Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
started by human who is not the ref.
stopped by the lights on the box. there are a few issues right now. The most valid appeal the Korean coach has is the addition of the extra second by the ref. The most valid point the Germans have is that it WAS awarded and that, regardless of human ear-hand coordination, the machine is right. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Did I imagine the clock read zero briefly and was then reset to 1 second? That would explain why 3 actions could occur in 1 second. But heh the 1 second was put back on and the German won. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
Two options
- allow her to keep an active appeal, and move her to another piste. Start the other semi-. - move the next semi- to one of the other 4 pistes, while she legitimately keeps the appeal active. Appealing errors must be legitimate behaviour for a fencer. Appealing time-keeping errors must surely be a valid appeal. Appealing for things that are not addressed in the rules because they are so rare has to be a legitimate behaviour for a fencer. (I'm not saying the appeal should necessarily succeed - but she should have the right to appeal a clear system error.) |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|