This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It was hard to be denied a gold medal by a technicality, which the judge on the mat didn't see. The question is, who was the person who alerted the judge to Shauna's foot touching the mat? If it was another judge then that's fine, but if it was a spectator then that would have been wrong, and would open up all sorts of problems. In the replay you can see the judge thanking whoever it was who pointed out the infringement.
There will be every sympathy for Shauna Coxsey coming so close again, and we can only hope that this will motivate her even more to achieve the gold medal which surely lies ahead. By the way, despite her disappointment, it was commendable the way she composed herself for the second successful attempt at the final problem.
Post edited at 16:28
In reply to rtinma:
I would like to think that climbing was more of the "golf and snooker" mentality.
Perhaps not.
I would like to think that climbing was more of the "golf and snooker" mentality.
Perhaps not.
In reply to rtinma:
Interesting point but whatever it was a hugely disappointing way to not get the Gold. Anna Storr made the point that route-setting was too easy at this comp and didn't split the competitors sufficiently. She described her win as just being lucky which was pretty gracious thing to say. Apparently the route-setters had limited time in setting at Baku.
Interesting point but whatever it was a hugely disappointing way to not get the Gold. Anna Storr made the point that route-setting was too easy at this comp and didn't split the competitors sufficiently. She described her win as just being lucky which was pretty gracious thing to say. Apparently the route-setters had limited time in setting at Baku.
In reply to rtinma:
From memory, the coaches from other teams are able to alert (perhaps through their team members?) to any infringements made by any competitors. How these coaches find out about the infringement could be through a member of the audience telling them they say a foot dab that the problem judge missed. The team placed at a disadvantage by the judges initial error are then able to appeal. If the camera replay shows (or another judge/offocial saw) the infringement, then the climber is likely to be penalised. I've not seen any of the video, but expect that the video replay was conclusive about the dab, hence her appeal being turned down.
A foot dab is a foot dab - I'm so sorry for Shauna that she lost the gold on that, but she understands the rules as well as anyone else and seems to have taken it on the chin. What she has shown is that she's more than capable of winning on a world stage and that her time will come.
No doubt Graeme Alderson will be a long in a while to put my words into some form of "official" speak.
From memory, the coaches from other teams are able to alert (perhaps through their team members?) to any infringements made by any competitors. How these coaches find out about the infringement could be through a member of the audience telling them they say a foot dab that the problem judge missed. The team placed at a disadvantage by the judges initial error are then able to appeal. If the camera replay shows (or another judge/offocial saw) the infringement, then the climber is likely to be penalised. I've not seen any of the video, but expect that the video replay was conclusive about the dab, hence her appeal being turned down.
A foot dab is a foot dab - I'm so sorry for Shauna that she lost the gold on that, but she understands the rules as well as anyone else and seems to have taken it on the chin. What she has shown is that she's more than capable of winning on a world stage and that her time will come.
No doubt Graeme Alderson will be a long in a while to put my words into some form of "official" speak.
In reply to steve taylor:
From what the replays show, the only angle of Shauna climbing included someone's head blocking her foot. So definitely not conclusive. The commentary suggested that her raising her foot quickly might suggest a reaction to a dab, though obviously they couldn't see. Bit of a shambles really...
From what the replays show, the only angle of Shauna climbing included someone's head blocking her foot. So definitely not conclusive. The commentary suggested that her raising her foot quickly might suggest a reaction to a dab, though obviously they couldn't see. Bit of a shambles really...
In reply to James Malloch:
The camera replay you saw was indeed a single angle, however there exists an infinite number of other angles from which the incident could be viewed. So I guess you could say that your comment is a bit of a shambles really.
> the only angle of Shauna climbing
The camera replay you saw was indeed a single angle, however there exists an infinite number of other angles from which the incident could be viewed. So I guess you could say that your comment is a bit of a shambles really.
In reply to steve taylor:
Thanks. That's really helpful. I still find it odd that anyone other than the official judges can intervene, as there is significant scope for disrupting an athlete's concentration whether intentionally or not. All credit to Shauna Coxsey for her reaction and attitude which are exemplary.
