2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 17, 2016 5:21:50 GMT
Laura Trott, Chris Hoy and Chris Boardman thought he was gone. Not quite sure why not following the rules was not the right thing to do. Clearly went past the derny bike, which you can buy new for about £5-6k, whilst it was still on the track. That rule seems pretty straight forward to me. Fella got lucky, pleased he did.
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Aug 17, 2016 6:16:39 GMT
Fabulous fabulous night well done Team GB !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 7:13:38 GMT
Laura Trott, Chris Hoy and Chris Boardman thought he was gone. Not quite sure why not following the rules was not the right thing to do. Clearly went past the derny bike, which you can buy new for about £5-6k, whilst it was still on the track. That rule seems pretty straight forward to me. Fella got lucky, pleased he did. But it's not straight forward. It's not like the finish, where you can put a camera one side of the track and a marker the other to create a definitive fixed line that's precisely perpendicular to the track. The line behind the derny is a moving target so the judges don't have a straight-across-the-track view and that means they can't tell exactly where the line is, especially on the far side of the track where the parallax effects are magnified. Out of the pack of six there were clearly some who crossed that line and clearly some who didn't but it wasn't at all clear where the break between those two groups fell. It wouldn't be fair to penalise some people who broke the rule and not others, and it wouldn't be fair to risk penalising people who hadn't broken the rule at all. The only fair option was to start again. The race shouldn't depend on guesswork. The rule works for a case where someone breaks from the pack and speeds ahead but not for marginal cases. Short of changing the rule the only way I can think of solving it is to have a moving camera that runs alongside the derny the way the camera in the gymnastics vault does, except that as cycle events can be won by less than the width of a tyre the camera would have to track the rear edge of the derny's tyre to an accuracy of under a millimetre. That would be expensive. (Things like having a laser line projected on the track from the rear of the derny would be cheap but would require the derny to maintain a perfect line, which it obviously can't do as it starts to leave the track. And you still need a moving camera to eliminate parallax.) Yes, I have given this far more thought than I need to. It's an interesting problem. |
|
8,154 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alece10 on Aug 17, 2016 7:28:33 GMT
All I know is that I am so tired this morning as I should have been in bed by 10pm but just had to watch this. The cycling has turned out to be so exciting and I'm not even a fan.
I want one of those gurney bikes. You don't even hAve to pedal. That's my kind oF sport.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 17, 2016 17:35:17 GMT
Laura Trott, Chris Hoy and Chris Boardman thought he was gone. Not quite sure why not following the rules was not the right thing to do. Clearly went past the derny bike, which you can buy new for about £5-6k, whilst it was still on the track. That rule seems pretty straight forward to me. Fella got lucky, pleased he did. But it's not straight forward. It's not like the finish, where you can put a camera one side of the track and a marker the other to create a definitive fixed line that's precisely perpendicular to the track. The line behind the derny is a moving target so the judges don't have a straight-across-the-track view and that means they can't tell exactly where the line is, especially on the far side of the track where the parallax effects are magnified. Out of the pack of six there were clearly some who crossed that line and clearly some who didn't but it wasn't at all clear where the break between those two groups fell. It wouldn't be fair to penalise some people who broke the rule and not others, and it wouldn't be fair to risk penalising people who hadn't broken the rule at all. The only fair option was to start again. The race shouldn't depend on guesswork. The rule works for a case where someone breaks from the pack and speeds ahead but not for marginal cases. Short of changing the rule the only way I can think of solving it is to have a moving camera that runs alongside the derny the way the camera in the gymnastics vault does, except that as cycle events can be won by less than the width of a tyre the camera would have to track the rear edge of the derny's tyre to an accuracy of under a millimetre. That would be expensive. (Things like having a laser line projected on the track from the rear of the derny would be cheap but would require the derny to maintain a perfect line, which it obviously can't do as it starts to leave the track. And you still need a moving camera to eliminate parallax.) Yes, I have given this far more thought than I need to. It's an interesting problem. You've lost me. Is that code for he went passed the derny and got lucky? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 18:32:49 GMT
You've lost me. Is that code for he went passed the derny and got lucky? Sort of. They all started to set off a bit early and at least two of them were clearly in the wrong, but it could have been three because they were all in a tight group and it was impossible to say who was the first to break the rules. I suspect that the rules will be changed to formalise what actually happened: if it's not immediately obvious who broke the rules and who didn't then they just restart the race. I'm now watching the BMX seeding runs. It amazes me that they can make the long leaps and put the bike down right on the edge of the ramp as they land. If it was me I'd keep my wheels firmly on the ground and be perfectly happy with a time of five minutes instead of 35 seconds. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 17, 2016 19:23:58 GMT
Matthew, old friend, you should get out more. I just thought that if they disqualify anyone they will have a riot. Common sense was the winner.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 17, 2016 21:08:54 GMT
Matthew, old friend, you should get out more. I just thought that if they disqualify anyone they will have a riot. Common sense was the winner. Is it common sense if you come second to somebody who is the favourite and should have been disqualified?
