A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
The reference back to "Wallechinksy" is besides the point. The video tape shows exactly what is described in the article (for those who bothered to read it. well done, Marlow, well done ); the rules as they were in '72 were either not followed or made up; the Americans "inexplicably" got back on the court instead of saying, "hell no! we already won"; there are a lot of questions, but just because it is portrayed "differently" in another part of the world - or even the rest of the world - doesn't mean reasonable people who can understand rules for themselves and watch video can't see what transpired.
Surprisingly, lonewolf, who is normally the most calm of posters, is obviously animated about this; he feels the USA was definitely cheated. He actually sounds "pissed" and lonewolf doesn't normally get pissed. Pego and others feel the same way, and I've yet to read a single person answer the question of should they get the silver medal in the affirmative. Mump, I'm not saying you're wrong (even though I don't agree with you), but this is obviously a touchy one for Americans.
All that said, I want to believe that I would have said no at the time and I would continue to say no to this day. The article references this question of will they take them or not that comes up every 4 years as a devil's temptation waiting for them to eventually give in. That temptation is obviously working on a few members of that team.
A long time ago in one of the biggest events of my life (certainly at that time) I made a mistake; a mistake born out of arrogance. When asked about it I always said "I would do it again the same way because it was the right thing to do". However, looking back, sometimes the "right" result can come from a sub-optimal approach; had I made that concession the outcome would have been what I wanted. I was right with the wrong result; I'd rather have the result...and still be right, but it doesn't work like that - life doesn't make it that easy, that's why it's such a hard choice (or easy for the most obstinate/principled). Marlow gave his Navy example and I'm sure all of us have one that went well or bad.
Again, Tarmoh's "decision" really isn't crazy to me, even though I probably would have re-raced, just like the '72 Americans decided to take the court two times more than they "felt" they needed to. When you read the comments of the '72 players who are most adamant, you can see that the medal is not an option; that they feel cheated (even though, again, they agreed to take the court); that they feel betrayed by teammates that they once sacrificed with and for by the very notion that those equivocating would or ever could accept those medals.
I've seen the video as well and the SU coach clearly calls for TO
The head of FIBA, the referee and the appeals panel all agreed, why would some clearly partisan fans think they know better and why would all of these people want to 'cheat' US
Surely a better explanation is that in a unprecedented situation they tried to make the fairest decision possible. I bet no one expected SU to score !!
If there had been some kind of co ordinated attempt to let SU win i'm sure they would have done a better job than leaving it till 3 sec till the end
I also stand by my point, whatever the 'fairness' of the result Roy Jones Jnr comes out of it with a whole lot more dignity than any of the US team. As would Tarmoh if she had either accepted the run off or declines and kept quite about it.
I think she was treated appallingly, i've never heard of holding a press conference and then the result being changed BUT what was her solution ? that she should just be declared the winner because that's how it was announced ? The photo finish clearly shows it was too close to call and once again in an unprecedented situation officials tried to do their best.
She chose to opt out of all solutions and then complain about it !!
mump boy wrote:My point is that it is viewed very differently in the rest of the world than it is in the understandably partisan US.
I'm not sure if this is true. Pego is siding with the US, me too. Neither of us are partisans when it comes to the US.
mump boy wrote:I've seen the video as well and the SU coach clearly calls for TO
But the rules didn't allow the TO to be called until the ball was back in play. They tried to call the TO before the final free throw and then invaded the court.
mump boy wrote:I also stand by my point, whatever the 'fairness' of the result Roy Jones Jnr comes out of it with a whole lot more dignity than any of the US team.
Does this analogy really work? Scoring in boxing is subjective, whereas, the rule for when a TO can be called was not.
preston wrote: the Americans "inexplicably" got back on the court instead of saying, "hell no! we already won"; .
That's my question. Why did they get back on the court in the first place? Whenever you agree to a redo, there's no guarantee that you'll win the second time around and you give legitimacy to a crooked process. That's why I sympathize with Tarmoh. If she really believes deep down that Felix was getting special and unprecedented treatment, then by agreeing to a redo, she would have been giving legitimacy to a process that she felt was crooked.
mump boy wrote:My point is that it is viewed very differently in the rest of the world than it is in the understandably partisan US.
