SPORTS BALL!!! v2.0

[Kyrian007]

As I've mentioned a few times, as much as I like a lot sports, one I can't get into is basketball. But I DO like the Olympics, and will watch pretty much anything being televised, and the only thing on just now was basketball, USA vs Serbia. And holy fucking shit, what an exciting game!!! USA, heavily favored to win it all, was down by as much as 15 at one point, and it wasn’t until the 4th quarter that they charged back to win it 95-91 and a berth into the Gold medal game. That was easily the most fun I’ve had watching a basketball game. If every NBA game had the gravity of an Olympic game, I’d probably be a fan. But as it stands, the NBA is still a league of selfish divas I can’t get behind, but when they pick the best of them to form a team and represent the USA, and they play like what I just watched…

Ok, as a fellow non-basketball fan I have a question for you that is kind of splitting the basketball-pro crowd. What do you think of the Elam Ending?

For those who don't know. A basketball ending currently has the trailing team constantly trying to intentionally foul, just to stop the clock and hoping the other team misses its free throws in a last ditch attempt to catch up. Meaning right at the end, when you want a game to be its most exciting... things slow down to a crawl and most of the points being scored are off of free throws... the least exciting scoring play in the game. And for the most part the game ends with the winning team just dribbling out the clock.

In the Elam ending. The final half (or quarter) of the game is shortened by 4 minutes. When the buzzer sounds, a target score is set. The target score is the leading team's score +8. The game clock is off, first team to the target score wins. This eliminates all the intentional fouling, reduces clock stoppages, and ensures that the game ends on a winning shot.

I still don't like basketball, but to me the Elam actually makes the game watchable. Right now one independent tournament uses Elam, the NBA All-Star game has the Elam Ending, and it is being used in G-League (a kind of NBA minor league.) And if other leagues and levels of play wanted to adopt it, I'm all for it. But there does seem to be a lot of pushback from a kind of "traditionalist" faction. I've heard a lot on both sides from basketball fans, but as a non-fan I'm curious what another non-fan thinks... or if it is even interesting to them.

Oh, and Simone Biles. Spring floor, no spring floor, clear Shaq or not... she is freaking superhuman and just deserves all the respect. And that's from me who doesn't really like "judged" sports like gymnastics and figure skating.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Ok, as a fellow non-basketball fan I have a question for you that is kind of splitting the basketball-pro crowd. What do you think of the Elam Ending?

For those who don't know. A basketball ending currently has the trailing team constantly trying to intentionally foul, just to stop the clock and hoping the other team misses its free throws in a last ditch attempt to catch up. Meaning right at the end, when you want a game to be its most exciting... things slow down to a crawl and most of the points being scored are off of free throws... the least exciting scoring play in the game. And for the most part the game ends with the winning team just dribbling out the clock.

In the Elam ending. The final half (or quarter) of the game is shortened by 4 minutes. When the buzzer sounds, a target score is set. The target score is the leading team's score +8. The game clock is off, first team to the target score wins. This eliminates all the intentional fouling, reduces clock stoppages, and ensures that the game ends on a winning shot.

I still don't like basketball, but to me the Elam actually makes the game watchable. Right now one independent tournament uses Elam, the NBA All-Star game has the Elam Ending, and it is being used in G-League (a kind of NBA minor league.) And if other leagues and levels of play wanted to adopt it, I'm all for it. But there does seem to be a lot of pushback from a kind of "traditionalist" faction. I've heard a lot on both sides from basketball fans, but as a non-fan I'm curious what another non-fan thinks... or if it is even interesting to them.

Oh, and Simone Biles. Spring floor, no spring floor, clear Shaq or not... she is freaking superhuman and just deserves all the respect. And that's from me who doesn't really like "judged" sports like gymnastics and figure skating.

Hmm, never heard of the Elam Ending, but that’s most likely because I don’t follow basketball at all, but it does sound intriguing. Mostly because it addresses my primary issue with the sport: the fouls. It feels like every game I try to watch, it stops every 30 seconds because incidental contact finds a 200lbs, grown-ass man dramatically throwing himself to the floor with his arms flayed out in the traditional “WTF?!?” gesture hoping to get free throws. If the Elam Ending addresses this and actually makes a close game watchable in the final minutes where a leading team might try to dribble out the clock or a losing team might intentionally foul in a last-ditch effort to salvage their evident failure, I’m all for it.