I'd feel just as cheated as if I was Michael Conlan
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 4:53:48 GMT
Matthew, old friend, you should get out more. I just thought that if they disqualify anyone they will have a riot. Common sense was the winner. Is it common sense if you come second to somebody who is the favourite and should have been disqualified?
I'd feel just as cheated as if I was Michael Conlan
In the cycling nobody was cheated because the race was rerun. Nobody gained any advantage. To me that's the common sense thing to do, unlike the boxing, where the approach has been "We know the judges were wrong but we're not going to allow their decision to be questioned". (This "wrong decisions must not be overturned" policy is one of the things I hate about the Olympics. If judges are found to have made the wrong decision because they've been bribed then results are altered, but if they've made the wrong decision through incompetence then that's just fine.) In the cycling both the rules and the coverage of the track were insufficiently precise to allow anyone to be disqualified fairly, so restarting the race was the only option available. The judges were looking across the track diagonally, as was the camera. Parallax means that they could only tell whether someone was overlapping the derny at the same distance as the derny. For anyone further away they have no reference point. They can't just draw a line up the screen from the back of the derny because that line would correspond to an angled line on the track. Depending on the angle, someone actually passing the derny could appear to be behind it or someone actually behind could appear to be passing it. It's all a bit ridiculous to talk of disqualification anyway. The rule says "The riders shall remain immediately behind the pacer until such time as the pacer leaves the track", but the last five words are never precisely defined. Which part of the derny is the reference point? The front? The point where the rear tyre touches the ground? The rear point of the rear wheel? And is it when it enters the line at the edge of the track, when it crosses the centre of that line, or when it leaves? A race that can be won by thousands of a second is started by an event that's smeared out over a second or more. Unless someone is clearly trying to cheat it makes no sense to call for disqualification of a rider who makes an error smaller than the vagueness that's written into the rule itself. |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Aug 18, 2016 6:23:20 GMT
How good were our girls in the Hockey semi final win over New Zealand ! Cool cool cool 
another silver at least guaranteed  |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 18, 2016 17:09:36 GMT
Is it common sense if you come second to somebody who is the favourite and should have been disqualified?
I'd feel just as cheated as if I was Michael Conlan
In the cycling nobody was cheated because the race was rerun. Nobody gained any advantage. To me that's the common sense thing to do, unlike the boxing, where the approach has been "We know the judges were wrong but we're not going to allow their decision to be questioned". (This "wrong decisions must not be overturned" policy is one of the things I hate about the Olympics. If judges are found to have made the wrong decision because they've been bribed then results are altered, but if they've made the wrong decision through incompetence then that's just fine.) In the cycling both the rules and the coverage of the track were insufficiently precise to allow anyone to be disqualified fairly, so restarting the race was the only option available. The judges were looking across the track diagonally, as was the camera. Parallax means that they could only tell whether someone was overlapping the derny at the same distance as the derny. For anyone further away they have no reference point. They can't just draw a line up the screen from the back of the derny because that line would correspond to an angled line on the track. Depending on the angle, someone actually passing the derny could appear to be behind it or someone actually behind could appear to be passing it. It's all a bit ridiculous to talk of disqualification anyway. The rule says "The riders shall remain immediately behind the pacer until such time as the pacer leaves the track", but the last five words are never precisely defined. Which part of the derny is the reference point? The front? The point where the rear tyre touches the ground? The rear point of the rear wheel? And is it when it enters the line at the edge of the track, when it crosses the centre of that line, or when it leaves? A race that can be won by thousands of a second is started by an event that's smeared out over a second or more. Unless someone is clearly trying to cheat it makes no sense to call for disqualification of a rider who makes an error smaller than the vagueness that's written into the rule itself. I can't believe you have started again. I thought, and correct me if I am wrong you agreed Kenny went passed the back wheel of the derny and that you agreed that is a red card offence. There is no black and white here, if that is what you believe then he is a very lucky boy. Let's finish it and agree it is great he won his third gold medal of the games and that the Brownlee brothers and the womens hockey team amongst many, many are all great. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 18:36:20 GMT
I can't believe you have started again. I was under the impression that you wanted to understand why the judges acted correctly in not disqualifying anybody, and I was trying to explain it to you in the belief that you'd make an effort to follow what I'm saying. I can't believe you don't understand the issue here. There is no dispute that some of the riders overlapped the derny before it left the track. The issue here is that the judges couldn't determine how many riders overlapped the derny, and so there was no fair way they could choose who to disqualify. Do you not understand that when you have a diagonal view of a track you can't tell who's in front of whom? (At least, not without knowing the precise position and angle of the viewpoint and doing a lot of three-dimensional geometry, and they weren't set up for that.) Or do you not care if the wrong people get disqualified? I'm not denying he was lucky. What I'm trying to get across to you is that he was lucky because the rules are flawed and not because, as you put it, "the judges lost their bottle". Why do you think the commentators kept on saying that they'd have to change the rules once the Olympics were over? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 18:49:51 GMT
Don't you hate it when you come into an event just after something has happened and the commentary makes no mention of it? I caught the sailing just after the first boats had come in and they were saying that Brazil had won and they showed the boat and it was upside down, and they kept on talking and all I could do was watch and think "Are they just going to ignore the fact that the winners are the wrong way up?" And the answer is yes, they are.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 18, 2016 21:05:50 GMT
Gosh I love the taiquondo. Is that how you spell it? I think this sport would go down well in all UK primary school playgrounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 21:16:56 GMT
I found myself watching the boxing. I don't understand why someone would want to be a boxer. What are they thinking? "I quite like the idea of being punched in the face but the job of being Nigel Farage is already taken. I guess I'll take up boxing."
