[OT] Olympic gold medal flap vs. Fifth Down game

[billhoward]

In the fall of 1940, an unbeaten Cornell team headed for a possible national championship got a fifth down attempt in the rain and cold and confusion over a replayed penalty at Darmouth in the final minute, scored, and won 7-3. When the fifth down became clear only after the game, Cornell quickly conceded, even though the game was officially in the record books.

Sixty-four years later, a judging mistake in setting the value of the opening routine turns a South Korean's effort to bronze from likely gold, and Paul Hamm wins. The U.S. coaches say mistakes happen all the time, his family says it worries about the stress affecting his future, the U.S. allows as how it might be okay to award a second gold.

This was not a clear mathmatical mistake like a judge transcribing a 9.6 as 9.5, but it's definitely not a judge missing a slip of the hand on the bar and scoring a 9.5 as a 9.6, the kind of judgmental errors that happen all the time in all sports (strike three on the corner, the missed high sticking call). It got the judges suspended.

But too many people seem concerned about people's feelings rather than doing what is right. Sheesh.

[CUlater 89]

Hamm's situation is not as clear cut as the Fifth Down (although even that wasn't totally clear cut).  In the Fifth Down game, if the ball had been turned over on downs as should have happened, the game would have been over, as there were three seconds to go after the fourth down play.  Baring a fumble on the last snap, that would have been it.

For Hamm's situation, the incorrect score came before the last rotation (in the fifth of the six rotations), meaning that Hamm, Yang Tae-young and the other gymnasts might have performed differently in the last rotation, with more or less pressure or knowing they needed a certain score to advance in the rankings.  In other words, I don't think it is a simple as adding an extra tenth and recalculating.

That said, I do think both South Koreans got hosed a little on some of the rotations (although that's not a factor in this issue) and that Hamm should be handling this a little a better in public (i.e. in front of the media).

[Al DeFlorio]

I think the issue is complicated by the fact that the judges' error did not occur on the last exercise or even the meet-ending apparatus for the three gymnasts involved (IIRC).  In contrast, the fifth-down came on the last play of the game.  It's pretty clear that, if that last play had not been taken, Dartmouth would have won.

But all three gymnasts went into the floor exercise with an understanding of what their relative scores were--even if one of those scores, we now know with the benefit of hindsight, should have been higher.  Who knows what impact it would have had if the one Korean's overall score had been one-tenth higher going into the final exercise?  

Maybe he would have done a safer routine, taken fewer chances, and scored lower.  Or maybe with a safer routine he would have been flawless and scored higher.  Hamm knew he needed a certain score to win the gold, and he beat it.  Perhaps, had he known he needed a higher score, he would have done something differently to achieve it.  Perhaps, in attempting such, he would have landed on his head and fallen out of the medal picture.  

It seems to me no one can say what would have happened differently had the correct score been awarded on the prior apparatus.  It's like saying if Palahicky's goal had been allowed in Buffalo the game would have gone into overtime at 3-3.  Well, who knows how the rest of the game would have played out had the goal been allowed and the game continued without the lengthy delay and a 1-0 Cornell lead?

I think the gymnastics and fifth-down situations are a bit different.  Yes, it really is unfortunate that this happened, and I wouldn't be concerned or surprised if the Korean's final position was elevated.  But Hamm did what the circumstances--as he knew them to be at the time--required him to do to get his gold, and I don't think he should have it taken away or tarnished in any fashion.

[nyc94]

In the fall of 1990 they gave out plastic cups at the Dartmouth game commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Fifth Down Game.  That fall also saw Colorado beat Missouri on a fifth down, last-play-of-the-game touchdown.  They kept the W by blaming it on the officials.  I suppose the difference in their record could have had huge financial consequences by affecting what bowl game they went to and as it turned out I believe they went on to win the national title game.  As we lost the Dartmouth game we could at least spend an afternoon congratulating ourselves on Cornell's morals and ethics.

