Gymnastics officials want Hamm to give up gold

[hockeyfan228]

I read that, looks like the same article, that Korean coach talked to the US referee who over see the A panel and was told the SV was correct, and he went on endup the conversation. Then Kim told them it was wrong, Korean talked to to the two A panel judges again.

According to the article it was the Korean judge (Kim) on the B panel who talked to the supervisor from the US, not the Korean coaching staff or Federation official. That would explain why the US judge on the B panel claimed that no one from the Korean coaching staff came to the judges table to lodge a written protest during the parallel bar event. The Korean judge told a Korean official after the high bar event that the start value for the previous rotation was wrong, and only then did the Korean official protest anything. At least according to the article.

[Joesitz]

Can anyone explain how changing the SV to what it was supposed to be would enhance Yang's final score mathematically, especially if the deduction for too many rests would apply?

Joe

[Vash01]

I don't think Hamm should give up the gold. He did nothing wrong. I have no problem with Yang getting a duplicate gold.

[BronzeisGolden]

Can anyone explain how changing the SV to what it was supposed to be would enhance Yang's final score mathematically, especially if the deduction for too many rests would apply?

Joe, your guess is as good as mine. Here is how I look at it: If it is too late to take deductions for a performance, then it would only be fair to say that it is too late to change a mistake regarding a starting value. If they decide to give a duplicate gold...then that means they have decided to illegally (according to the FIG rules) "up" the starting value. So...if they do that...how is it fair that they choose to ignore possible deductions from the specific performance in question? You can't be choosey just because it is a Gold Medal...to be fair they would have to re-examine the entire competition and re-judge it just to be sure they actually get it right this time, LOL! It is a giant mess and the FIG is just back peddaling. And we thought Speedy and his crew was bad!

[mzheng]

Can anyone explain how changing the SV to what it was supposed to be would enhance Yang's final score mathematically, especially if the deduction for too many rests would apply?

Joe

It is simple add 0.1 SV to Yang's routine then Yang's total score higher than Paul's. It is A panel assigne the SV, and both of them addmitted they made mistake before the competetion finished. (I posted a link in another thread).

And by rule you can only request a review of SV not the deductions. Thus 0.2 deduction is not subject to review, and who knows you have to hold more than 2 seconds to be considered as a break/hold. Judge may not feel Yang's hold is more than 2 seconds and warrantee a deduction.

What a mess, not a convinced win to begin with. The judge screwed up again. Had Paul won a Silver or Bronz, he would feel happy since he knew he made a big mistake. In mordern gymnastics no body even won a medal with such a mistake. But now you give it to him by you own mistake now you try to take it away from him? It's not allocate candy in kidgarden. I'd say just modify your rule and award the 2nd gold.

[hockeyfan228]

Judge may not feel Yang's hold is more than 2 seconds and warrantee a deduction.

That is true. However, if he didn't hold the move for more than 2 seconds, the move doesn't count towards the difficulty in his start value.

In mordern gymnastics no body even won a medal with such a mistake.

That mistake had a maximum deduction. Whether there were more deductions that should have been taken, I can't say, because I don't know the entire CoP for gymnastics. But if all of the required deductions were taken -- within the discretionary rules of the CoP -- to say he shouldn't have won on the total score is like saying that a figure skating judge can arbitrarily take a -5 deduction on a fall on a jump combo, even though CoP says the maximum deduction is -3.

[BronzeisGolden]

It is simple add 0.1 SV to Yang's routine then Yang's total score higher than Paul's. It is A panel assigne the SV, and both of them addmitted they made mistake before the competetion finished

Not that simple. From what I can tell, the proper procedures were not followed in reporting the mistaken starting value. So, if the FIG chooses to bypass the rule about timely grievances, etc....then they must be open to reassessing the actual performance in question. One without the other would be totally unfair...according to the FIG's own rules.

[mzheng]

That is true. However, if he didn't hold the move for more than 2 seconds, the move doesn't count towards the difficulty in his start value.

That mistake had a maximum deduction. Whether there were more deductions that should have been taken, I can't say, because I don't know the entire CoP for gymnastics. But if all of the required deductions were taken -- within the discretionary rules of the CoP -- to say he shouldn't have won on the total score is like saying that a figure skating judge can arbitrarily take a -5 deduction on a fall on a jump combo, even though CoP says the maximum deduction is -3.

I'm no CoP expert either, but from what you say it was obvious confilict, from NBC commentor there are 3 holds allowed, but in his routine they show in slowmo there were 4 holds, but they diddn't say all of them were hold more than 2 seconds. Thus there must be one holds not exceed 2 seconds, this hold must not affect the SV 10, (I believe the same NBC expert acknowledged several time the routine is SV=10 no doubt about it) that's why B panel judges diddn't take 0.2
deduction. Why would they claim a routine with 4 holds SV=10 then went on deduction 0.2, just conflict.