That said, USA vs. Serbia yesterday was NOT anything like an NBA game and the typical, petty drama and torment towards the end. Both teams fought and fought HARD; it was anyone’s game with less than 30 seconds to go in the 4th. If you can find it, I’d suggest you watch, at least the second half or 4th quarter.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Ok, as a fellow non-basketball fan I have a question for you that is kind of splitting the basketball-pro crowd. What do you think of the Elam Ending?

For those who don't know. A basketball ending currently has the trailing team constantly trying to intentionally foul, just to stop the clock and hoping the other team misses its free throws in a last ditch attempt to catch up. Meaning right at the end, when you want a game to be its most exciting... things slow down to a crawl and most of the points being scored are off of free throws... the least exciting scoring play in the game. And for the most part the game ends with the winning team just dribbling out the clock.

In the Elam ending. The final half (or quarter) of the game is shortened by 4 minutes. When the buzzer sounds, a target score is set. The target score is the leading team's score +8. The game clock is off, first team to the target score wins. This eliminates all the intentional fouling, reduces clock stoppages, and ensures that the game ends on a winning shot.

I still don't like basketball, but to me the Elam actually makes the game watchable. Right now one independent tournament uses Elam, the NBA All-Star game has the Elam Ending, and it is being used in G-League (a kind of NBA minor league.) And if other leagues and levels of play wanted to adopt it, I'm all for it. But there does seem to be a lot of pushback from a kind of "traditionalist" faction. I've heard a lot on both sides from basketball fans, but as a non-fan I'm curious what another non-fan thinks... or if it is even interesting to them.

That definitely sounds better than the current system. Though my biggest problem with basketball is that there's no "death blows" in it ("Man, we're missing the death blow!"). What I mean by that is the most you can score on any one shot is 3 points (I guess technically 4) so any one possession isn't really important in the grand scheme of things (sure, if it's a close game, a bad execution/shot in the 1st quarter is important obviously but that isn't known at the time). Whereas in baseball, hit a grand slam on a single pitch and that could be the game or in football, you can have a pick 6 that can be a 14 point swing in essence. At any point in those games, you could be watching the most important part of the game. In basketball, a team can go up like 20 in the first half and it's rather meaningless because the other team will make a run to at least single digits and it's a game again. And the whole chucking 3s strategy just makes the game even more about runs and dry spells than it was before.

 

[Xprimentyl]

That definitely sounds better than the current system. Though my biggest problem with basketball is that there's no "death blows" in it ("Man, we're missing the death blow!"). What I mean by that is the most you can score on any one shot is 3 points (I guess technically 4) so any one possession isn't really important in the grand scheme of things (sure, if it's a close game, a bad execution/shot in the 1st quarter is important obviously but that isn't known at the time). Whereas in baseball, hit a grand slam on a single pitch and that could be the game or in football, you can have a pick 6 that can be a 14 point swing in essence. At any point in those games, you could be watching the most important part of the game. In basketball, a team can go up like 20 in the first half and it's rather meaningless because the other team will make a run to at least single digits and it's a game again. And the whole chucking 3s strategy just makes the game even more about runs and dry spells than it was before.

That's a bit like hating on a thing for being the thing. I don't like basketball, but I will defend that comparing it to entirely different sports' scoring systems isn't accurate. Basketball is a sport of attrition; the scoring increments are relatively small because it's supposed to be a back-and-forth. Every possession does matter; if you're losing by 2 points with 30 seconds on the clock, suddenly, that layup you missed 47 minutes ago certainly matters.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's a bit like hating on a thing for being the thing. I don't like basketball, but I will defend that comparing it to entirely different sports' scoring systems isn't accurate. Basketball is a sport of attrition; the scoring increments are relatively small because it's supposed to be a back-and-forth. Every possession does matter; if you're losing by 2 points with 30 seconds on the clock, suddenly, that layup you missed 47 minutes ago certainly matters.

