At the Tokyo Olympics, Mutaz Essa Barshim and Gianmarco Tamberi finished tied for first in the men's high jump. They were given two options--have a jump-off for the gold or share the medal. It was an easy decision for the good friends. They decided to share the gold medal.
The same thing happened earlier this week in the women's pole vault at the World Championships. Both Katie Moon and Nina Kennedy cleared 16'0 3/4 on their third attempt, then missed all three jumps at the next height. They each had one miss at the earlier heights, so they were dead even. They were given the same option that Barshim and Tamberi had in Tokyo. It wasn't a hard decision for Moon and Kennedy, either. Rather than having a jump-off, they shared the gold.
For the athletes, it's probably not that hard a decision at all. Why would they want to keep jumping when they just missed three times at what would've been the winning height, especially after having competed for several hours already? And why give up a guaranteed gold medal for the chance to potentially have to settle for silver? It's better to be a co-champion than finish second.
Both Moon and Kennedy have taken some criticism over the past couple days since the tie. Katie even took to Instagram to explain her side of the situation and how it was actually a no-brainer for her. That will hopefully relieve some of the heat. And, frankly, if I was in her shoes, I probably would've done the exact same thing. On the day, they were both the best and both deserved to be champions.
My problem is not with the tie itself. I don't blame the athletes for their decision one bit. Especially since Barshim and Tamberi are good friends (Tamberi was the best man in Barshim's wedding). So are Moon and Kennedy. Sharing a gold medal with a friend probably made the decision that much easier. No, my issue is with the fact that it was up to the athletes at all.
It's only in the high jump and pole vault where they even have an option. If there's a tie in the vertical jumps or throws, they go to the athlete's second-best mark. In the running events, there's a meticulous review of the photo finish to see whose body crossed the line first. Sometimes they'll even be given the same time, but won't be given the same place. (Although, there was a tie for the final time qualifier for the women's 100 final in Budapest, so they just advanced both of them since there are nine lanes on the track.)
There's a tiebreaking procedure in the high jump and pole vault, too. They jump a fourth time at the final height, then, if they both miss again, the bar moves down. If they both make it, the bar moves up. This continues until one makes and the other misses. Yes, it's sudden death. And, yes, it sounds very tiring. Especially when they're already spent from having already been jumping for several hours. But it's still the tiebreaker they have.
So, if they have the tiebreaker, why don't they use it? Why leave it up to the athletes? Especially when they'd be idiots not to opt for the tie. Beyond that, though, how come only high jumpers and pole vaulters get the option? In every other event, the tiebreaker is applied automatically. Why should it be any different in the two horizontal jumps? (Yes, you're taking your life in your hands in the pole vault, and, yes, the horizontal jumps are the only events where you deliberately attempt a certain mark, but that's not the point.)
Granted, a jump-off isn't necessarily the perfect solution. But neither is the shootout in hockey or penalty kicks in soccer. And you can't possibly argue that the penalty kicks didn't produce all sorts of drama in the Australia-France and Sweden-USA games at the Women's World Cup, Australia-France especially! So, maybe instead of having them continue jumping, which they understandably won't want to do for a number of reasons, another type of tiebreaker could be implemented.
In the pole vault and high jump, they go back to the previous height. If they both cleared on the same attempt at that height, it goes to total misses throughout the competition. It doesn't matter when they occurred. So, a third-attempt clearance at a higher height counts the same as two second-attempt clearances at lower heights.
Because those early misses often come into play, we often see the "passing game," where athletes will forego their remaining attempts at a height they haven't cleared, move the bar up, and use them at the next height. That's usually a strategic ploy where they don't want to waste an attempt when clearing that height won't improve their position, while clearing the next height will potentially move them up while also putting the pressure on their competitors. Sometimes we'll also see early passes to either save their legs or because the better jumpers simply don't see the need to attempt the first few heights that they'll clear easily.
Passes don't hurt you, and they reduce the total number of attempts you take throughout the event. However, passing also means you didn't clear a particular height. Obviously, that's a risk they're willing to take, since they're only given credit for the heights they clear. I appreciate the strategy that goes into passing most of the time, so I don't think athletes should be penalized for them. But I do think there's something to be said about clearing each height in the progression. That's why I think that should be your tiebreaker.
If two athletes cleared the same height and are tied on countback, don't have a jump off and don't go to total attempts throughout the entire competition. Go to number of heights cleared. If there were seven total heights in the competition and one cleared six, but the other only cleared five, the jumper who had the six successful attempts gets the higher place. You can still pass, but that adds another element of risk to it if choosing to pass (and, thus, not clearing a particular height) is factored into the tiebreakers.
Is there a better way than the solution I just proposed? Perhaps. There's also nothing wrong with the jump off. But if you're gonna have a tiebreaker, use it! And don't leave it up to the athletes. Because, if you do, we all know exactly what decision they'll make. It'll be the same one Mutaz Essa Barshim and Gianmarco Tamberi made in Tokyo and Katie Moon and Nina Kennedy made in Budapest. We'll have co-champions in the only two events where that's even possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment