# True Sportsmanship

Canary42 | 16:47 Sun 01st Aug 2021 | News
After matching jumps they were offered a jump-off but agreed to share the Gold.

Well done guys, sportsmanship wins out for a change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/58048827

21 to 40 of 68

No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

Given they both cleared 2.37 and both failed 2.39, there does seem an obvious next step.
Perhaps they shouldn't have been given the choice
They had three failures each and were consequently unable to take any further jumps. That’s how it works. They were given the option of a jump off: they exercised their right not to take it.
Is there anything in the rules to say that there must be a set number of jumps and no more
Got no problem with it. I'm sure both parties are happy.
No, as I already posted.
You get three attempts at a height and you keep going as long as more than one person is still in the competition.
Because the number of jumps you take are taken into consideration in the event of a tie, sometimes an athlete may decide to pass on a given height if he’s failed at it once and go on to the next height. But in that case you only get two more attempts
So , keep going untill there is a clear winner
Well, go on as long as someone still has at least one of his three jumps to take.
I think it's a sport were there can be a tie - they each jump a certain height but each fail when the bar is raised and they are equal on countbacks. BUT the contestants shouldn't be allowed to determine that.
It’s actually quite unusual to be level on countback, as athletes usually try to avoid it.

I don’t see what the problem is with the athletes not wanting a jump off. It’s up to them: and if you think about it it’s not perhaps all that easy in an event like the high jump
If they are happy then I am happy.

It's great sportsmanship because each passed on the opportunity to be the Olympic champion and chose to be the joint Olympic champion.

The simple fact is that the rules allowed for them to share the gold, and they did. No fault whatsoever on their part. Sportmanship is what the Olympics is supposed to be about, after all ...
//Boxers share bronze medals rather than fight it out. Rightly or wrongly//

They don't share bronze medals. They get one each. In fact for five Olympics (1952-68) no boxing bronze medals were awarded. Before that there was a bronze medal bout. But from Helsinki to Mexico the beaten semi-finalists were awarded a diploma instead of a medal. The rules were changed for Munich and two bronze medals were awarded from then on. The beaten semi finalists from 1952-68 were awarded bronze medals retrospectively.
Ok NJ :-)

Share the bronze medal position is what I meant :-)
Ah, that'll be why their motto is 'the same height, stronger, faster'.
Who got to cut the gold medal in half?
No sportsmanship here whatsoever.
> Ah, that'll be why their motto is 'the same height, stronger, faster'.

The same height is what they achieved.
Question Author
The event had been going for 2 hours - they were probably knackered and to ask them to carry on jumping would be a cruel imposition IMHO.
//Share the bronze medal position is what I meant :-)//

yes, sorry Ikky. Reading it again I realise that's what you meant. I was reading your answer in association with this question where the gold medal was seemingly genuinely shared.

21 to 40 of 68

Do you know the answer?