2020 Summer Olympics

[mgk920]

Funny that Hawaii hasn't complained about being a part of the US over the past 100 years where American tourism has been the backbone of their economy, but now that there's a chance for Olympic recognition, suddenly the annexation was against their will.

Not to mention that if Hawaii was still independent right now, Russia and/or China would be knocking at their door. I'm not saying the US didn't pull any shady shit during the annexation, but if I were a native, I'd be pretty damn relieved to be part of the US right now.

If we followed their logic, there would be 50 different US Olympic teams.

Not only that, but Hawaii would have been one of the first counties to have been invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in the 1930s (think of how they would have been opposed if the USA's War and Navy Departments would have been limited to mainland west coast USA bases and ports).

The USA has been very, very good for Hawaii.

Mike

[kphoger]

Not only are there two Chinas, but there's also a ROC, which is a form of China in every context except the Olympics.

This keeps confusing me, too.  When I see "ROC" with no flag next to it, my first thought is always China.

[Rothman]

Funny that Hawaii hasn't complained about being a part of the US over the past 100 years where American tourism has been the backbone of their economy, but now that there's a chance for Olympic recognition, suddenly the annexation was against their will.

Not to mention that if Hawaii was still independent right now, Russia and/or China would be knocking at their door. I'm not saying the US didn't pull any shady shit during the annexation, but if I were a native, I'd be pretty damn relieved to be part of the US right now.

If we followed their logic, there would be 50 different US Olympic teams.

Not only that, but Hawaii would have been one of the first counties to have been invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in the 1930s (think of how they would have been opposed if the USA's War and Navy Departments would have been limited to mainland west coast USA bases and ports).

The USA has been very, very good for Hawaii.

Mike

Heh.  "If you think we're bad, just look who you could have ended up with" is not the most compelling argument.

I do wonder what percentage of current residents are still wanting independence, though.

[kenarmy]

Funny that Hawaii hasn't complained about being a part of the US over the past 100 years where American tourism has been the backbone of their economy, but now that there's a chance for Olympic recognition, suddenly the annexation was against their will.

Not to mention that if Hawaii was still independent right now, Russia and/or China would be knocking at their door. I'm not saying the US didn't pull any shady shit during the annexation, but if I were a native, I'd be pretty damn relieved to be part of the US right now.

If we followed their logic, there would be 50 different US Olympic teams.

Not only that, but Hawaii would have been one of the first counties to have been invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in the 1930s (think of how they would have been opposed if the USA's War and Navy Departments would have been limited to mainland west coast USA bases and ports).

The USA has been very, very good for Hawaii.

Mike

Do you really think that could happen without US and UK interference, even if it wasn't a state   ... (not to mention they already controlled Pearl Harbor before they "annexed"  it.)
Anyway, I dont see a problem with Hawaii, Alaska, and the other colonies territories having separate teams.

[LM117]

Funny that Hawaii hasn't complained about being a part of the US over the past 100 years where American tourism has been the backbone of their economy, but now that there's a chance for Olympic recognition, suddenly the annexation was against their will.

Not to mention that if Hawaii was still independent right now, Russia and/or China would be knocking at their door. I'm not saying the US didn't pull any shady shit during the annexation, but if I were a native, I'd be pretty damn relieved to be part of the US right now.

If we followed their logic, there would be 50 different US Olympic teams.

Not only that, but Hawaii would have been one of the first counties to have been invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in the 1930s (think of how they would have been opposed if the USA's War and Navy Departments would have been limited to mainland west coast USA bases and ports).

The USA has been very, very good for Hawaii.

Mike

Heh.  "If you think we're bad, just look who you could have ended up with" is not the most compelling argument.

It works in other romantic relationships, so why not this one?

[hbelkins]

Admittedly, I don't follow Olympic sports, and I actually had never heard of Simone Biles until the current controversy, but I think I saw today that the scoring system had been changed to hurt her because she was too good. Can that possibly be true? Wouldn't that be like raising the basketball goal a foot every time Manute Bol got the ball? You change the scoring for an individual athlete to make it harder for them to win?

Of course, I'm not crazy about competitions where the judging is subjective, rather than based on objective criteria such as the number of runs crossing the plate, the fastest time to run a certain distance, the farthest to throw a javelin, etc. But this just doesn't seem right.

