Was Joe Kovacs robbed of world title? Was his last throw really a foul?

Just like Guinness did to Amy wrote:

So in other words, he threw the gold medal winner, but they DQ'd him over a technicality?

A "technicality" such as a legal throw?

People complaining here have no knowledge of throws. No thrower is whining.

It's unfortunate but was a foul. It wasn't obvious, but the judge was watching carefully and his foot did touch the top of the board. Tough shit.

Let's not all pretend that the Kiwi didn't then throw over 22 metres to secure the gold hey

trowtrow wrote:

ryan was called for a foul out of the back of the ring around 22.20-30. that is abigger tragedy of officiating

Supposedly they are changing the rule regarding the back-of-the-ring fouls for next season, so next year Croucer's throw would've been ok.

FYI - the TV video you are watching is not the only record of the event. Each field event and track event have additional cameras placed at critical points - take off boards, toe boards, etc.

In addition, there is an International Technical Official (ITO)serving as the Video Referee. That official along with a National Technical Official are sitting in a room with technicians receiving over 20 real time video feeds from all of the events. They have the ability to review any portion of an event at any time.

The Video Referee is also in constant communication with the Field and Track Referees- who are also International Technical Officials. Two years ago the IAAF moved away from using local officials as Referees and now use the International Officials (If a country has an any ITOs they may serve as a Referee when that country hosts a Championships. This was done to provide consistency in officiating at the World Championships.

And here is the most important parts: 1. A athlete may make a request to the Referee to have the performance measured in case of a protest. The Referee may allow it if he/she thinks it might be questionable - but this is unlikely if the Video Referee has communicated with the Field Referee. 2. Every team has the right to protest...and they do. When this happens, the Secretary of the Jury will bring Team representatives into the video room to see the infraction (with an explanation themselves). If they still think the Referee is wrong, then they may "appeal" to the Jury. The Jury meets and reviews all information and makes the final decision.

It also should be noted that up until two years ago, the Jury was completely composed of members of the Council. Now it's a mix of ITO's and Council Members.

so in field events, in a case like this, what takes place exactly? the athlete has to immediately protest so that a measurement is taken?

you are delusional if you think that picture "clearly" shows the shoe bent over the edge. it most certainly does NOT do that and, if anything, shows the foot not over the top. as i wrote earlier, he very well may have fouled and there may be another video the officials looked at that confirms this, but the video played by nbc and this picture do not show any evidence that his foot touched the top of the barrier.

yes

Anyone who says they saw the foul at full speed is lying. You may have frame by frame controls. I do not. It is very difficult without to get the exact moment where he may have struck. This is when he is still whirling and brings his foot over the board and down; on one view it looks conceivable that the foot deflected slightly on the board before coming down, maybe not. One thing is that I'll give it up to the judge. When you pause it, you can see him down in perfect position to see if the foot is grazing the board--indeed, almost as if he had an idea that Kovacs was going to do that.

xcvxcvxcvx wrote:

Anyone who says they saw the foul at full speed is lying. You may have frame by frame controls. I do not. It is very difficult without to get the exact moment where he may have struck. This is when he is still whirling and brings his foot over the board and down; on one view it looks conceivable that the foot deflected slightly on the board before coming down, maybe not. One thing is that I'll give it up to the judge. When you pause it, you can see him down in perfect position to see if the foot is grazing the board--indeed, almost as if he had an idea that Kovacs was going to do that.

You can look at it at 1/4 speed in youtube by clicking on the settings button. It's pretty clear that the foot deflects off the board. Conceivably, the foot could have hit just the corner and I don't know if that is technically the top of the board in the rules.

Coolio2 wrote:

you are delusional if you think that picture "clearly" shows the shoe bent over the edge. it most certainly does NOT do that and, if anything, shows the foot not over the top. as i wrote earlier, he very well may have fouled and there may be another video the officials looked at that confirms this, but the video played by nbc and this picture do not show any evidence that his foot touched the top of the barrier.

And the video by NBC is definitive, right? because you think you have the right to see better than the officials?! See the David Katz explanation above. Nothing worse than armchair officials who don't know the event who think their perspective should prevail. Frankly I will take the officials perspective over yours anytime - they actually know what they are talking about. The TV broadcasts ALWAYS have limited perspective, which is why in the NFL they go to an official's booth, not ask the spectator audience in the stadium (or watching on TV for that matter) to decide on a close call.

at 1/4 speed it does look like his foot changes angle glancing off the top/edge of board. usually ties goes to runner in other sports. a ticky tack foul robbing him of gold but give it up to the ref for spotting it.

I've seen a couple comments about the position of the official and his attention the toe board. That's his job, and he did that with every throw I saw.

dingle wrote:

Conceivably, the foot could have hit just the corner and I don't know if that is technically the top of the board in the rules.

Does anybody know if the corner is considered to be the top of the board?

800ftw. wrote:

It's unfortunate but was a foul. It wasn't obvious, but the judge was watching carefully and his foot did touch the top of the board. Tough shit.

Let's not all pretend that the Kiwi didn't then throw over 22 metres to secure the gold hey

Also, the official raises the flag before the shot has even landed. So it is not like the official knew it was a winning throw.

Most impressive from the official to catch that

Coolio2 wrote:

Pondo wrote:

In the replay you can see his foot graze the toe board mid-spin. Too bad.

you most definitely cannot see his foot actually touch the board in all of the replays nbc showed. you can see a blurry foot near the board but there's no frame that nbc showed that shows his foot touching the board. i'm not saying that his foot didn't touch the board -- it very well might have -- but the replays shown by nbc didn't show a foot touching the board.

That's the way I view it -- probably but not as clear cut as I first believed.

I thought I saw the foot contact as soon as NBC showed the throw in real speed. When a foul was announced I didn't have to ask why. I assumed the slow motion replays would be more conclusive but they seemed less conclusive.

Argument for thinner shoes

Thanks for this very detailed and clarifying post.

Yes, thank you for the information!

I don't know anything about the shot and don't know if fouls like this are called on a regular basis. But I do recall Dave Johnson at the '92 Olympics in the decathlon had what looked like a much more flagrant foul, which officials later ruled was not a violation.

I believe it was his final throw and Johnson would have lost the bronze medal if it had been ruled a foul.