiebreaking formulas, the IOC shouldnt be so scared of ties. If athletes were so close you have to go to tibreaking methods to split them, let them share the medal.

11. Originally Posted by kuzytalent
I would like to see when there are ties that the person who comes next finishes in the number behind that. So if two tie for gold I would like to see the next get silver, and the one after that get bronze.
I would be really annoyed if they changed that rule because it makes no sense to hand out unearned medals. We shouldn't turn the Olympics into Little League where everyone gets a trophy.

12. Originally Posted by tourtiere

How is that any different?
Thinking about it, I realized it wasn't.

If two athletes tie for first (gold), the third best athlete (third best, as in the athlete finishing behind the top 2) is just that: THIRD BEST. Why should he/she get a free pass just because the top 2 happened to both tie?
That's where I disagree. The time says, they're both equal, so they're both first and the time also says the next athlete has the second best time. There's only one time that has been better. It is shared by two people, yes, but there's only one time that is better.

He/she is deemed the third best, so should get bronze. If say, there was no tie amongst the top 2, and the 2nd place finisher was slightly behind 1st but higher than 3rd, would you still give the 3rd place finisher silver? Of course not.
No, because then there would be three different times for three different athletes, not just two different times. That's exactly why I have difficulties understanding that logic, because someone by awarding the second best time the third place, the rules are saying, one of those two who finished ahead could have been slower than the other and thus won the silver. The actual fact, however, is, that neither of the two first place finishers was slower than the other, which is why they both get gold. I feel like they're rewarding the fact by awarding two golds (in that case) and then they reward the "could have been" by awarding the next person the bronze medal.

13. Originally Posted by Ziggy

If two people share first place, the person who finished behind them has the third best time/result.
That's the best explanation that anyone can give you. If you have two people tied for 3rd place, that's still the 3rd best time, but the next person ranked would be 5th.

The question reminds me of when my mother tried to explain to me that technically you really can't get more than 100% on a test, even if there was extra credit. Sorry....rambling.....

14. That's where I disagree. The time says, they're both equal, so they're both first and the time also says the next athlete has the second best time.
It might be the second best time- but it was the third best athlete. The first two were just equally good. Medals go to athletes, not times.

15. Originally Posted by ballettmaus

That's where I disagree. The time says, they're both equal, so they're both first and the time also says the next athlete has the second best time.
No. If the time says 1st place is both equal, the time behind them also says the next athlete has the THIRD best time (THIRD as in behind 1st and 2nd). Not the second best time, since he/she got beat by two others with faster times.

16. Originally Posted by Skittl1321
It might be the second best time- but it was the third best athlete. The first two were just equally good. Medals go to athletes, not times.
This is EXACTLY the reason.

Sorry, but it's not that hard to understand.

So, if three speedskaters are racing against each other, and two are about to cross the finish line at the exact time, with the third trailing behind him, should one of the top 2 slow down slightly to be behind the 1st place finisher but above the third placer in order for the third man to win bronze?

17. Originally Posted by ballettmaus
That's where I disagree. The time says, they're both equal, so they're both first and the time also says the next athlete has the second best time. There's only one time that has been better. It is shared by two people, yes, but there's only one time that is better.
It's not a matter of agreeing and disagreeing. It's simple logic. They're both equal but they are two different performances of two different athletes. So whoever is below them is the third best athlete. Bloody hell.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•