The fact is the three judges suspended. And it is for a reason. There was no B panel judge got suspended. There was a mistake made by A panel, they addmitted it on spot that day, thus they got suspended. No matter what the NBC try to tangle the whole thing. To most ppl other then NA it was not a conviced win.

[mzheng]

Not that simple. From what I can tell, the proper procedures were not followed in reporting the mistaken starting value. So, if the FIG chooses to bypass the rule about timely grievances, etc....then they must be open to reassessing the actual performance in question. One without the other would be totally unfair...according to the FIG's own rules.

But by suspended 3 A panel judges, who addmitted made the mistake. In the eye's of world, well at least the rest of the world, it was like to say the AA gold medal was rewarded to the wrong person. Is it fair?

[Ladskater]

It's just par for the course at this Olympics. Canada's Kyle Shewfelt - gold medalist in the men's artistic gymnastics, was denied the bronze medal in the vault even though his performance was better than the athlete (Korean I think) who was awarded the medal. Apparantley, Kasamatsu took a couple of hops and fell on his hands at the landing - no deduction! What gives? So much for fair judging.

[BronzeisGolden]

But by suspended 3 A panel judges, who addmitted made the mistake. In the eye's of world, well at least the rest of the world, it was like to say the AA gold medal was rewarded to the wrong person. Is it fair?

Absolutely not fair. But, my point was....if the whole "starting value" issue wasn't dealt with properly (by either the judges or the Korean officials), then how can possible overlooked deductions in the questioned routine be completely dismissed? That isn't fair. I'm not trying to say Hamm deserved the Gold no matter what just because he is American....I'm saying that the FIG needs to get its s&#t straight. Sure....punish the judges, etc. Make it look good. Then, punish the athlete you "wrongly" awarded Gold and give it to the deserving athlete. And WAIT...then....punish the Korean Silver medalist by awarding his medal to Hamm (the wrongly rewarded Gold medalist). Sorry, it all stinks. They all worked their asses off. They all would have given themselves Gold medals. The fact is: irresponsible FIG sanctioned judges screwed the men's Olmypic AA competition up...they should be the ones taking the heat!

[JOHIO2]

Here is an interesting observation: does anyone know if the gymnasts are from North Korea or South Korea or a unified team? Yes, they mached into the stadium together, but are they competing as a single national team? And does it really matter to anyone?

So, just HOW political is this being played? And by whom?

Has absolutely nothing to do with arguments on the merits of the individual gymnasts or routines or judging. Just one of those inquiring minds things. I just want to know. And if it does make a difference to anyone, what is it?

[tdnuva]

Here is an interesting observation: does anyone know if the gymnasts are from North Korea or South Korea or a unified team? Yes, they mached into the stadium together, but are they competing as a single national team? And does it really matter to anyone?

Seems it matters to you? :D

Anyway, I am quite sure I saw PRK as national symbol within the olympics as well as the South Korean flag - so I'd say they make the difference.

[sk8tngcanuck]

Here is an interesting observation: does anyone know if the gymnasts are from North Korea or South Korea or a unified team? Yes, they mached into the stadium together, but are they competing as a single national team? And does it really matter to anyone?

So, just HOW political is this being played? And by whom?

Has absolutely nothing to do with arguments on the merits of the individual gymnasts or routines or judging. Just one of those inquiring minds things. I just want to know. And if it does make a difference to anyone, what is it?

Hi Jo,

Yes they marched as a single unified team, but they are competing as separate nations.

Canuck

[hockeyfan228]

I'm no CoP expert either, but from what you say it was obvious confilict, from NBC commentor there are 3 holds allowed, but in his routine they show in slowmo there were 4 holds, but they diddn't say all of them were hold more than 2 seconds. Thus there must be one holds not exceed 2 seconds, this hold must not affect the SV 10, (I believe the same NBC expert acknowledged several time the routine is SV=10 no doubt about it) that's why B panel judges diddn't take 0.2
deduction. Why would they claim a routine with 4 holds SV=10 then went on deduction 0.2, just conflict.

The fact is the three judges suspended. And it is for a reason. There was no B panel judge got suspended. There was a mistake made by A panel, they addmitted it on spot that day, thus they got suspended. No matter what the NBC try to tangle the whole thing. To most ppl other then NA it was not a conviced win.

Tim Daggett did say that there were four holds, each of which exceeded two seconds in a studio replay in real time, not slo mo. That the routine with 4 holds created a start value of 10, but a deduction of .2 can be chalked up to "unexpected results" which is standard for any complex system based on algorithms.

The SVs can be disputed and the A panel judges admitted error. The B panel judges have not admitted error, and the execution marks cannot be disputed. It makes perfect sense that they would not volunteer any info.