Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sleeping in Finland
    Posts
    4,349
    They figured Halász's throwing in the subsequent rounds was affected by the assumption he was in a medal position, so they didn't want to take the medal completely away, they just give Nowicki an extra one.

    I think that call makes sense, which is the most surprising thing about it, I don't expect anything the IAAF does to make sense.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,054
    There was a precedent from the 2005 EIC, when Bianca Kappler was given joint bronze after her jump was mismeasured, and there was no way of determining what the distance really was, but it looked good enough for a medal.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #53
    This shouldn't be happening in 2019, not at this level!
    They are making a mockery of the sport!
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,054
    It shouldn't be that hard in this day and age to put pressure sensors in the rim of the circle. We've had too many close and controversial calls on fouls in the throws at these champs.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    There was a precedent from the 2005 EIC, when Bianca Kappler was given joint bronze after her jump was mismeasured, and there was no way of determining what the distance really was, but it looked good enough for a medal.
    Precedent for an additional bronze, yes; precedent for credit for a distance she did not achieve, no. Official results credit Kappler with her 4th round 6.53 (good for 7th, otherwise). Her mismeasured final jump was not given a mark. Awarding the bronze did not change her best mark. Halász did not throw a legal 78.18 (the heel on the ring on his last turn was clear), yet the results credit him with that mark.

    No question Halász was disadvantaged, give him a medal if that's the best resolution. But credit for a mark on a foul? No way.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Master403 View Post

    No question Halász was disadvantaged, give him a medal if that's the best resolution. But credit for a mark on a foul? No way.
    No disagreement from me on this one.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui
    Posts
    6,592
    With this result debacle, the IAAF will never convince the greater world that TnF is credible
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right where I'm supposed to be.
    Posts
    627
    Fortunately the greater world has absolutely no idea that such shenanigans are happening. That’s what you get for holding the world champs in the middle
    Of the desert in October.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Master403 View Post
    Because the official results are nonsense.

    If Halasz did touch the ground outside the circle, the Jury has ruled the first throw a foul, in which case his 78.18 is negated, and he finishes last.

    If the 78.18 is valid, how did Nowicki earn a bronze?

    As a component of rankings, what do we have?
    Honors won: Both have a bronze
    Head to head: A tie for third with different marks
    Marks: Halasz has an edge here with a foul throw
    The issue here is that if Halasz' throw had been ruled Foul at the time, he would have gone about his other throws in a different manner. Having a big first throw allowed him to just go after a really big throw in following rounds, looking for Gold because he already had a very good mark from Rd 1. I think he had 4 fouls after this throw.
    If you remove the mark after the competition that is not fair for him, because he clearly would have gone about his following throws in a different manner, and may still have beaten Nowicki anyway on another throw. It is not the same as in a race, you have 6 attempts.
    Nowicki was considered hard done by in this situation by a bad (close) call by the official who did not spot the foul as his view was obscured by the athletes other leg, but was clear in the TV footage from the other side. The Poles appealed after the competition, and the Jury of Appeal rules that it would be unfair just to remove the mark of Halasz on a poor call, as he would have taken his other attempts differently, so instead they upgraded Nowicki to receive a medal that he might have had, but did not remove the mark of Halasz. Both marks stand, and both receive medals, so everyone (except a few statisticians) is happy with the outcome.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #60
    Quote Originally Posted by ShaunPickering View Post
    Both marks stand, and both receive medals, so everyone (except a few statisticians) is happy with the outcome.
    Exactly my point on the original post.
    I have no problem giving him a bronze. I have a big problem giving him credit for a mark on a foul throw.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

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