I'm not sure if this is true. Pego is siding with the US, me too. Neither of us are partisans when it comes to the US.
mump boy wrote:I've seen the video as well and the SU coach clearly calls for TO
But the rules didn't allow the TO to be called until the ball was back in play. They tried to call the TO before the final free throw and then invaded the court.
mump boy wrote:I also stand by my point, whatever the 'fairness' of the result Roy Jones Jnr comes out of it with a whole lot more dignity than any of the US team.
Does this analogy really work? Scoring in boxing is subjective, whereas, the rule for when a TO can be called was not.
It would seem all of the officials at the time disagree with you on this point
mump boy wrote:I've seen the video as well and the SU coach clearly calls for TO
The head of FIBA, the referee and the appeals panel all agreed, why would some clearly partisan fans think they know better and why would all of these people want to 'cheat' US
Surely a better explanation is that in a unprecedented situation they tried to make the fairest decision possible. I bet no one expected SU to score !!
That's your problem, you think the FIBA officials should have done what they thought was fair rather than stick to the written rules. You seem to be okay with making up rules after the fact in the interest of doing what you think is fair.
mump, I don't understand your position at all. This isn't about any "[divine] right to win everything", this is about following the rules of the game. At what point is a "loss" a loss if you haven't lost fair and square is the American point. Or is this a British subject thing where the athletes are supposed to know their place as "obedients/commoners" and accept the decisions of those deemed "better"?
preston wrote:mump, I don't understand your position at all. This isn't about any "[divine] right to win everything", this is about following the rules of the game. At what point is a "loss" a loss if you haven't lost fair and square is the American point. Or is this a British subject thing where the athletes are supposed to know their place as "obedients/commoners" and accept the decisions of those deemed "better"?
My point is there is obviously a grey area here around when the time out was called (I've read reports that SU tried to call it earlier but the buzzer had fallen under the desk !!), neither i or any of you, know exactly what happened. In the unprecedented situation officials gave SU the benefit of the doubt and allowed them 3 sec (3 sec not 30), i doubt anyone thought they would have scored. If it had been the other way around US would have be screaming for their time out as well
They may have felt hard done by but it certainly doesn't look like some grand conspiracy like all that ice skating shit, they should have collected their medals.
There are far worse results in OG history than this, ask Yang Tae-Young (who accepted his medal)
preston wrote:mump, I don't understand your position at all. This isn't about any "[divine] right to win everything", this is about following the rules of the game. At what point is a "loss" a loss if you haven't lost fair and square is the American point. Or is this a British subject thing where the athletes are supposed to know their place as "obedients/commoners" and accept the decisions of those deemed "better"?
My point is there is obviously a grey area here around when the time out was called (I've read reports that SU tried to call it earlier but the buzzer had fallen under the desk !!), neither i or any of you, know exactly what happened. In the unprecedented situation officials gave SU the benefit of the doubt and allowed them 3 sec (3 sec not 30), i doubt anyone thought they would have scored. If it had been the other way around US would have be screaming for their time out as well
They may have felt hard done by but it certainly doesn't look like some grand conspiracy like all that ice skating shit, they should have collected their medals.
There are far worse results in OG history than this, ask Yang Tae-Young (who accepted his medal)
You say "3 sec (3 sec not 300)". The only problem is that 3 sec is not just 2 additional seconds to 1 - which is the correct amount that SHOULD have been on the clock (assuming that the game shouldn't already have been over, which the Americans do)- 3 seconds is a lifetime compared to 1. There should have only have been one second yet the FIBA head made them put two additional seconds on the clock. So even when the benefit of the doubt is given and we recognize that officials miss calls so the fact that the CCCP athlete stepped on the line and it wasn't called during the inbounds pass is just "one of those things", it still doesn't account for a referee threatening a player with a technical foul if he defends the inbounds pass - a rule that existed nowhere in international basketball.
I think what you believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that no matter what happens, an athlete is duty bound by the "Athletes pledge" to accept the ruling of the judges and not act like the '72 USA BBall team or the Cuban Taekwando athlete from 2008 or even Jon Drummond from '03 Paris? If so, that's consistent, but if Heidler's throw was never re-measured and she never medalled would it have been your position that she just go back quietly to the circuit? That she received "just compensation": an additional throw that she may not have wanted; and that's enough?