[CUlater 89]

I agree with what Al wrote in his last paragraph.  It's important to distinguish between what the gymnastics officials should do here and what Hamm's obligation might be.  The gymnastics officials' employees were the ones who made the mistake and I would be perfectly fine with awarding a second gold medal, if that's what the governing body decides is appropriate to make up for its mistake.  But Hamm should be under no moral obligation to hand over his medal (and if he did, would the other South Korean gymnast give up his silver medal to Hamm?).  Because, IMHO, it's a stretch to say that had the error not occurred, the ultimate result would have matched the expected mathematical result, no one should be pressuring Hamm to concede.

It would, however, be nice to hear Hamm express his sympathies and wish that it had never happened so the medal could have been decided "on the mat."

The thing that bothers me about this is that I suspect it is tarnishing Hamm's image and achievement a little bit, when he really should be praised for overcoming his faulty vault and finishing first, when no one, not even him, thought he had a chance.  That's the true American spirit (and a Wheaties box image).

[Al DeFlorio]

I concur with CUlater's comments about Hamm's reaction to the flap and nyc94's concluding sentence above.

Bob Kane was acting AD in 1940 (Jim Lynah was serving on the National Defense Commission in Washington, DC), watched the films, and told both Lynah and President Day what had happened.  According to Kane, Day immediately said "Only thing to do is concede."  Kane quotes Coach Snavely as saying:  "We scored on a fifth down and on a play when we should not have had the ball in our possession.  And it was the last play of the game so nothing could have happened after that."

During my time on the hill, Brown coach Jim Fullerton pulled his team off the ice at Lynah in response to "inept officiating" (everything old is new again) thereby forfeiting the game to Cornell, 1-0.  Kane went into the Brown dressing room with Cornell coach Paul Patten and cajoled Fullerton into continuing the game, and then had to talk the referee into withdrawing the forfeit.  Brown went on to win 2-1.

[billhoward]

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:The thing that bothers me about this is that I suspect it is tarnishing Hamm's image and achievement a little bit, when he really should be praised for overcoming his faulty vault and finishing first, when no one, not even him, thought he had a chance.  [/q]
We've only seen the story as played through the up close and personal eyes of NBC, plus published reports. But what I heard suggests that once having been named the gold medalist, there were was no desire to back down, no desire to suggest that if there was a judges' mistake, that the medal belongs to the gymnast or gymnasts who performed best, and maybe then Yang Tae Yung brightly says, "Well, it belongs to both of us." If Hamm steps back now, it either looks calculating, or it looks as if he didn't have reflexive good and common sense to act immediately.

But wasn't it nice that Hamm's family says it "feel" for the South Korean?

[billhoward]

“Once again, we have living proof that the last amateurs left in Olympic sports are the people running them.” â€" Christine Brennan, USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2004-08-22-brennan-hamm_x.htm

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 In the fall of 1990 they gave out plastic cups at the Dartmouth game commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Fifth Down Game.  That fall also saw Colorado beat Missouri on a fifth down, last-play-of-the-game touchdown.  They kept the W by blaming it on the officials.  I suppose the difference in their record could have had huge financial consequences by affecting what bowl game they went to and as it turned out I believe they went on to win the national title game.  As we lost the Dartmouth game we could at least spend an afternoon congratulating ourselves on Cornell's morals and ethics.[/q]

IIRC, it was a little more complicated than that.  Colorado spiked the ball on what should have been fourth down to stop the clock, so if the officials had not incorrectly listed it as third down, Colorado would have run their last play then, but without the time to huddle up and organize it.

Also, there was no national championship game back then, and Colorado and Georgia Tech were each named national champions by one of the two polls.  (Although the network broadcasting the Colorado-Notre Dame game--which Colorado would have lost had a last-minute TD kick return by Raghib Ismail not been called  back for an illegal block--annoyingly put up a graphic declaring the Buffaloes national champions as soon as the game ended.)

[Give My Regards]

Nothing really to add to this discussion, but it does remind me of one of my favorite stories from Cornell's infamous fifth-down game.  The referee who screwed up the call was named Red (of all things) Friesell, and predictably he got a lot of sarcastic telegrams and letters from other teams' coaches and fans.  For example, the same weekend or shortly thereafter, Yale lost by something like 40-0, and Friesell got a wire along the lines of "DID WE REALLY LOSE?  CAN YOU HELP US OUT?"  And apparently, such taunts weren't limited to Ivy League schools -- or even colleges.