I get that every possession matters (as I said in the previous post) but the issue is, it isn't known at the time. The best time to watch basketball is the first weekend of the NCAA tourney where you watch like the last 5 minutes of one game, then they take you to the last 5 minutes of another game, and then to the last 5 minutes of another game. Baseball has that problem on the macro level, where the season is so long that it's hard to see that any 1 game matters, same with the NBA as well (the season is too long). Football has a 17 game season so every game is really important. The fact that every game in football is so important while taking up less of your time and every play of every game is important is why football dominates the ratings so much.

 

[Kyrian007]

That's a bit like hating on a thing for being the thing. I don't like basketball, but I will defend that comparing it to entirely different sports' scoring systems isn't accurate. Basketball is a sport of attrition; the scoring increments are relatively small because it's supposed to be a back-and-forth. Every possession does matter; if you're losing by 2 points with 30 seconds on the clock, suddenly, that layup you missed 47 minutes ago certainly matters.

My reason for not being that interested in basketball is kind of fundamental too. It seems to favor offense over defense, where I prefer a sport where things are more balanced. I overexaggerate usually, but it seems like offense is valued 90% than defense. Scoring plays generally vastly outnumber non-scoring plays. As someone who was a soccer and hockey goalie and defender as a kid... I developed an "I hate getting scored on" attitude. And I just don't like basketball, where you just have to take getting scored on in stride as it happens dozens of times a game.

It's similar to the way I really can't get into Dark Souls games. It is the kind of thing I should like... but I HATE game overs in a video game. And Dark Souls expects you just to tank game over after game over and keep going. I get 2 game overs in a single game session, I quit. I switch games, I watch tv or read a book for an hour. I hate a failure state so much that 2 of them... and I'm out. And yes, that's hating on a thing for being a thing. I kind of do that with basketball in general too.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I get that every possession matters (as I said in the previous post) but the issue is, it isn't known at the time. The best time to watch basketball is the first weekend of the NCAA tourney where you watch like the last 5 minutes of one game, then they take you to the last 5 minutes of another game, and then to the last 5 minutes of another game. Baseball has that problem on the macro level, where the season is so long that it's hard to see that any 1 game matters, same with the NBA as well (the season is too long). Football has a 17 game season so every game is really important. The fact that every game in football is so important while taking up less of your time and every play of every game is important is why football dominates the ratings so much.

And there's the crux of it: too many games. When you've got +80 games a season, the minute-to-minute play is greatly diminished, and hard to get invested in for the breadth of a season; I agree with you there. Tuning in for the final few minutes or the overall finals is where I think basketball is even remotely interesting.

My reason for not being that interested in basketball is kind of fundamental too. It seems to favor offense over defense, where I prefer a sport where things are more balanced. I overexaggerate usually, but it seems like offense is valued 90% than defense. Scoring plays generally vastly outnumber non-scoring plays. As someone who was a soccer and hockey goalie and defender as a kid... I developed an "I hate getting scored on" attitude. And I just don't like basketball, where you just have to take getting scored on in stride as it happens dozens of times a game.

It's similar to the way I really can't get into Dark Souls games. It is the kind of thing I should like... but I HATE game overs in a video game. And Dark Souls expects you just to tank game over after game over and keep going. I get 2 game overs in a single game session, I quit. I switch games, I watch tv or read a book for an hour. I hate a failure state so much that 2 of them... and I'm out. And yes, that's hating on a thing for being a thing. I kind of do that with basketball in general too.

Also agree here. Basketball seems to thrive on the spectacle, i.e.: players charging in for dunk, or 3-pointers from way beyond the 3-point line, etc. But the moment you try to play defense, *whistle blows*, the game stops, and the showboat gets free throws. I think if the rules eased up and allowed defense to do its job, the sport would be more tolerable, but as long as LeBron can put his shoulder into a defending players chest, and dunk in his mom's face, I guess that's the sport fans want to see.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Also agree here. Basketball seems to thrive on the spectacle, i.e.: players charging in for dunk, or 3-pointers from way beyond the 3-point line, etc. But the moment you try to play defense, *whistle blows*, the game stops, and the showboat gets free throws. I think if the rules eased up and allowed defense to do its job, the sport would be more tolerable, but as long as LeBron can put his shoulder into a defending players chest, and dunk in his mom's face, I guess that's the sport fans want to see.