Obviously, in this, as in virtually any other hectic incident, people perceive/remember the results differently. Mump seems determined to believe the US was not treated unfairly, citing other peoples opinions. Preston, and others, have offered a detailed recount of the closing moments of the game and reasoned explanation for the confusion. No, I don't think it was a conspiracy. I think it was an independent, spontaneous reaction to screw the mighty US basketball team, although I cannot imagine why. What is unquestioned is: The illegal timeout and restriction placed on guarding the throw in and the illegal, unwarranted, unprecedented interference by "Mr. Jones" I can't imagine the Bulgarian referee had any sympathy for the Russian team, unless it was just European jingoism. The referees made the right call initially. I don't know why they were intimidated by a civilian out of the stands. The team was right to refuse the silver and right to continue to recant.
preston wrote:You say "3 sec (3 sec not 300)". The only problem is that 3 sec is not just 2 additional seconds to 1 - which is the correct amount that SHOULD have been on the clock (assuming that the game shouldn't already have been over, which the Americans do)- 3 seconds is a lifetime compared to 1. There should have only have been one second yet the FIBA head made them put two additional seconds on the clock. So even when the benefit of the doubt is given and we recognize that officials miss calls so the fact that the CCCP athlete stepped on the line and it wasn't called during the inbounds pass is just "one of those things", it still doesn't account for a referee threatening a player with a technical foul if he defends the inbounds pass - a rule that existed nowhere in international basketball.
I think what you believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that no matter what happens, an athlete is duty bound by the "Athletes pledge" to accept the ruling of the judges and not act like the '72 USA BBall team or the Cuban Taekwando athlete from 2008 or even Jon Drummond from '03 Paris? If so, that's consistent, but if Heidler's throw was never re-measured and she never medalled would it have been your position that she just go back quietly to the circuit? That she received "just compensation": an additional throw that she may not have wanted; and that's enough?
That is not my point at all but ultimately decisions have to be made, unless there is some kind of conspiracy mostly people are trying to do their bests in bad situations, someone is going to be unhappy about it. You most certainly don't behave like CUB guy or Jon Drummond !! My understanding is that Heidler was informed mid comp that they has her measurement and the computer wouldn't accept it as it was the same as Lysenkos previous throw. It's the CHN girl i feel sorry for
Sulking gets you nowhere and makes you look like a bad loser.
lonewolf wrote:Obviously, in this, as in virtually any other hectic incident, people perceive/remember the results differently. Mump seems determined to believe the US was not treated unfairly, citing other peoples opinions. Preston, and others, have offered a detailed recount of the closing moments of the game and reasoned explanation for the confusion. No, I don't think it was a conspiracy. I think it was an independent, spontaneous reaction to screw the mighty US basketball team, although I cannot imagine why. What is unquestioned is: The illegal timeout and restriction placed on guarding the throw in and the illegal, unwarranted, unprecedented interference by "Mr. Jones" I can't imagine the Bulgarian referee had any sympathy for the Russian team, unless it was just European jingoism. The referees made the right call initially. I don't know why they were intimidated by a civilian out of the stands. The team was right to refuse the silver and right to continue to recant.
lonewolf wrote:...The team was right to refuse the silver and right to continue to recant...
That's one of the points of the article that we've glossed over here. What you consider to be a principled stand may not be. The following quote is from the postscript.
There are several intriguing historical footnotes to that scarred 1972 Olympic basketball final. The Brazilian referee, Righetto, who at first refused Jones's order to put time back on the clock for the Soviets, never officiated in an international game again. The Bulgarian referee, Arabadjan, left his country in the '80s and moved to New York City. "That bastard?" cries Bob Paul, press chief of the '72 U.S. Olympic team. "We let him in? My god, we forgive everybody!"
Belov, who scored the winning basket for the Soviets, died in 1978 at the age of 26, supposedly of a heart attack—although rumors persist that he was involved in smuggling and that his death was not from natural causes. Hank Iba, who coached his final game that night in Munich, lives on in Stillwater, Okla., where he is designing a new motion-and-screening offense at the age of 87.
There is one other curious footnote. Of the 12 American players on that team, 10 claim that they still vote no to the silver medals today. The reality is that except for one or two players who didn't turn in their votes in 1982 and 1986, only three voted no to accepting the medals in the first vote, and only two voted no the second time, according to sources at USA Basketball. Could it be that roughly half of the team that made its stand for honesty and integrity in 1972 is...fibbing?
mump boy wrote:unless there is some kind of conspiracy mostly people are trying to do their bests in bad situations, someone is going to be unhappy about it
So you're saying it OK to screw athletes over as long as the ref's are doing their best. That's quaint.
mump boy wrote:unless there is some kind of conspiracy mostly people are trying to do their bests in bad situations, someone is going to be unhappy about it
So you're saying it OK to screw athletes over as long as the ref's are doing their best. That's quaint.
I'm saying there are 2 sides and if the decision has gone the other way there would be RUS websites having this same debate 40 years later. The rights and wrongs of this are subjective
mump boy wrote:unless there is some kind of conspiracy mostly people are trying to do their bests in bad situations, someone is going to be unhappy about it
So you're saying it OK to screw athletes over as long as the ref's are doing their best. That's quaint.
I'm saying there are 2 sides and if the decision has gone the other way there would be RUS websites having this same debate 40 years later. The rights and wrongs of this are subjective
Nobody was screwed
There might be two sides but that doesn't mean there are 2 "correct" sides. So, pointing out what RUS might be saying is irrelevant; they wouldn't have facts on their side. The rights and wrongs are NOT subjective and never have ben, they're objective as far as the rules are concerned and it's an obvious wrong, based on the facts, that has not been corrected and probably never will be. By your logic Jim Thorpe should have NEVER received his medal from the IOC and John Carlos and Tommie Smith should continue to be pariahs as they were in 1968.
mump boy wrote:I'm saying there are 2 sides and if the decision has gone the other way there would be RUS websites having this same debate 40 years later. The rights and wrongs of this are subjective
Nobody was screwed
Facts are not subjective, they're objective. If the U.S. had lost because the referee called a bogus foul that put the Russians in a position to make a game-winning shot, they would have accepted the silver medal because fouls are subjective. However, the stated rules regarding timoeouts are objective.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
To be fair the Soviets should have gotten an inbounds from three seconds from the beginning. Yea, it wasn't technically the rule but it is pretty flimsy to say you were screwed because the coach didn't go through the proper procedure to call a timeout. Now the baseline defense not being allowed is an egregious error.
Here is a thought: if you are interested in winning a basketball game, it is a good idea to be in a better position than down 1 without the ball in the closing seconds of the game.
Does anybody remember the officiating over the rest of the game? Was it bad as well, or was it just this mess at the end that is an issue?
skyin' brian wrote:Here is a thought: if you are interested in winning a basketball game, it is a good idea to be in a better position than down 1 without the ball in the closing seconds of the game.
Does anybody remember the officiating over the rest of the game? Was it bad as well, or was it just this mess at the end that is an issue?
Thankyou
i honestly couldn't care less about any of this but the idea that the poor hard done by americans have been 'screwed' but the big bad SU and their corrupt accomplices in FIBA is just nonsense. Obviously a number of people at the time read the situation very differently than some of you do, decisions are sometimes made in haste be they right or wrong, it's called sport and you live by the result. Not collecting your medal is just childish and extremely bad sportsmanship.
I notice that nobody has bothered to comment on the 2 rather more egregious example that i have mentioned.
skyin' brian wrote:Here is a thought: if you are interested in winning a basketball game, it is a good idea to be in a better position than down 1 without the ball in the closing seconds of the game.
Does anybody remember the officiating over the rest of the game? Was it bad as well, or was it just this mess at the end that is an issue?
Thankyou
Not exactly sure why you're thanking him; his thought is ridiculously silly. CCCP was down 1 with the ball.
Well, i was referring to the idea that the US was about to eke out out a victory by the slimmest of margins at the very end of the game. They weren't exactly a clear winner. If you leave it up to the last second (almost literally for the US, quite literally for the SU), then there is the potential for a call to go badly in an officiated sport with a human pressing the button on the time clock. As mump said, "it's called sport."
jazzcyclist wrote:How many people here think the U.S. should have never went back out on the court?