Thanks. That's really helpful. I still find it odd that anyone other than the official judges can intervene, as there is significant scope for disrupting an athlete's concentration whether intentionally or not. All credit to Shauna Coxsey for her reaction and attitude which are exemplary.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I don't see your point? Sure, infinite angles are available. But they weren't used.
The commentators had apologised for the cameras and lack of angles (in general, not just for this incident). They said it was done by a local company and wasn't organised by them.
The judges missed something, and were alerted to it by someone else. And they have no way of checking the validity of the call but act on it. This action takes victory away from someone, so it's a huge call which they can't check.
Surely this is a bit of a mess?
I don't see your point? Sure, infinite angles are available. But they weren't used.
The commentators had apologised for the cameras and lack of angles (in general, not just for this incident). They said it was done by a local company and wasn't organised by them.
The judges missed something, and were alerted to it by someone else. And they have no way of checking the validity of the call but act on it. This action takes victory away from someone, so it's a huge call which they can't check.
Surely this is a bit of a mess?
In reply to James Malloch:
Weren't used by who? The webcast camera had a single angle. You are assuming that the judges had the same viewpoint, partially obscured by a head. This is obviously not correct as you can see the judges on the mats have a totally unobstructed view. And totally ignoring the possibility of any other view points that are not in camera shot. Eg I am not in camera shot.
Absolutely irrelevant.
And how do you know this? Because someone wrote it on the web perhaps? Were you there, did you hear the voice from the grassy knoll?
> I don't see your point? Sure, infinite angles are available. But they weren't used.
Weren't used by who? The webcast camera had a single angle. You are assuming that the judges had the same viewpoint, partially obscured by a head. This is obviously not correct as you can see the judges on the mats have a totally unobstructed view. And totally ignoring the possibility of any other view points that are not in camera shot. Eg I am not in camera shot.
> The commentators had apologised for the cameras and lack of angles (in general, not just for this incident). They said it was done by a local company and wasn't organised by them.
Absolutely irrelevant.
> The judges missed something, and were alerted to it by someone else. And they have no way of checking the validity of the call but act on it. This action takes victory away from someone, so it's a huge call which they can't check.
And how do you know this? Because someone wrote it on the web perhaps? Were you there, did you hear the voice from the grassy knoll?
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
You seem to be implying something but not actually saying it straight (not intended as a criticism).
1. Were there televised angles (other than those shown on the stream) which, upon review, clearly showed the dab?
2. Who drew the two judges' (closest to Shauna) attention to the dab as it certainly seems they turned around to react to something behind them before advancing and asking Shauna to dismount? Was that another judge or someone in the crowd?
Again, I'm not trying to stir things up but looking at the conversation between you and James M there seems to be some crossed wires.
You seem to be implying something but not actually saying it straight (not intended as a criticism).
1. Were there televised angles (other than those shown on the stream) which, upon review, clearly showed the dab?
2. Who drew the two judges' (closest to Shauna) attention to the dab as it certainly seems they turned around to react to something behind them before advancing and asking Shauna to dismount? Was that another judge or someone in the crowd?
Again, I'm not trying to stir things up but looking at the conversation between you and James M there seems to be some crossed wires.
Post edited at 19:18
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Obviously the judges had a clear view. But their reaction to someone, and then going over to Shauna suggests that they may have been alerted to it which may have affected their decision.
I'm not saying that she didn't touch the matting, she could well have done so. I'm saying that it's wrong, in my opinion, to make such big decisions (which may have been influenced by others) without the ability to check up on them.
Not entirely, if the cameras were better set up and offered better angles, like other cups, then the situation could have been cleared up a lot easier.
Fair point. I'm just going by their reactions and what others have said. The judges would have to be asked...
Overall, I don't really care. Competition climbing doesn't interest me very much. But having watched the footage I thought it was crazy that such a big competition was ran where occurrences such as this could happen, with elements of doubt.