I grew up on 90s basketball and I lived in a suburb of Chicago so I was pretty spoiled in terms of seeing quality basketball. One of the current basketball players that I find legit awesome to watch and love how he plays is Jimmy Butler. I remember 2 years ago during the playoffs, I was like I'm gonna watch one of the Heat games instead of just watching the 10 minute highlights on Youtube, and the game was just so boring to watch honestly. The Heat were playing the Celtics and the Celtics were so boring to watch, all they did was drive to the paint and either dish out for 3 or try a layup/dunk if the basket was open EVERY SINGLE POSSESSION. The way the game is played today is just not interesting to watch IMO.

 

[BrawlMan]

That's no fun.

​

 

[Xprimentyl]

That's no fun.

​

Meh, I thought it was a stretch to include it to begin with. Judged sports tend to have specific disciplines athletes are expected to show mastery of in a set routine in order to score points; breakdancing is so highly subjective and fluid, I’m not sure how they could objectively “judge” it. Unfortunately, the only bit of the event I got to see was bits of the clown in the thumbnail of your video on social media. She looks like a middle-aged housewife trying to imitate the homies from the ’80s. She got literally zero points. An “Olympian” got ZERO points in their event. I’ve seen gymnasts fall flat on their face and get low scores, but never ZERO. It was embarrassing. Australia should be ashamed, like, they should take away her citizenship and deport her lest she do anything like THAT under Australia’s flag again. Who did she beat out to earn her Olympic spot? How terrible were THEY?!?

 

[BrawlMan]

Meh, I thought it was a stretch to include it to begin with. Judged sports tend to have specific disciplines athletes are expected to show mastery of in a set routine in order to score points; breakdancing is so highly subjective and fluid, I’m not sure how they could objectively “judge” it. Unfortunately, the only bit of the event I got to see was bits of the clown in the thumbnail of your video on social media. She looks like a middle-aged housewife trying to imitate the homies from the ’80s. She got literally zero points. An “Olympian” got ZERO points in their event. I’ve seen gymnasts fall flat on their face and get low scores, but never ZERO. It was embarrassing. Australia should be ashamed, like, they should take away her citizenship and deport her lest she do anything like THAT under Australia’s flag again. Who did she beat out to earn her Olympic spot? How terrible were THEY?!?

She didn't beat anybody. A guy from the USA got gold in the males break dancing competition. A japanese woman won gold in the female breakdancing. The Olympics organization really have no one to blame but themselves. Next time they need to do actual background checks, credentials, and resumes. Don't just let anybody in.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

As I've mentioned a few times, as much as I like a lot sports, one I can't get into is basketball. But I DO like the Olympics, and will watch pretty much anything being televised, and the only thing on just now was basketball, USA vs Serbia. And holy fucking shit, what an exciting game!!! USA, heavily favored to win it all, was down by as much as 15 at one point, and it wasn’t until the 4th quarter that they charged back to win it 95-91 and a berth into the Gold medal game. That was easily the most fun I’ve had watching a basketball game. If every NBA game had the gravity of an Olympic game, I’d probably be a fan. But as it stands, the NBA is still a league of selfish divas I can’t get behind, but when they pick the best of them to form a team and represent the USA, and they play like what I just watched…

Modern NBA is pretty shitty. You missed out on the early 2000’s Shaq/Kobe dominance and before that was the ongoing heydays of the 80’s and 90’s. Celtics, Lakers, “Bad Boys” era Pistons, and of course da Bulls. Hell, even the couple seasons on the Wizards were fun to watch when Jordan was healthy.

Otherwise March Madness in college ball is where it’s at yearly.

 

[Xprimentyl]

She didn't beat anybody. A guy from the USA got gold in the males break dancing competition. A japanese woman won gold in the female breakdancing. The Olympics organization really have no one to blame but themselves. Next time they need to do actual background checks, credentials, and resumes. Don't just let anybody in.

No, I meant who in Australia did she beat to "earn" her Olympic spot. I know she didn't beat any-damn-body at the actual games; you can't with ZERO points.

Modern NBA is pretty shitty. You missed out on the early 2000’s Shaq/Kobe dominance and before that was the ongoing heydays of the 80’s and 90’s. Celtics, Lakers, “Bad Boys” era Pistons, and of course da Bulls. Hell, even the couple seasons on the Wizards were fun to watch when Jordan was healthy.

