User Tag List

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
Results 358 to 374 of 385
  1. #358
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @hcyong. Good write-up. I'd like to add one more point. The loss was not only to create an easier path for themselves, but to preserve a medal. Both CHN teams are strong enough to get to the Final, meaning CHN would have a Gold AND a Silver. Running together earlier would mean they've lost a Silver.

  2. #359
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [0,0,0]
    Posts
    497
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is actually no moral issue here.

    1. These ladies (and no one else for that matter) don't have any rights as far as getting a gold medal.

    2. There is a very clear clause in the BWF code of conduct that can be used as a catch all for this type of behaviour. There really isn't any ambiguity in the wording or the spirit of that clause. There has been a great deal of ambiguity in how the BWF has enforced it. But, expecting them not to enforce this rule under the circumstances and the venue is insane.

    3. This DQ didn't come out of nowhere, they were given a very clear warning that they were in danger of getting DQ'd. Up until the point where the officials warned them you could make the case that the ladies were making a rational choice. Choosing to continue on with the fiasco in the face of those warning was irrational. It was very obvious that the organizers were very displeased with their actions and those organizers had at their disposal a framework within the rules to bring consequences to bear and these ladies essentially dared them to do so.

    4. Many of you and the author of this article seem to want to make the point that these ladies followed the rules. Well, the BWF would disagree as would the IOC and it is both of these parties who are hosting this event and it is they that have discretion over how the rules are interpreted and how they are applied. There are no inherent 'rights' to a medal.

    5. While the format was idiotic on the part of the BWF. The BWF doesn't operate in a vacuum. The national associations hold a great deal of influence over the BWF. It beggars belief that this format was adopted without the blessing of the Chinese and Korean (to name two) national associations.

    6. If the women's actions were on solid ground in terms of being justifiable it is hard to believe that the Chinese national team wouldn't raise hell about it.

  3. #360
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    TW, SG, HK
    Posts
    7,313
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The IOC aren't always right, do you think it's right to let convicted drugs cheats compete in the Olympics?

  4. #361
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    3,321
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LD rules! View Post
    The IOC aren't always right, do you think it's right to let convicted drugs cheats compete in the Olympics?
    Well, they are the boss. They decide what is right.

  5. #362
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [0,0,0]
    Posts
    497
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LD rules! View Post
    The IOC aren't always right, do you think it's right to let convicted drugs cheats compete in the Olympics?
    They don't have to always be right in fact given that it is an organisation made up of human beings it would be rather startling if they were always right. If an competitor feels that they don't like the structure of the tournament or how the IOC applies the rules they are free to stay home. It's not about some moral concept of right.

    Seriously, anyone watching those matches play out and thought there would be no consequences to the teams involved doesn't have a very firm grasp of reality.

  6. #363
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thunder.tw, I do agree with both of your most recent two posts. It's odd all parties are not responsive to the referee's warning. Not sure if they understood what's happening, but even if there's language barrier, they should have recognized the black card (which means DQ?).

    Given that they're likely following their head coach's instruction, wonder if CBA would do anything for their future. Or maybe CBA told them to lose (from strategic standpoint), but they chose the worst way to implement it. So they have themselves to blame.
    Last edited by raymond; 08-05-2012 at 11:49 AM.

  7. #364
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is a very clear clause in the BWF code of conduct that can be used as a catch all for this type of behaviour. There really isn't any ambiguity in the wording or the spirit of that clause. There has been a great deal of ambiguity in how the BWF has enforced it. But, expecting them not to enforce this rule under the circumstances and the venue is insane.

    Could you point out which clause you are talking about? Perhaps quote it?

    I'm just curious...

  8. #365
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    358
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can someone please help me clarify my doubts (sorry I was unable to skim through 22 pages):

    1. So KOR VS CHN tried to throw the match in order to not meeting World No.2. KOR tried not to meet World No.2, CHN is more like not meeting them because they are friends, understandbly so.

