Renewed Marathoner wrote:
Risk Injury... By high jumping? Lol. I don't see how a few more jumps would Injure them
You are aware that BOTH of them have had near career-ending injuries before?
Gosh, I wonder how those injuries happened? High jumping, dimwit. Lol.
Both of them are returning from what could have been career ending ankle injuries sustained while attempting a jump late in a competition (Tamberi in 2016 while attempting 2.41 and Barshim in 2018 while attempting the world record)
I don't blame the athletes. They made the right choice for them, but i'm not sure I agree that this should be within the rules.
I don't strongly disagree with it either. Something to ponder.
Giiiirl power xc wrote:
anonymouses wrote:
Official asked them to jumpoff and both declined. Only outcome would be one loses gold. As a fan, I thought it was a perfect ending to best HJ I've seen.
+1
Beautiful moment.
Oh please. This is exactly why it shouldn’t be optional. If they asked them both, and they BOTH said no, then it should be two silvers. I don’t care about handing out two golds but not this way. With letting the athletes choose they’re happy and done jumping. So dumb.
Lol - well done!
BonQuenQuen wrote:
The competition is stiff, but this is up there. I've sustained major eye strain rolling my eyes at him on many occasions.
rojo wrote:
Society handing out a medal to everyone has reached a new peak (or low) depending on how you view it.
I think they just gave out two gold medals. Anyone watching on tv able to confirm?
Wow EVERYONE got a gold medal? Oh, no, TWO people got gold medals.
Hey Rojo, just because you watch Fox News, doesn’t mean you ARE Fox News, ya know?
rojo wrote:
Javman wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting FORCING athletes to risk injury by continuing? If so, that is absolutely asinine.
Risk injury? Yes.
I think they should NEVER go to penalities in the world cup final. 100%. Make the goal bigger every 10 minutes.
Make the goal bigger? WTF?
high school xc coach wrote:
I don't blame the athletes. They made the right choice for them, but i'm not sure I agree that this should be within the rules.
I don't strongly disagree with it either. Something to ponder.
I agree with you but they cleared the same height with the same number of jumps, sometimes a tie is a tie, it makes little sense for me to have a jump off at a height they both had already cleared. A few years ago, I don’t recall if it was the Olympics or the world championship, they awarded a double gold in swimming, they had the same time at the millisecond.
rojo does it again wrote:
TrackFan55 wrote:
This is surely Rojo’s most boomer take ever right?
An absolute moran yet he is over there pretending to be a journalist
YIKES
I didn’t say it!
Dab wrote:
high school xc coach wrote:
I don't blame the athletes. They made the right choice for them, but i'm not sure I agree that this should be within the rules.
I don't strongly disagree with it either. Something to ponder.
I agree with you but they cleared the same height with the same number of jumps, sometimes a tie is a tie, it makes little sense for me to have a jump off at a height they both had already cleared. A few years ago, I don’t recall if it was the Olympics or the world championship, they awarded a double gold in swimming, they had the same time at the millisecond.
First jump of the jump off would have been a 4th attempt at 239, then bar would have been moved either up or down if both cleared or missed. I don’t think either was going to improve from 237 given the length of the competition though.
Jumping a distance they both cleared first time with both having clean cards until one of them misses while the other clears is not a good way to determine the best. If they can't clear any higher height then sharing the medal is not a bad option.
overpole wrote:
Star wrote:
I know I have seen two Golds given before some where.
It's happened many times in timed events, but I've never seen happen it in the absence of technical limitations. It's also a very different situation in the case of silvers and bronzes. The best is the best.
The best high jumper is the one who jumps the highest. These guys both jumped the highest and couldn’t clear the next height. Going backwards is idiotic, certain sports/rules allow for multiple people to share best of the best.
Neither wanted to jump. What are you going to do? Put a gun to their heads and force them to jump? DQ both of them? Flip a coin? ....
Nah, neither were going higher and so the only way was to lower the bar and see who fails first. Your winning jump in the jump-off could be lower than your rival jumped earlier in the comp - doesn't seem right to me.
Unless you can show one of them can jump higher than the other, it needs to be shared.
alanson wrote:
Neither wanted to jump. What are you going to do? Put a gun to their heads and force them to jump? DQ both of them? Flip a coin? ....
Rojo doesnt consider other people
Durban wrote:
Nah, neither were going higher and so the only way was to lower the bar and see who fails first. Your winning jump in the jump-off could be lower than your rival jumped earlier in the comp - doesn't seem right to me.
Unless you can show one of them can jump higher than the other, it needs to be shared.
This makes sense. Rojo are you listening?
I don't blame the athletes for the choice--zero reason to risk losing a gold medal. I do blame the rules.
I can fathom a tie in really extreme circumstances--a track race tied to the thousandth, a swim tied to the hundredth (due to the tolerances involved in pool construction), a long jump where jumpers had identical first/second/third-best jumps. But no jump-off at all? Come on. If the basketball gold medal game goes to OT, would we let the teams say, "We'll share the gold medal?" Of course not.
really, no jump-off wrote:
I don't blame the athletes for the choice--zero reason to risk losing a gold medal. I do blame the rules.
I can fathom a tie in really extreme circumstances--a track race tied to the thousandth, a swim tied to the hundredth (due to the tolerances involved in pool construction), a long jump where jumpers had identical first/second/third-best jumps. But no jump-off at all? Come on. If the basketball gold medal game goes to OT, would we let the teams say, "We'll share the gold medal?" Of course not.
Are you paying attention? The jump off was the regular competition! They cleared the same height. Competition over
im a scientist. wrote:
really, no jump-off wrote:
I don't blame the athletes for the choice--zero reason to risk losing a gold medal. I do blame the rules.
I can fathom a tie in really extreme circumstances--a track race tied to the thousandth, a swim tied to the hundredth (due to the tolerances involved in pool construction), a long jump where jumpers had identical first/second/third-best jumps. But no jump-off at all? Come on. If the basketball gold medal game goes to OT, would we let the teams say, "We'll share the gold medal?" Of course not.
Are you paying attention? The jump off was the regular competition! They cleared the same height. Competition over
yup-make sense to me-they each no-heighted 3 times meaning the chance of getting another successful attempt at a higher height would be low anyways...might as well call it!
paul72 wrote:
im a scientist. wrote:
Are you paying attention? The jump off was the regular competition! They cleared the same height. Competition over
yup-make sense to me-they each no-heighted 3 times meaning the chance of getting another successful attempt at a higher height would be low anyways...might as well call it!
Thank you.
You and I are right. Rojo is wrong
Thanks