Otherwise March Madness in college ball is where it’s at yearly.

I've heard this sentiment before, but I've always been lukewarm for basketball period. @Phoenixmgs pretty much nailed it, the very nature of the sport is what makes it boring to watch when you've got a billion games a season, and each game is a series of back-and-forth nickel and diming that amounts to very little in the bigger picture until the final minutes of a good game, and mostly nothing in a bad one-sided blowout. And even then, a single game doesn't matter until you're in the playoffs, and even then, a single game might not matter until the end of a "best of seven" final.

No, cut the season by HALF, at least; make each game more meaningful, and stop the refs blowing the whistle every time two players look at each other funny, and I might tune in with genuine interest. Until then, my little interest will remain with the finals and Olympics. Can't be arsed with NCAA; too many teams and players I don't know and/or care nothing about to be bothered.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

I've heard this sentiment before, but I've always been lukewarm for basketball period. @Phoenixmgs pretty much nailed it, the very nature of the sport is what makes it boring to watch when you've got a billion games a season, and each game is a series of back-and-forth nickel and diming that amounts to very little in the bigger picture until the final minutes of a good game, and mostly nothing in a bad one-sided blowout. And even then, a single game doesn't matter until you're in the playoffs, and even then, a single game might not matter until the end of a "best of seven" final.

No, cut the season by HALF, at least; make each game more meaningful, and stop the refs blowing the whistle every time two players look at each other funny, and I might tune in with genuine interest. Until then, my little interest will remain with the finals and Olympics. Can't be arsed with NCAA; too many teams and players I don't know and/or care nothing about to be bothered.

True of pretty much every sport in existence. To me football is a ratio of about 80:20 waiting: playing. Baseball is even worse. I’d rather watch golf lol, but it’s no different than thinking the climax in movies as being “all that matters”. People that are into it enjoy the whole thing. Watching Jordan’s flu game progress and seeing him just keep digging deeper when he was clearly exhausted even after the first half was something special even for casual observers.

Whatever the sport is, there will be people who think it’s the most entertaining thing on earth, and others who’d rather watch paint dry. Having that variety is what helps the world turn I guess. But yeah, as far as the NBA I’d say old YouTube clips of the late 80’s through early 2000’s beats any of the pansy bs that passes for a game in the last decade or so.

 

[Xprimentyl]

True of pretty much every sport in existence. To me football is a ratio of about 80:20 waiting: playing. Baseball is even worse. I’d rather watch golf lol, but it’s no different than thinking the climax in movies as being “all that matters”. People that are into it enjoy the whole thing. Watching Jordan’s flu game progress and seeing him just keep digging deeper when he was clearly exhausted even after the first half was something special even for casual observers.

Whatever the sport is, there will be people who think it’s the most entertaining thing on earth, and others who’d rather watch paint dry. Having that variety is what helps the world turn I guess. But yeah, as far as the NBA I’d say old YouTube clips of the late 80’s through early 2000’s beats any of the pansy bs that passes for a game in the last decade or so.

Hence my calling out Phoenixmgs’ initial complaint about basketball as “hating a thing for being the thing.” Of course every sport is going to appeal or not to the individual, and I conceded that basketball has its moments, but removed from individual, star players or epic games from its storied history, the game fundamentally isn’t interesting to me. When the most intriguing bits are the final minutes of the good games late in the season, I’ll never see myself as a fan of the whole thing.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

True of pretty much every sport in existence. To me football is a ratio of about 80:20 waiting: playing. Baseball is even worse. I’d rather watch golf lol, but it’s no different than thinking the climax in movies as being “all that matters”. People that are into it enjoy the whole thing. Watching Jordan’s flu game progress and seeing him just keep digging deeper when he was clearly exhausted even after the first half was something special even for casual observers.

Whatever the sport is, there will be people who think it’s the most entertaining thing on earth, and others who’d rather watch paint dry. Having that variety is what helps the world turn I guess. But yeah, as far as the NBA I’d say old YouTube clips of the late 80’s through early 2000’s beats any of the pansy bs that passes for a game in the last decade or so.