The commentators didn't have a clue what had happened(they thought she was on the wrong starting handholds). And upon finding out what happened, they found no way to check it due to there being a single camera angle available.
Pretty nuts if you ask me...
> Weren't used by who? The webcast camera had a single angle. You are assuming that the judges had the same viewpoint, partially obscured by a head. This is obviously not correct as you can see the judges on the mats have a totally unobstructed view. And totally ignoring the possibility of any other view points that are not in camera shot. Eg I am not in camera shot.
Obviously the judges had a clear view. But their reaction to someone, and then going over to Shauna suggests that they may have been alerted to it which may have affected their decision.
I'm not saying that she didn't touch the matting, she could well have done so. I'm saying that it's wrong, in my opinion, to make such big decisions (which may have been influenced by others) without the ability to check up on them.
> Absolutely irrelevant.
Not entirely, if the cameras were better set up and offered better angles, like other cups, then the situation could have been cleared up a lot easier.
> And how do you know this? Because someone wrote it on the web perhaps? Were you there, did you hear the voice from the grassy knoll?
Fair point. I'm just going by their reactions and what others have said. The judges would have to be asked...
Overall, I don't really care. Competition climbing doesn't interest me very much. But having watched the footage I thought it was crazy that such a big competition was ran where occurrences such as this could happen, with elements of doubt.
The commentators didn't have a clue what had happened(they thought she was on the wrong starting handholds). And upon finding out what happened, they found no way to check it due to there being a single camera angle available.
Pretty nuts if you ask me...
In reply to James Malloch:
I agree...
> (In reply to Graeme Alderson)
>
> (...) suggests (...) may (...) may (...) could (...) in my opinion, (...) may (...) if (...) could (...) just going by their reactions and what others have said. (...) would (...) I thought (...)
>
> (...) suggests (...) may (...) may (...) could (...) in my opinion, (...) may (...) if (...) could (...) just going by their reactions and what others have said. (...) would (...) I thought (...)
> Pretty nuts if you ask me...
I agree...
Post edited at 19:41
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I dunno. It's not completely out of order to ask for an explanation about what happened, and how it fits into the rules. Likewise, it's not ridiculous to suggest that video review is a good idea, and wasn't available in this case. Both things are expected in other sports after all.
Whilst I'm sure the right decision was made in this case, as the sport grows it's going to be more important for the right decisions to be *seen* to be made. I had some of the same questions as James after watching the event online...
I dunno. It's not completely out of order to ask for an explanation about what happened, and how it fits into the rules. Likewise, it's not ridiculous to suggest that video review is a good idea, and wasn't available in this case. Both things are expected in other sports after all.
Whilst I'm sure the right decision was made in this case, as the sport grows it's going to be more important for the right decisions to be *seen* to be made. I had some of the same questions as James after watching the event online...
In reply to rtinma:
I understand that my comments haven't been evidence based. But, correct me if I'm wrong, nothing has been shown to confirm the dab. Situations like this arise all the time in all sports, but they often come with more evidence.
I just find it strange that such a big decision comes with no further explanation. By the video replay, the judges don't seem to react until they turn around. Will it be announced who made the decisions/call etc?
I've a lot of respect for officials and know how hard decisions can be. Not saying the decision is wrong, just that clarification would be nice to avoid the guess work. The only thing I've heard so far, again I may have missed things, is the commentator saying it was due to touching the mat and "someone shouts the judges who are there and says stop her for that".
Fair play for Shauna accepting it and moving on.
I understand that my comments haven't been evidence based. But, correct me if I'm wrong, nothing has been shown to confirm the dab. Situations like this arise all the time in all sports, but they often come with more evidence.
I just find it strange that such a big decision comes with no further explanation. By the video replay, the judges don't seem to react until they turn around. Will it be announced who made the decisions/call etc?
I've a lot of respect for officials and know how hard decisions can be. Not saying the decision is wrong, just that clarification would be nice to avoid the guess work. The only thing I've heard so far, again I may have missed things, is the commentator saying it was due to touching the mat and "someone shouts the judges who are there and says stop her for that".
