Flagpole wrote:
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?
Hyperbole:
hy·per·bo·le | \ hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē \
Definition of hyperbole
: extravagant exaggeration
Two guys sharing a gold medal is not "handing out a medal to everyone". I didn't get one. Did you?
I didn’t get one
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?
This is such a dumb take. Who posted it?
Oh . . . .
What a huge letdown to an otherwise amazing high jump competition. To me, there is no champion. I don’t care if anyone disagrees.
Larry Dickman wrote:
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?
This is such a dumb take. Who posted it?
Oh . . . .
Bingo
I don't have a problem with rojo's opinion - if he wants a Battle Royale, then that's what he likes. I have a problem with the fact that he can't spend 2 minutes to find and read the rule book. I know others have posted little snippets, but here's the relevant section for Vertical Jumps (High/Pole Vault). I personally agree with the rules for High Jump, as someone who did HJ in high school. For Pole Vault, it's a no brainer.
From Rule 26.8
Placings
26.8
If two or more athletes clear the same final height, the procedure to decide the places will be the following:
26.8.1
The athlete with the lowest number of jumps at the height last cleared shall be awarded the higher place.
26.8.2
If the athletes are equal following the application of Rule 26.8.1 of the Technical Rules, the athlete with the lowest total of failures throughout the competition up to and including the height last cleared, shall be awarded the higher place.
26.8.3
If the athletes are still equal following the application of Rule 26.8.2 of the Technical Rules, the athletes concerned shall be awarded the same place unless it concerns the first place.
26.8.4
If it concerns the first place, a jump-off between these athletes shall be conducted in accordance with Rule 26.9 of the Technical Rules, unless otherwise decided, either in advance according to the regulations applying to the competition, or during the competition but before the start of the event by the Technical delegate(s) or the Referee if no Technical delegate has been appointed. If no jump-off is carried out, including where the relevant athletes at any stage decide not to jump further, the tie for first place shall remain.
There are a number of ways in which a jump-off may be terminated:
a. by provision in advance of the competition set out in the regulations;
b. by decision during the competition by the Technical delegate (or
Referee if there is no Technical delegate);
c. by decision of the athletes not to jump further prior to or at any stage
of the jump-off.
Whilst any decision by the Technical delegate or Referee not to conduct a jump-off should be made before the start of the event, there may be circumstances where this might not be possible such as where conditions at the place of competition make it impossible or undesirable to begin or continue with a jump-off. The Referee could use their powers under Rule 18 of the Competition Rules or Rule 25 of the Technical Rules to deal with this situation. It is emphasised that the athletes may make the decision not to jump further either before or at any stage during the jump-off.
From Rule 26.9
When an athlete unilaterally decides to withdraw from a jump-off, the other athlete (if only one remains) will be declared the winner in accordance with Rule 26.9.5 of the Technical Rules. It is not necessary for that athlete to attempt the applicable height. Where more than one athlete remains in the jump-off, the jump-off continues with those athletes, with the athlete who withdrew being placed according to their then finishing place, they having forfeited any right to any higher placing, including first, then remaining.
kanny wrote:
I don't have a problem with rojo's opinion - if he wants a Battle Royale, then that's what he likes. I have a problem with the fact that he can't spend 2 minutes to find and read the rule book.
Bingo
Communism wins again
Woke world + participation trophies = Oprah giving everyone a gold medal
Could you imagine if the two teams in any major American sport decided to tie for a championship. Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes meet at the end of regulation in a tie and decide not to play overtime.,They start hugging in joy as they tie as Super Bowl “champions” LMAO. They would get destroyed by their fan bases and football fans in general. This high jump joke is an example of why track and field is treated like a joke in America.
If all 12 finalists passed until 8 feet then they all no heighted I guess they’d hand out 12 Golds.
That would really get rojo going.
Im a scientist. wrote:
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
Yup, you and you and you and you and you and you are right. Rojo is wrong.
Do you think that the jumpers get a bonus from their sponsor or national federation for Olympic gold? And that such a bonus might be bigger than any bonus for Olympic silver? Do you think the contract says the bonus is reduced if the gold medal is shared?
I am amazed nobody is talking about how economic considerations could be driving the decision to tie.
yuppers wrote:
Im a scientist. wrote:
Exactly. Rojo is 100% wrong about this
Yup, you and you and you and you and you and you are right. Rojo is wrong.
Bingo
Tamberi’s celebration is highlight reel material - seeing that, I can’t see how anyone would be upset by them sharing Gold.
Nobody has considered that maybe both jumpers knew they each simply didn't have enough left to clear another jump as high as the heights they'd just cleared, without risking injury.
lassekukkonen wrote:
We were all winners once that Italian stopped with the half beard.
Society gave us all gold medals that day.
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
Nobody has considered that maybe both jumpers knew they each simply didn't have enough left to clear another jump as high as the heights they'd just cleared, without risking injury.
Absolutely a factor - they’re good friends, not just competitors.
When Barshim offered to share Gold, Tamberi jumped on Barshim hugging him - the first of many.
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
Nobody has considered that maybe both jumpers knew they each simply didn't have enough left to clear another jump as high as the heights they'd just cleared, without risking injury.
They should hold a jump-off 3 days later then. This system is just silly. Imagine of the two basketball finalists decided they were tired and agreed not to play the final.
This post was removed.
In almost any other sport I would say do something else, but HJ is one where the performances are much more discrete than continuous. You can beat someone by 0.1 seconds in a marathon, but you can't split things that way in HJ. If both of them cleared the same height, and that height was above everyone else, they are the best. A jump off would just show who is more consistent on that day... One could argue that's what should be done to decide on who is the best, but I'm not sure it really matters... Would be kind of like having two guys run a second 100m dash an hour after they both precisely tied for the win in the final. Just seems odd and unnecessary. This is one of the few times I support giving gold to more than one athlete, then bronze to the next guy, which they did.