Football does have a lot of downtime (though you have replays and whatnot to pay attention to as well). Also, with football, it's once a week for 3 hours to follow your team and it can be regular social gathering as well. You don't really have that with baseball or basketball.

Hence my calling out Phoenixmgs’ initial complaint about basketball as “hating a thing for being the thing.” Of course every sport is going to appeal or not to the individual, and I conceded that basketball has its moments, but removed from individual, star players or epic games from its storied history, the game fundamentally isn’t interesting to me. When the most intriguing bits are the final minutes of the good games late in the season, I’ll never see myself as a fan of the whole thing.

I think one of the other problems with basketball and also baseball is going so far into analytics that everyone is doing the same thing and it becomes boring because of that. Basketball used to have players of different talents and now it's all just chucking 3s and no one plays defense so why am I supposed care about some possession in the 2nd quarter when none of the players do. Same thing with baseball, you used to have different types of hitters, but now it's all launch angle and max effort on every swing and everyone is like a 3-true outcome player now (stikeout, walk, homerun). Same thing with pitchers, the vast majority of them are now flamethrowers vs having the soft-tossing lefties throwing junk, knuckleballers (there have always only been a few though), sinker ballers, change-up specialists, etc.

 

[BrawlMan]

No, I meant who in Australia did she beat to "earn" her Olympic spot. I know she didn't beat any-damn-body at the actual games; you can't with ZERO points.

Like I mentioned before, she didn't have to "beat" anyone in Australia. Th Olympics organization didn't even bother looking into the background of who they brought in and were looking for anyone that signed their name on the dotted line.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I didn't think it was going to happen, but apparently it is or might have already happened. USA gymnast Jordan Chiles might lose her Bronze medal.

Jordan Chiles breaks silence after Olympic bronze medal ruling: 'This decision feels unjust'

Team USA gymnast Jordan Chiles has broken her silence about the possibility she may have to surrender her bronze medal in the floor exercise final at the Paris Olympics.

www.foxnews.com

There was a challenge to the judges by her coaches after her initial score of her floor routine wasn't satisfactory. Judges agreed, her score was adjusted, and she made the podium for Bronze. Well, apparently the challenge came in a whole 4 SECONDS too late, and the original score was/will be reinstated awarding her Bronze to Romania.

The irony is not lost on me that 4 seconds seems like a niggling amount of time to quibble over at the Olympics where medals are often determined by hundredths and thousandths of a second, but still, c'mon, show a bit of grace given judges can critique a performance and grant a score in minutes, but it took them DAYS to discover this 4-second oversight? They should, at the very least, allow her to split the medal with the Romanian gymnast as [potentially] strict adherence to the rules in this case could award the latter the place, but even that is debatable as some have argued there's video evidence that the challenge was made in time.

I think Chiles should just keep the medal. The Romanian already feels like she was beaten, but then to hand her the medal on a technicality outside of the field of performance would feel condescending to me. Can't speak for her, though, and neither am I an Olympian, but in my gut, I feel if I put in the kind of work it takes to perform at that level, I wouldn't want my merits diminished with a 3rd place "with an asterisk."

 

[Kyrian007]

I didn't think it was going to happen, but apparently it is or might have already happened. USA gymnast Jordan Chiles might lose her Bronze medal.

Jordan Chiles breaks silence after Olympic bronze medal ruling: 'This decision feels unjust'

Team USA gymnast Jordan Chiles has broken her silence about the possibility she may have to surrender her bronze medal in the floor exercise final at the Paris Olympics.

www.foxnews.com

There was a challenge to the judges by her coaches after her initial score of her floor routine wasn't satisfactory. Judges agreed, her score was adjusted, and she made the podium for Bronze. Well, apparently the challenge came in a whole 4 SECONDS too late, and the original score was/will be reinstated awarding her Bronze to Romania.

The irony is not lost on me that 4 seconds seems like a niggling amount of time to quibble over at the Olympics where medals are often determined by hundredths and thousandths of a second, but still, c'mon, show a bit of grace given judges can critique a performance and grant a score in minutes, but it took them DAYS to discover this 4-second oversight? They should, at the very least, allow her to split the medal with the Romanian gymnast as [potentially] strict adherence to the rules in this case could award the latter the place, but even that is debatable as some have argued there's video evidence that the challenge was made in time.

I think Chiles should just keep the medal. The Romanian already feels like she was beaten, but then to hand her the medal on a technicality outside of the field of performance would feel condescending to me. Can't speak for her, though, and neither am I an Olympian, but in my gut, I feel if I put in the kind of work it takes to perform at that level, I wouldn't want my merits diminished with a 3rd place "with an asterisk."

That one isn't really bugging me. I'm really not "in" on judged events as it is. Even if judges are as impartial as possible and completely and fully versed in the event they are judging... well still to me it seems like someone's opinion shouldn't determine a win or loss. That's why I'm a fan of electronic balls and strikes in baseball. Which makes the other Olympic controversy I have been bothered by, well I feel a little hypocritical about my opinion on the outcome.

The Women's skeet event. Francisca Crovetto Chadid of Chile defeated Amber Rutter of GBR. It was tied and in a literal "shootout." The controversy is, the round that Rutter failed to hit a target... which lost her the gold... replay showed that she did hit just enough of the clay target to knock a tiny chip out of it. And according to the rules, a hit is a hit and the shootout should have continued. And so I see all of the reporting using phrases like "robbed of a gold." And that bothers me. Yes, the rules do state that she should have been allowed to continue. BUT... I think the right woman won. In that same round, Chadid drilled her targets. Blasting them to dust. Yes, the rules say Rutter "hit" her target too. And both went 55 for 60 leading up to the shootout, where I could probably hit maybe 6 or 7 for 60. But my EYES tell me who the better shot was in that round.

 

[Xprimentyl]

That one isn't really bugging me. I'm really not "in" on judged events as it is. Even if judges are as impartial as possible and completely and fully versed in the event they are judging... well still to me it seems like someone's opinion shouldn't determine a win or loss. That's why I'm a fan of electronic balls and strikes in baseball. Which makes the other Olympic controversy I have been bothered by, well I feel a little hypocritical about my opinion on the outcome.

I don't disagree; watching all of the judged events, it's hard not to squirm when you see scores you subjectively feel weren't deserved, for better OR worse. But you trust that the judges know what they're looking at/for, that they are impartial, and the athletes have agreed to abide by that judgement, i.e.: they know what they should and should not do for an optimal score. Again, it's a case of not liking a thing for being the thing; the scoring is a part of the whole; that IS the sport.

But as to this instance not bothering you, that's fine, but let me ask you: if there's a statute of limitations on when a challenge can be issued during an event, does it not follow that there should be a similar statute on when a decision can be reversed after an event? Not even just the event, the whole OLYMPICS were over! By this logic, think how many sporting events could be retroactively "adjusted" if we're to be okay in this case. Do we want refs looking at tape days after a football game and deciding that a holding penalty they missed that gave an offense a fresh set of downs to score a game-winning touchdown affected the more likely outcome of the game, and giving the losing team the win posthumously? Hell, that's not even a fitting analogy in this case as at least that's based on performance; same scenario, but upon review of the tape, they see the coach's foot was on the playing field during play, so they negate the play and strip the win? Make sense?

The Women's skeet event. Francisca Crovetto Chadid of Chile defeated Amber Rutter of GBR. It was tied and in a literal "shootout." The controversy is, the round that Rutter failed to hit a target... which lost her the gold... replay showed that she did hit just enough of the clay target to knock a tiny chip out of it. And according to the rules, a hit is a hit and the shootout should have continued. And so I see all of the reporting using phrases like "robbed of a gold." And that bothers me. Yes, the rules do state that she should have been allowed to continue. BUT... I think the right woman won. In that same round, Chadid drilled her targets. Blasting them to dust. Yes, the rules say Rutter "hit" her target too. And both went 55 for 60 leading up to the shootout, where I could probably hit maybe 6 or 7 for 60. But my EYES tell me who the better shot was in that round.

See, this bother's me too, but for the opposite reason. Sounds like Rutter PERFORMED within the regulations, and was indeed robbed. Unless there's a rule, subjective judgement, or objectively qualifiable score surrounding how much debris is left in remains to constitute a "hit," she did what she needed to do to continue the shootout, and was disallowed. That's not fair. Should field goals be scored differently depending on how "down the middle" they fly? Are we discounting those that bounce in off the uprights?