Fair play for Shauna accepting it and moving on.
In reply to James Malloch:
I love the energy people put into things they don't care about these days. If only we could harness that for things we do care about!
> Overall, I don't really care. Competition climbing doesn't interest me very much.
I love the energy people put into things they don't care about these days. If only we could harness that for things we do care about!
In reply to rtinma:
I understood that there was other, local, TV footage, showing other angles than that available on the ifsc stream, which did confirm the dab.
I understood that there was other, local, TV footage, showing other angles than that available on the ifsc stream, which did confirm the dab.
In reply to iccle_bully:
This would be the information I would put out. If this is indeed the case I'm surprised a comment hasn't been made along the lines of...
Our coverage wasn't conclusive but after reviewing footage from other organisations, it was apparent that Shauna's foot did touch the mats on her first attempt.
Problem solved, everyone is happy, no questions asked.
This would be the information I would put out. If this is indeed the case I'm surprised a comment hasn't been made along the lines of...
Our coverage wasn't conclusive but after reviewing footage from other organisations, it was apparent that Shauna's foot did touch the mats on her first attempt.
Problem solved, everyone is happy, no questions asked.
In reply to JJL:
Correct answer. I would still like to know who influenced the judge to make the call on something he/she didn't see. The result might have been right but the process seems flawed.
Correct answer. I would still like to know who influenced the judge to make the call on something he/she didn't see. The result might have been right but the process seems flawed.
In reply to rtinma:
I a true spotting world, Shauna herself would have pointed out she'd made the dab.
> Correct answer. I would still like to know who influenced the judge to make the call on something he/she didn't see. The result might have been right but the process seems flawed.
I a true spotting world, Shauna herself would have pointed out she'd made the dab.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Is it not pretty poor route setting that results in a situation where a dab can occur.
I know it's all artificial anyway, but this just seems like (yet another) way of making life harder for those with longer limbs
Is it not pretty poor route setting that results in a situation where a dab can occur.
I know it's all artificial anyway, but this just seems like (yet another) way of making life harder for those with longer limbs
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Yeah the route setting was poor according to the participants. But that was down to lack of time for routesetting.
A good interview with Shauna about this.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/shauna-coxsey-within-sight-of-gold-in-azerbaijan
As to the question about the dab to re-iterate:
Did any of the judges see the dab themselves or was it only spotted by someone else? It couldn't have been pointed out and then spotted since it would have only been a fraction of a second.
Yeah the route setting was poor according to the participants. But that was down to lack of time for routesetting.
A good interview with Shauna about this.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/shauna-coxsey-within-sight-of-gold-in-azerbaijan
As to the question about the dab to re-iterate:
Did any of the judges see the dab themselves or was it only spotted by someone else? It couldn't have been pointed out and then spotted since it would have only been a fraction of a second.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
One question:
Did you see Shauna's dab?
Edit: It's odd you haven't come out and just said. She dabbed on the mat, it happened, fair decision.
One question:
Did you see Shauna's dab?
Edit: It's odd you haven't come out and just said. She dabbed on the mat, it happened, fair decision.
Post edited at 16:07
In reply to stp:
It's interesting that Shauna didn't feel the dreaded dab. Surely she would be the first to know. A bit like a batsman who has edged a catch.
It's interesting that Shauna didn't feel the dreaded dab. Surely she would be the first to know. A bit like a batsman who has edged a catch.
In reply to rtinma:
It's easy to brush a mat without knowing, especially if you're focussed and concentrating.
It's easy to brush a mat without knowing, especially if you're focussed and concentrating.
In reply to stp:
After meeting with the IFSC this afternoon I can say that apparently 3 judges all saw the dab. So it was a pretty clean cut decision. Still a major bummer of course but that's the way it goes.
After meeting with the IFSC this afternoon I can say that apparently 3 judges all saw the dab. So it was a pretty clean cut decision. Still a major bummer of course but that's the way it goes.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...