What just happened? Everyone gets a (gold) medal. Did they just hand out two gold medals in the HJ instead of doing a jumpoff?

toozy wrote:

I agree with you. They cleared the heights and failed their final jumps. That's the competition over.

If one of them wanted to win it outright then he should have made those jumps.

Exactly. Rojo is 100% wrong about this

There's also historical precedent dating back to the 1800s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ties_for_medals_at_the_Olympics

A bit anticlimactic on the field, but awesome show of appreciation for each other after the competition. It’s what the Olympics is all about IMO and what both CNN and Fox News should be reporting on their front page.

toozy wrote:

There's also historical precedent dating back to the 1800s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ties_for_medals_at_the_Olympics

I guess society has been on the outs for over 100 years!!!

rojo wrote:

Society handing out a medal to everyone has reached a new peak (or low) depending on how you view it.

Sort of like a Dallas prep school giving low mark trophies in the spelling bee?

nojos wrote:

rojo wrote:

Society handing out a medal to everyone has reached a new peak (or low) depending on how you view it.

Sort of like a Dallas prep school giving low mark trophies in the spelling bee?

He said it, not me!!!

overpole wrote:

sadtomato wrote:

Exactly, it would be stupid to do a jump off and risk losing the gold.

Would it? Would you accept a gold if they gave them out to eight tied jumpers? A gold is just the symbol for being the best in the world. The symbol got confused for the achievement.

This is complicated. If the jump off would be to continue at the next height, they may never clear it. Do you go back and redo the comp from a lower height? In the ideal world it makes sense that the rules should be changed so that tying for the gold is not allowed and a jump off must happen, maybe even on a different day so it’s not a war of attrition, but I see lots of implementation problems. Tying for silver or bronze is not the same, and should only be one gold medalist if possible, but you can’t rerun the marathon, ….and in reality you may not be able to fairly jump, throw or run off any event.

Jo72 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.

It was. But this shows the rule should be changed. Either jumpoff or both get only silver. Otherwise there is not good incentive to risk a jumpoff.

They should get a sandwich coin, half gold and half silver.

Renewed Marathoner wrote:

Risk Injury... By high jumping? Lol. I don't see how a few more jumps would Injure them

I'm fine with the shared gold. But also would've been fine without that option. Jump off or something.

The jockeys are under incredible strain as they jump over each obstacle. It takes almost super-human strength to pull the horse up in the air with you and each time they do it they risk blowing out their backs.

overpole wrote:

duderz wrote:

BARSHIM is a class act. Most likely he would have won the jump offbut he chose to share gold.

I'm not completely convinced. The choice of the shared gold was offered, and Tamberi screamed and started celebrating while Barshim watched on. Nothing was left but for him to cheer himself and implicitly accept the decision.

Pendejon wrote:

Jo72 wrote:

It was. But this shows the rule should be changed. Either jumpoff or both get only silver. Otherwise there is not good incentive to risk a jumpoff.

They should get a sandwich coin, half gold and half silver.

Or cut the gold medal in half and each one gets a piece.

Barring any rules or injury risk from continuing competition, I can’t help but wonder how the two athletes are seemingly content with sharing gold. If I were an Olympic athlete in their situation, I cannot imagine being satisfied with that. Spending presumably most of their lives for this moment only to end up ‘sharing’ a gold medal? It seems to contradict one of the core concepts of competition; you cannot have two winners.

Agree 100% with Rojo. The point of the Olympics is to determine the best in the world. Awarding 2 gold medals is like them saying "f**k it who cares"

Everyone happy with the result is a loser. Go watch a romantic comedy if you want a happy ending.

truly obvious wrote:

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.

Yeah their injuries are so bad that they were terrible tonight.

thoughtsfailure wrote:

Agree 100% with Rojo. The point of the Olympics is to determine the best in the world. Awarding 2 gold medals is like them saying "f**k it who cares"

Everyone happy with the result is a loser. Go watch a romantic comedy if you want a happy ending.

This has been done since 1896. It's happened in jumping events before.

Neither of them won so they both should have to mow the other's lawn wearing their wife's sunday dress

rojo wrote:

truly obvious wrote:

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.

Yeah their injuries are so bad that they were terrible tonight.

Awful logic. Just because they recovered doesn't make their injuries less severe. Was it an emotional response or did you just not think it through?

We were all winners once that Italian stopped with the half beard.

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?

Shut up you twat.