|
On July 31 2012 04:23 Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:20 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:
The german fencer should have just given up the bout... What was wrong with her anyway jumping up and down and handshaking a person who is obviously completely broken by a retarded call?
Edit: Mafe, of course... I am just talking about as in calls made. I am sure such things will never happen again! It's difficult to have an accurate sense of time when in such an intense moment like that, she had adrenaline pumping through her veins and probably thought she did it.
Additionally to that the reason the Korean almost won was because she was given the advantage after a coin-flip. I don't think any fencer would give the win away in that situation.
|
On July 31 2012 04:26 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:23 l10f wrote:On July 31 2012 04:20 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:
The german fencer should have just given up the bout... What was wrong with her anyway jumping up and down and handshaking a person who is obviously completely broken by a retarded call?
Edit: Mafe, of course... I am just talking about as in calls made. I am sure such things will never happen again! This is the Olympics bro Such things like MUNICH will never happen again......
I hope so, too!
But u can never say never... maybe something even worse will happen sometime... but again i dont hope so!
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
On July 31 2012 04:30 vdale wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:23 Raelcun wrote:On July 31 2012 04:20 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:
The german fencer should have just given up the bout... What was wrong with her anyway jumping up and down and handshaking a person who is obviously completely broken by a retarded call?
Edit: Mafe, of course... I am just talking about as in calls made. I am sure such things will never happen again! It's difficult to have an accurate sense of time when in such an intense moment like that, she had adrenaline pumping through her veins and probably thought she did it. Additionally to that the reason the Korean almost won was because she was given the advantage after a coin-flip. I don't think any fencer would give the win away in that situation.
But to be fair she would have fought differently if she had to score to win rather than just not get hit.
|
it may be because im german but why would people give the win to korea so easily?
there seemed to be no ruling on the time thing and even tho it may be the wrong call
to not end the fight after the first try of heideman @ 1 sec,they made a call.
and the call was to let them try again and she scored a point.
what you gonna do? "yeah u scored,still it doesnt matter".
and while it doesnt technically matter at all,this only happened because of a
stupid coin flip rule which heideman had to face twice in the tournament already.
dont get me wrong,its the shittiest thing ever for the korean fencer,but she didnt earn it
any more (or less) than heideman.
|
On July 31 2012 04:34 l10f wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:30 vdale wrote:On July 31 2012 04:23 Raelcun wrote:On July 31 2012 04:20 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:
The german fencer should have just given up the bout... What was wrong with her anyway jumping up and down and handshaking a person who is obviously completely broken by a retarded call?
Edit: Mafe, of course... I am just talking about as in calls made. I am sure such things will never happen again! It's difficult to have an accurate sense of time when in such an intense moment like that, she had adrenaline pumping through her veins and probably thought she did it. Additionally to that the reason the Korean almost won was because she was given the advantage after a coin-flip. I don't think any fencer would give the win away in that situation. But to be fair she would have fought differently if she had to score to win rather than just not get hit.
Yeah sure, but I mean it definitely didn't help the German fencer to feel like the Korean deserved to win.
|
Then they should be awarded a rematch at the very least if they both didnt earn it.
Btw, korean fencer lost to chinese fencer in bronze bout.
|
noone read my post so im going to say it again. shin had to score to win, if the timer expired there was no way she could've won because she already had a yellow card against her. this is from the commentators.
|
On July 31 2012 04:40 th3_great wrote:
noone read my post so im going to say it again. shin had to score to win, if the timer expired there was no way she could've won because she already had a yellow card against her. this is from the commentators.
if this is true its pretty clear anyways,but i never heard about this.
|
On July 31 2012 04:40 th3_great wrote:
noone read my post so im going to say it again. shin had to score to win, if the timer expired there was no way she could've won because she already had a yellow card against her. this is from the commentators.
She got a yellow card after the game was done because she wouldn't leave.
I did not catch any yellow before the game was over.
Edit: She couldn't leave cuz by fencing rule... if she leaves, it means she admits ref's decision.
|
On July 31 2012 04:40 th3_great wrote:
noone read my post so im going to say it again. shin had to score to win, if the timer expired there was no way she could've won because she already had a yellow card against her. this is from the commentators.
nobody else seems to see it this way tho. Haven't heard that on german tv at all nor the german trainer/officials mentioned it at all
|
On July 31 2012 04:41 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:40 th3_great wrote:
noone read my post so im going to say it again. shin had to score to win, if the timer expired there was no way she could've won because she already had a yellow card against her. this is from the commentators. She got a yellow card after the game was done because she wouldn't leave. I did not catch any yellow before the game was over. Edit: She couldn't leave cuz by fencing rule... if she leaves, it means she admits ref's decision.
when she got the yellow card during the dispute that was supposedly the second yellow, which doeesnt really mean anything, as it was just to encourage her to leave. this is again from the commentators.
|
On July 31 2012 04:19 Ysellian wrote:
I don´t understand why it was so difficult to revert the decision? Can anyone explain why?
Strictly speaking, Heidemann won by the rules. The timekeeping was shoddy and the refs didn't space their en gardes right, but her job is to fence when 'allez' is called, and she did.
Reverting that is pretty hard because she played within the rules, and thus there is no proper procedure for saying 'you were within the rules but we're taking your point away'.
|
On July 31 2012 04:53 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:19 Ysellian wrote:
I don´t understand why it was so difficult to revert the decision? Can anyone explain why? Strictly speaking, Heidemann by the rules. The timekeeping was shoddy and the refs didn't space their en gardes right, but her job is to fence when 'allez' is called, and she did. Reverting that is pretty hard because she played within the rules, and thus there is no proper procedure for saying 'you were within the rules but we're taking your point away'.
Thanks for the clarification. So whatever the refs did it would never have corrected their mistake, but just add more mistakes.
Great win from Ukraine
|
On July 31 2012 04:36 Caryc wrote:
it may be because im german but why would people give the win to korea so easily?
there seemed to be no ruling on the time thing and even tho it may be the wrong call
to not end the fight after the first try of heideman @ 1 sec,they made a call.
and the call was to let them try again and she scored a point.
what you gonna do? "yeah u scored,still it doesnt matter".
and while it doesnt technically matter at all,this only happened because of a
stupid coin flip rule which heideman had to face twice in the tournament already.
dont get me wrong,its the shittiest thing ever for the korean fencer,but she didnt earn it
any more (or less) than heideman.
Well, the main problem is, that these last 3 engagements lasted longer than 1 second. If we assume, that the first engagement lasted about 0.6 sec and the second one aswell (maybe this last second was like 1.9 seconds since they didnt give us any further information...), there would be like 0.7 sec left for the last and third engagement. But the last engagement lasted 0.88 sec (they said it in the german tv, of course not arguing if the decision was wrong or right). Also they fucked up the timer in the second engagement and we have no information how they fixed it (i hope they didnt give another full second...).
So it seems kinda in favour of the korean because the last hit was after the regular time and shouldnt be counted.
|
what a funny and useless sport :D seems like the attacker is always in a disadvantage.
|
Can anyone explain why they make this coin flip in the sudden death? Seems completely inappropiate. I heard it is to prevent "never ending" battles when there is always a double hit, but why don't they simply make it who hits first wins?
Edit: Ok, now they explained the whole semifinal debacle again. Apparantely they screwed up timing and the clock ran to 0 accidentally, so they had to reset the clock to 1 second before the last hit then happened, since this is the smallest time possible. The last hit then was within 1 second and thus had to be counted.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Awful rules in the Olympics when a fencer who won in the proper amount of time loses the bout because the machine malfunctioned and gave extra time to the opponent. No other way around it. And bylaws that say the protesting side must pay money are absolutely absurd and need to go.
|
On July 31 2012 05:03 Finrod1 wrote:
what a funny and useless sport :D seems like the attacker is always in a disadvantage.
This is false.
Shemyakina is a terrific counterattacker, and a lot of her fencing is built around using her longer reach (due to the french grip of her epee) to pick off attackers. (My impression from watching today)
On July 31 2012 05:09 Fatta wrote:
Can anyone explain why they make this coin flip in the sudden death? Seems completely inappropiate. I heard it is to prevent "never ending" battles when there is always a double hit, but why don't they simply make it who hits first wins?
There have been bouts where neither fencer wants to engage or be baited into attacking, so nothing happens for stupid amounts of time. Priority forces there to be some sort of engagement. I think the priority rule is terrible but it's difficult to replace it (though I'd prefer a sudden death period with no time limit personally).
Side note, I've fenced the Singaporean ref for the finals! (And been crushed) Great final bout at least, Shemyakina impressed me a lot during this. I wish her bout with Gherman was later in the tournament because it was one of the most excellent in this tournament.
|
On July 31 2012 05:13 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 05:03 Finrod1 wrote:
what a funny and useless sport :D seems like the attacker is always in a disadvantage. This is false. Shemyakina is a terrific counterattacker, and a lot of her fencing is built around using her longer reach (due to the french grip of her epee) to pick off attackers. Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 05:09 Fatta wrote:
Can anyone explain why they make this coin flip in the sudden death? Seems completely inappropiate. I heard it is to prevent "never ending" battles when there is always a double hit, but why don't they simply make it who hits first wins? There have been bouts where neither fencer wants to engage or be baited into attacking, so nothing happens for stupid amounts of time. Priority forces there to be some sort of engagement. I think the priority rule is terrible but it's difficult to replace it (though I'd prefer a sudden death period with no time limit personally).
Just make priority change after each double hit.
|
On July 31 2012 05:11 tree.hugger wrote:
... And bylaws that say the protesting side must pay money are absolutely absurd and need to go.
I think this rule is reasonable and also applied in other sports. From what I understand it is a deposit you get refunded if your protest is valid. It is there to prevent protesting just for the sake of protesting with no real reason for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