The handball and volleyball were both exciting, with quite an upset for the USA losing to Serbia by a narrow margin after taking an early lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 5:48:54 GMT
Another brilliant day for Team GB yesterday... So many golds! (And silvers and bronzes...) So proud of all these people, new winners and defenders of titles. But I am frustrated at the time difference this year- missing so many exciting, live events, but especially the athletics which we are finding out about the morning after.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 19, 2016 7:05:37 GMT
Gosh I love the taiquondo. Is that how you spell it? . Taekwondo, according to the Olympics, though I'm sure I have seen it written as Tae Kwon Do too. |
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Aug 19, 2016 7:30:19 GMT
Jade Jones what a star !
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 12:07:28 GMT
I'm watching the 50km Race Walk while I wait for the Rhythmic Gymnastics to start, and it occurs to me that if the rules said they all had to wear tuxedos then it would look like it was a penguin race. This must happen.
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by synchrony on Aug 19, 2016 12:29:24 GMT
I'm watching the 50km Race Walk while I wait for the Rhythmic Gymnastics to start, and it occurs to me that if the rules said they all had to wear tuxedos then it would look like it was a penguin race. This must happen. There's a Brompton Cycling World Championship with a compulsory dress code of suit jacket, shirt and tie (to reflect commuter attire) ;-). The race also starts with a sprint to your bike and unfolding it before cycling away. I believe many people take it very seriously and it attracts some high quality competitors. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 13:54:00 GMT
The sport I really love is the Rhythmic Gymnastics, but until digital TV came along it was almost never shown. I remember a few years ago I complained to the BBC about their lack of coverage of the RSG events and they said that they had to offer fair and balanced coverage. In this particular year the Rhythmics were the very last event of the Games. "Fair and balanced" apparently meant not broadcasting one single second of the only event still running on the last day and instead showing umpteen repeats of highlights from previous days. Surprise surprise, the BBC aren't showing the Rhythmic Gymnastics again. They were supposed to start showing it at 14:15, and 40 minutes later they still haven't left the canoeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 15:32:54 GMT
The US swimmers' saga had had enough twists and turns to make a good movie, which in time would make a good musical, I reckon.* Most bizarre!
Have everything crossed for our hockey girls later this evening... After winning every one of their seven matches to get into the final, can they be beaten?
(* Lots of opportunities for speedo clad chorus boys coming out of onstage swimming pools... )
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 19, 2016 20:10:45 GMT
What about the 'old' guy then on the horse?
Meanwhile I can't cope with the hockey......too tense. Going to see Sher's Lear tomorrow for some respite.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 19, 2016 21:02:05 GMT
Offside!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 21:41:32 GMT
I was finally able to catch the rhythmic gymnastics, though I had to watch most of it streamed. Relieved that France's Kseniya Moustafaeva just managed to qualify.
I wish the sport was more popular in the UK because then it might get better treatment, but it's not going to get better treatment until it gets more popular. It's a shame because it makes for better television than the artistic gymnastics, and generally requires far more grace and precision than the other gymnastic disciplines. The British championships used to be held not far from where I live so I was able to go there each year and ended up learning far more about it than I'd ever dreamt there was to know, right down to all the work each gymnast puts in to making her ribbon and the various techniques that can be used to retrieve an errant rope from a light fitting.
At least it was popular at the venue itself, with one of the largest audiences I've seen at these games. Here's hoping the BBC shows the finals.
|
|