    2. However in KOR VS INA, why did KOR tried to lose? If they lost they would face their own teammates? In this article here it says that they DO NOT WANT to face their teammates that's why they tried to lose?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oly...eir-games.html

    " Sung said: "The Chinese started this. They did it first. It's a complicated thing with the draws. They didn't want to meet each other in the semi-final."
    He said after the Chinese set the precedent, the South Korean pair in the second match deliberately emulated the Chinese tactic because they did not want to face their team-mates in the quarter-finals. "


    I don't understand, can someone help me out here?

  9. #366
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    238
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildstone View Post
    Can someone please help me clarify my doubts (sorry I was unable to skim through 22 pages):

    1. So KOR VS CHN tried to throw the match in order to not meeting World No.2. KOR tried not to meet World No.2, CHN is more like not meeting them because they are friends, understandbly so.

    2. However in KOR VS INA, why did KOR tried to lose? If they lost they would face their own teammates? In this article here it says that they DO NOT WANT to face their teammates that's why they tried to lose?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oly...eir-games.html

    " Sung said: "The Chinese started this. They did it first. It's a complicated thing with the draws. They didn't want to meet each other in the semi-final."
    He said after the Chinese set the precedent, the South Korean pair in the second match deliberately emulated the Chinese tactic because they did not want to face their team-mates in the quarter-finals. "


    I don't understand, can someone help me out here?
    In the 2nd game (INA Vs KOR), the winner get's to play WZL/YY. Very un-enviable position.

  10. #367
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    358
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bakulaw View Post
    In the 2nd game (INA Vs KOR), the winner get's to play WZL/YY. Very un-enviable position.
    Yes I know, but the Korea coach said they do not want to face their teammates? So are they trying to lose so they don't face WZL/YY but face their own team?

  11. #368
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    358
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong View Post
    Clips from the CHN-KOR match can be found here
    http://video.2012.sina.com.cn/p/olym...861819973.html

    Only shows a few rallies. Need to watch the whole match, really, to form a fair opinion.
    By looking at this video, I cannot really tell if Korea deliberately want to lose. I mean, they won eventually, didn't they? It's just that they did not play too aggressively, but that is probably because they sensed that China is not playing too seriously, that's why... Can't really tell. However, it is blatantly obvious that CHN is trying to give away the match. They really need some acting lesson.

  12. #369
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,447
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildstone View Post
    By looking at this video, I cannot really tell if Korea deliberately want to lose. I mean, they won eventually, didn't they? It's just that they did not play too aggressively, but that is probably because they sensed that China is not playing too seriously, that's why... Can't really tell. However, it is blatantly obvious that CHN is trying to give away the match. They really need some acting lesson.
    don't know if you know that there are practice courts in the arena behind the black curtain that also has practice cam for the audiences to see. before the match the Korean are nowhere to be seen on the practice court and everyone knew what is going to happen. and surprise surprise the Korean came out and duly served the first point to the net.

    If that's not enough they had the vulgarity to tried it again the next match with a different pair!

    Served them right to have both pairs DQd

  13. #370
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunder.tw View Post
    There is actually no moral issue here.

    1. These ladies (and no one else for that matter) don't have any rights as far as getting a gold medal.

    2. There is a very clear clause in the BWF code of conduct that can be used as a catch all for this type of behaviour. There really isn't any ambiguity in the wording or the spirit of that clause. There has been a great deal of ambiguity in how the BWF has enforced it. But, expecting them not to enforce this rule under the circumstances and the venue is insane.

    3. This DQ didn't come out of nowhere, they were given a very clear warning that they were in danger of getting DQ'd. Up until the point where the officials warned them you could make the case that the ladies were making a rational choice. Choosing to continue on with the fiasco in the face of those warning was irrational. It was very obvious that the organizers were very displeased with their actions and those organizers had at their disposal a framework within the rules to bring consequences to bear and these ladies essentially dared them to do so.

    4. Many of you and the author of this article seem to want to make the point that these ladies followed the rules. Well, the BWF would disagree as would the IOC and it is both of these parties who are hosting this event and it is they that have discretion over how the rules are interpreted and how they are applied. There are no inherent 'rights' to a medal.