[Roadgeekteen]

Funny that Hawaii hasn't complained about being a part of the US over the past 100 years where American tourism has been the backbone of their economy, but now that there's a chance for Olympic recognition, suddenly the annexation was against their will.

Not to mention that if Hawaii was still independent right now, Russia and/or China would be knocking at their door. I'm not saying the US didn't pull any shady shit during the annexation, but if I were a native, I'd be pretty damn relieved to be part of the US right now.

If we followed their logic, there would be 50 different US Olympic teams.

Not only that, but Hawaii would have been one of the first counties to have been invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire in the 1930s (think of how they would have been opposed if the USA's War and Navy Departments would have been limited to mainland west coast USA bases and ports).

The USA has been very, very good for Hawaii.

Mike

Do you really think that could happen without US and UK interference, even if it wasn't a state   ... (not to mention they already controlled Pearl Harbor before they "annexed"  it.)
Anyway, I dont see a problem with Hawaii, Alaska, and the other colonies territories having separate teams.

Split the US team into 50 different teams

[kphoger]

Split the US team into 50 different teams

Because Delaware became part of the USA by hostile takeover?

[Roadgeekteen]

Split the US team into 50 different teams

Because Delaware became part of the USA by hostile takeover?

Technically it used to belong to the Natives.

[LM117]

The latest on Simone Biles.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/olympics/what-are-twisties-simone-biles-explains-gymnastics-struggle-tokyo-olympics-n1275460

[english si]

This keeps confusing me, too.  When I see "ROC" with no flag next to it, my first thought is always China.

Ditto (real China, not that CCCP-occupied version)

Admittedly, I don't follow Olympic sports, and I actually had never heard of Simone Biles until the current controversy, but I think I saw today that the scoring system had been changed to hurt her because she was too good. Can that possibly be true?

Its not, but because she typically competes on another level, the sport has struggled with where to set her moves on the difficulty level.

There is the perception that they have lowballed the difficulty of these moves as it is hard to work out how hard moves that only one person can actually do. They are still scored significantly higher than other routines, and Biles can rank highly, if not top, despite getting penalties and not great execution marks (as seen in qualifying, where she literally fell off the floor and still came second highest on that equipment despite the penalty for that alongside having one of the lower execution scores of those who qualified).

Of course, I'm not crazy about competitions where the judging is subjective, rather than based on objective criteria such as the number of runs crossing the plate, the fastest time to run a certain distance, the farthest to throw a javelin, etc. But this just doesn't seem right.

It's not subjective - there's perhaps room for interpretation, but there's mitigation of that. The difficulty ratings are pre-set and the competitors choose what moves they go for - arguably more objective than saying "I'll take x for $y" on Jeopardy, as you already know how difficult the move is and whether its worth that amount of points. Biles, if she wanted to, could play it safer and choose an easier difficulty routine that and execute it near flawlessly, rather than go big, get undermarked on the difficulty, and do it 'merely' alright.

And the execution marking is very objective stuff like "where the feet together, legs straight", etc.

Its no more subjective than "did the ball cross the line" in football* - which is something that the people judging it often find difficult to work out and there's subjective interpretations of video replays and the like despite the perfectly objective criteria. Earlier today the Australian women's Rugby Sevens team performed an illegal forward pass that lead to a scoring play and the refs missed it (though it didn't matter as they lost anyway) despite the judging criteria being perfectly objective. Even stuff where travelling a distance in the fastest time has objective rules and subjective judgements - eg Hamilton's racing penalty in the British Grand Prix. Javelins are judged on where the judges think they landed - again, objective criteria, subjective judgements.

*all kinds - and even the goal line technology in association football, which is as objective as possible, errs occasionally as it doesn't think the ball has crossed the line when it has. There was a case when it failed in the EPL.

[hotdogPi]

(real China, not that CCCP-occupied version)

Do you mean CCP? CCCP is the Soviet Union.

[english si]

Do you mean CCP? CCCP is the Soviet Union.

I did, but the former are only there because of the latter. The Split changed things, but just as they did in Eastern Europe post-WW2, the Soviets did the same in the Japanese Empire after it collapsed.

[kphoger]

Of course, I'm not crazy about competitions where the judging is subjective, rather than based on objective criteria such as the number of runs crossing the plate, the fastest time to run a certain distance, the farthest to throw a javelin, etc. But this just doesn't seem right.