If you don't go back on the court, then you're DQ'd, not exactly a great choice; especially with the FIBA chief calling the shots. No different than, "Mr. Drummond, if you don't leave the track immediately you will be banned from track & field"
skyin' brian wrote:Well, i was referring to the idea that the US was about to eke out out a victory by the slimmest of margins at the very end of the game. They weren't exactly a clear winner. If you leave it up to the last second (almost literally for the US, quite literally for the SU), then there is the potential for a call to go badly in an officiated sport with a human pressing the button on the time clock. As mump said, "it's called sport."
Whatever you were referring to (and mump was agreeing to) makes no sense. You make it sound like they determined where their opponent should/would be in relation to them; it's nonsense. Clear winning? When you win -within the rules- it's clear! The reason why this is disputed is because the rules weren't followed making it unclear. I was going to write more but you clearly have no idea of what you're trying to convey so I'll leave it right there. Wow
Referee's errors are part of sports and I would never say a word if that decided the game. If Mr Jones kept his ass in his seat and his mouth shut as he should, there would be no "controversy". I cannot comprehend how can anybody with knowledge of sports justify his actions.
skyin' brian wrote:Well, i was referring to the idea that the US was about to eke out out a victory by the slimmest of margins at the very end of the game. They weren't exactly a clear winner. If you leave it up to the last second (almost literally for the US, quite literally for the SU), then there is the potential for a call to go badly in an officiated sport with a human pressing the button on the time clock. As mump said, "it's called sport."
That's how i read it
But none of this is even relevant to the discussion of whether you should have the manners to to collect your medals.
mump boy wrote:But none of this is even relevant to the discussion of whether you should have the manners to to collect your medals.
Mump, which is more important
Mind you manners or Stick to your principles ?
I hope it's become abundantly clear that many (many!!) people believe the USA was CHEATED out of the gold (you may disagree, feel free). If you believed you were CHEATED out of something, would you just meekly go along with the charade or would you protest in the most effective manner available to you (refuse the medals)?
That is ALL we're saying (and for some reason, you are unwilling to understand).
mump boy wrote:But none of this is even relevant to the discussion of whether you should have the manners to to collect your medals.
Mump, which is more important
Mind you manners or Stick to your principles ?
I hope it's become abundantly clear that many (many!!) people believe the USA was CHEATED out of the gold (you may disagree, feel free). If you believed you were CHEATED out of something, would you just meekly go along with the charade or would you protest in the most effective manner available to you (refuse the medals)?
That is ALL we're saying (and for some reason, you are unwilling to understand).
The 2 are not mutually exclusive, there is no need to be meek or take part in a charade in order to show some respect for everyone who has ever won a silver medal.
Do you believe Yang Tae-Young was meek and hypocriticals by collecting his medal ? which he did with class and dignity
I understand you, i just disagree, i'm still clinging to the olympic ideals of good sportsmanship and taking part
Last edited by mump boy on Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mump boy wrote:i'm still clinging to the olympic ideals of good sportsmanship and taking part
The Olympic Ideals ship sailed when the FIBA boss intervened and the refs misapplied the rules. That ship then sank on the reef of craven authority that did not correct the miscarriage of justice. No one in good conscience can be party to that and consider themselves to have partaken in Baron de Coubertin's vision.
mump boy wrote:i'm still clinging to the olympic ideals of good sportsmanship and taking part
The Olympic Ideals ship sailed when the FIBA boss intervened and the refs misapplied the rules. That ship then sank on the reef of craven authority that did not correct the miscarriage of justice. No one in good conscience can be party to that and consider themselves to have partaken in Baron de Coubertin's vision.
2 wrongs etc
ever heard of taking the moral high ground ? actually it only works if you have any to take !!
); the rules as they were in '72 were either not followed or made up; the Americans "inexplicably" got back on the court instead of saying, "hell no! we already won"; there are a lot of questions, but just because it is portrayed "differently" in another part of the world - or even the rest of the world - doesn't mean reasonable people who can understand rules for themselves and watch video can't see what transpired.