    5. While the format was idiotic on the part of the BWF. The BWF doesn't operate in a vacuum. The national associations hold a great deal of influence over the BWF. It beggars belief that this format was adopted without the blessing of the Chinese and Korean (to name two) national associations.

    6. If the women's actions were on solid ground in terms of being justifiable it is hard to believe that the Chinese national team wouldn't raise hell about it.
    I agree with all you've mentioned here. Except that it IS a moral issue.
    It is NOT a regulatory issue, because everyone is aware of (or had access to) the regulations before hand, and they did blatantly act against it. And got punished for it.

    However, every regulation has a moral imperative behind it. I just don't think that what the WD players did (trying to secure a better draw for themselves) is 100% morally wrong in the name of competition. Surely, there is room for discussion, like 50% wrong perhaps.

    In the end, I think what's done is done. BWF should learn from this because players/teams will certainly not, when their ultimate aim is still to win tournaments. I understand the teams' intention behind their strategies, which I repeat, surely cannot be 100% wrong morally, in the name of competition.

    But my sympathies lie with the players who are made scapegoats, laughing stocks, and roundly condemned in this incident. Yes, even Yu Yang, who I don't like very much.
    Last edited by hcyong; 08-06-2012 at 07:39 AM.

  14. #371
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    from Indonesia, now in China
    Posts
    2,450
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildstone View Post
    Can someone please help me clarify my doubts (sorry I was unable to skim through 22 pages):

    1. So KOR VS CHN tried to throw the match in order to not meeting World No.2. KOR tried not to meet World No.2, CHN is more like not meeting them because they are friends, understandbly so.

    2. However in KOR VS INA, why did KOR tried to lose? If they lost they would face their own teammates? In this article here it says that they DO NOT WANT to face their teammates that's why they tried to lose?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oly...eir-games.html

    " Sung said: "The Chinese started this. They did it first. It's a complicated thing with the draws. They didn't want to meet each other in the semi-final."
    He said after the Chinese set the precedent, the South Korean pair in the second match deliberately emulated the Chinese tactic because they did not want to face their team-mates in the quarter-finals. "


    I don't understand, can someone help me out here?
    so KOR VS CHN:
    KOR (by losing) wants to setup CHN VS CHN quarterfinal (CWIIW) (avoiding CHN get gold and silver) and also if possible, maybe all KOR eight finals (so one of them would qualify in semifinal and got a chance to grab a medal, wheter go to final or bronze)

    CHN (by losing) wants to avoid their teammates to setup all CHN final


    and then, KOR VS INA:
    these pairs, will fight against the 2 pairs above (KOR and CHN)
    winner of this group will fight against the loser of the other group (which is CHN pair, WZL / YY world number 1 WD)
    and the loser will fight against the winner of the other group (the KOR pair)
    no one wants to fight against world number 1, so everyone wants to lose too

  15. #372
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,058
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  16. #373
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong View Post
    I agree with all you've mentioned here. Except that it IS a moral issue.
    It is NOT a regulatory issue, because everyone is aware of (or had access to) the regulations before hand, and they did blatantly act against it. And got punished for it.

    However, every regulation has a moral imperative behind it. I just don't think that what the WD players did (trying to secure a better draw for themselves) is 100% morally wrong in the name of competition. Surely, there is room for discussion, like 50% wrong perhaps.

    In the end, I think what's done is done. BWF should learn from this because players/teams will certainly not, when their ultimate aim is still to win tournaments. I understand the teams' intention behind their strategies, which I repeat, surely cannot be 100% wrong morally, in the name of competition.

    But my sympathies lie with the players who are made scapegoats, laughing stocks, and roundly condemned in this incident. Yes, even Yu Yang, who I don't like very much.
    Oh, let me just clarify that I don't mean "the ends justify the means". Fairplay is also important. However, I would say trying to get a better draw is fair game; everyone wants it and can attain it (depends on how hard they try to lose)

  17. #374
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shifty View Post
    Interesting
    The Algerian's intention in the 800m event is really not to progress any further in the event (though admittedly, his intention is actually to rest and do better for 1500m).
    The WD's intention in the WD event is really to progress further in the event.
    There's a difference.

Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •