True Sportsmanship

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

Well done guys, sportsmanship wins out for a change.


41 to 60 of 68rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

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

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
High jump and pole vault are not conducive to “jump offs”
Going up to the next height is plainly unsatisfactory. You can have them keep going at the same height until someone clears it but it does seem unreasonable after such a long competition
And going back down the heights also feels a bit daft
I agree that it’s not “sportsmanship” as such but it’s a nice story
They each got a medal I think NJ: the official meant “share the title”

They’re only made from recycled silver from electronic components anyway :-)
Two silvers would have been sporting, considering they didn't "finish". Two golds is a bit cheaty.
All too complicated for me! :-)
Each beat every other competitor- except one. That's a silver, isn't it?
pixie, if someone jumps 20 feet and the next best two jump 10 feet, they get to share a silver. Nobody beat these two so they get gold. It's not cheaty, it's just an acknowledgement of the fact: that the two best in the world have gone head to head and couldn't be separated.
Hmmmm. Lol. They should all have agreed to stop halfway. Everyone would ha e got gold... that really would be sporting :-)
they did the right thing, kept raising the bar until nobody could get over it - I can't see any otehr rational way of running a high jump contest, or anything else that increases in increments like that.

But doesn't the same thing happen if two runners tie in a final? They don't make them go back and do a sprint-off.
I know you're right, jno, or their would never be joint first places anywhere. It just read as quite cheeky. It probably shouldn't have been their choice anyway.
Have a job to tie in a running race, wouldn't they?
Except the 3 legged race.
For the high-jump, the usual way for breaking a tie is for the bar to be raised to what would have been the next height and then raised or lowered by 2cm each time until only one athlete is successful.
I can't see why they first didn't lower the bar to 2.38. Accepting they can both jump 2.37 but not 2.39 seems wrong to me when you consider the fine margins in other events.
Yes they could - but they didn’t have to … :-)
women's 100m swimming in Rio was tied, so two golds, no silver, and a bronze.
JNO, the current rule about timings is that they must be to 1/100th of a second.

The rules in 2016 were that even if timings were available to 1/1000th of a second, (which they are in athletics) the 1/1000ths were to be disregarded.

That means that even if they had been able to confirm who had actually won the race, they had to say it was a tie and award two Golds.
I have no problem with that, TCL. I was just remarking that if the top two in anything can''t be separated according to whatever rules are in place, you leave it at that rather than devise some sort of play-off.
For athletic results, unless the time shows an exact 1/100th of a second, the 1/1000ths are rounded to the next 1/100th but the 1/1000ths of a second are used to break a tie.

That means A and B could both be shown as running 100m in 9.88 seconds but A gets the Gold for running 9.871 seconds and B gets Silver for running 9.880 seconds.
Citius Altius Fortius ?

Well in this case not Altius, as both high-jumpers chickened out of finding a way to decide the contest. I fail to see how they both can be gold medalists.

41 to 60 of 68rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

True Sportsmanship

Answer Question >>

Related Questions