Taking note of the abuse Friesell was being subjected to, the Ivy League commissioner sent him a telegram of support:  "DON'T LET IT GET YOU DOWN.  DOWN.  DOWN.  DOWN.  DOWN."

[Tom \'06]

There is a new article at espn.com about the whole hamm gold medal mishap and some interesting points are brought up. It was said that video replay was used to determine that  the event in question was worthy of a 10.0 difficulty instead of a 9.9. However, in replaying the event by use of replay, they opened a can of worms. If they used the replay to add a tenth to his score then it would be fair to look at his entire routine for any errors that were not picked up by the judges at the time.  This is just a bad situation that there probably is no right answer too, and probably more complicated than that 5th down game

[billhoward]

That's the point of EM Swift's column in CNN/SI, as well. The replay purports to show one more hand hold on the bar (for the Korean bronze medalist) than allowed.

But still: the initial-score-setting mistake was bad enough to get the judges bounced ... but not enough to rethink the outcome of the event looking only at that one significant mistake?

I bet within the decade we do have judges reviewing video of events to pick up bobbles in ice skating and gymnastics routines. If everybody makes two minor slips per event that judges don't pick up on, then the ranking remains the same. But if one guy only makes one unnoticed mistake and two others make three unnoticed mistakes, then the scoring would change.

Cornell had the outcome of the 2003 NCAA semi against UNH changed, possibly, by video review of the goals, but if the review is more correct (or it underscores the officials' initial call) then it makes for a fairer game. Maybe a computer-aided vision system should be calling balls and strikes, under the direction of an umpire still. Or maybe a team gets three appeals per game.

[ninian '72]

USA Today has some additional insights from the US coaches on this situation:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/gymnastics/2004-08-23-coach-comments_x.htm

It appears that there were some addiitional officials errors on the routine of the Korean in question and also in timely filing of appeals by the Korean squad.  

There's no clear resolution to this, other than to adhere to the rules of the sport, which are  designed to avoid endless controversy of this type.  It's not at all clear that had the officials done their job perfectly that the outcome would have been any different.  The overriding consideration here is that  the rules specify a window for filing appeals, and the Koreans missed it.  Whatever you think about the outcome, barring the kind of rigging we saw in skating competitions in Salt Lake, the rules were followed, the window closed, and it's time to move on.  Officials - even at this level - make mistakes.  Unfortunately, it's part of any sport involving judges, and it's a misfortune competitors occasionally have to live with.

There was a very similar situation with the Aaron Piersol backstroke swim involving the disputed DQ.  Based on what this swim official's eyes saw, it did look like the turn in question was illegal - two quick flutter kicks after he had rotated onto his stomach with his arms were fully down at his sides, before he started his turn.  Amazing that a swimmer of this caliber could make such a mistake.  However, the DQ was rejected because it wasn't filed properly.  (Write up wasn't in English, and inconsistent information about the nature of the DQ. ) It hurts, but this was the correct decision by the referee.  The benefit of the doubt always goes to the swimmer,  when the DQ isn't clear cut.  There's no instant replay in swimming to help resolve this kind of discrepancy.   Too bad for the other swimmers, but again there have to be established procedures to resolve ambiguous situations, make the call, and move on.

It's a lot more fun to pick on hockey referees.  Maybe it's time to end this thread.  :-)

[KeithK]

Video replay in sports opens up a huge can of worms.  The fact is it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get everything completely right even with replay.  After a point you end up wasting time trying to get there.  Using video to check something that's very concrete (e.g. did the puck go in the net?  did he get his feet down in bounds) makes some sense, if it can be implemented so it works quickly.  But once you start looking at things that are more subjective - did he have control of the ball when his feet touched down before going out of bounds? - you're kidding yourself if you think replay is the answer to making everything "right" and "fair".

I dread the thought of computerized balls and strikes.  

[ninian '72]

On the money, Keith.  Part of the problem is also a function of angles and telephoto/wide angle settings, which can distort the image in ways that make it tough to triangulate where the action actually is/was.  You're also at the mercy of the cameramen being astute enough to capture all of the questionable activity on the field.