It's not subjective - there's perhaps room for interpretation, but there's mitigation of that. The difficulty ratings are pre-set and the competitors choose what moves they go for - arguably more objective than saying "I'll take x for $y" on Jeopardy, as you already know how difficult the move is and whether its worth that amount of points. Biles, if she wanted to, could play it safer and choose an easier difficulty routine that and execute it near flawlessly, rather than go big, get undermarked on the difficulty, and do it 'merely' alright.

And the execution marking is very objective stuff like "where the feet together, legs straight", etc.

Its no more subjective than "did the ball cross the line" in football* - which is something that the people judging it often find difficult to work out and there's subjective interpretations of video replays and the like despite the perfectly objective criteria. Earlier today the Australian women's Rugby Sevens team performed an illegal forward pass that lead to a scoring play and the refs missed it (though it didn't matter as they lost anyway) despite the judging criteria being perfectly objective. Even stuff where travelling a distance in the fastest time has objective rules and subjective judgements - eg Hamilton's racing penalty in the British Grand Prix. Javelins are judged on where the judges think they landed - again, objective criteria, subjective judgements.

*all kinds - and even the goal line technology in association football, which is as objective as possible, errs occasionally as it doesn't think the ball has crossed the line when it has. There was a case when it failed in the EPL.

Just look at American football, which on the surface appears more 'objective' than gymnastics.  Yet how many rules are there about actually playing the game, and how many rules are there about penalties?  I'd argue that the penalties are at least as important as the actual game play.  And a lot of those penalties are subjective.

Or look at fouling in basketball.  Is that 'objective'?

Or how about that 'number of runs crossing the plate' sport–baseball?  Tell me, what is the definition of a 'wild pitch'?  According to the MLB definition, it is one 'so errant that the catcher is unable to control it and, as a result, baserunner(s) advance'.  If a pitch is intentionally thrown low into the dirt, then that pitch being 'wild' or not depends on how well the catcher can field it.  This is all rather squirrelly, as it can mean the difference between an out and an advance to first base.  But, of course, that's OK, because sports have subjectivity built in.

[hotdogPi]

Tell me, what is the definition of a 'wild pitch'?  According to the MLB definition, it is one 'so errant that the catcher is unable to control it and, as a result, baserunner(s) advance'.  If a pitch is intentionally thrown low into the dirt, then that pitch being 'wild' or not depends on how well the catcher can field it.  This is all rather squirrelly, as it can mean the difference between an out and an advance to first base.  But, of course, that's OK, because sports have subjectivity built in.

This only affects statistics. The baserunners can run at any time, but they risk getting out if they do so at a time when it only delays the catcher for a second or two.

[triplemultiplex]

Tell me, what is the definition of a 'wild pitch'?  According to the MLB definition, it is one 'so errant that the catcher is unable to control it and, as a result, baserunner(s) advance'.  If a pitch is intentionally thrown low into the dirt, then that pitch being 'wild' or not depends on how well the catcher can field it.  This is all rather squirrelly, as it can mean the difference between an out and an advance to first base.  But, of course, that's OK, because sports have subjectivity built in.

In practice, any pitch that hits the dirt before it gets to the catcher is scored a wild pitch.
Or if it's "just a bit outside":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_wc9JvTXGc

[kphoger]

Tell me, what is the definition of a 'wild pitch'?  According to the MLB definition, it is one 'so errant that the catcher is unable to control it and, as a result, baserunner(s) advance'.  If a pitch is intentionally thrown low into the dirt, then that pitch being 'wild' or not depends on how well the catcher can field it.  This is all rather squirrelly, as it can mean the difference between an out and an advance to first base.  But, of course, that's OK, because sports have subjectivity built in.

This only affects statistics. The baserunners can run at any time, but they risk getting out if they do so at a time when it only delays the catcher for a second or two.

If it's on the third strike, and nobody is on first base, then doesn't the batter get to advance to first base if the pitch is declared 'wild', even though it's called a strike?

[hotdogPi]

Tell me, what is the definition of a 'wild pitch'?  According to the MLB definition, it is one 'so errant that the catcher is unable to control it and, as a result, baserunner(s) advance'.  If a pitch is intentionally thrown low into the dirt, then that pitch being 'wild' or not depends on how well the catcher can field it.  This is all rather squirrelly, as it can mean the difference between an out and an advance to first base.  But, of course, that's OK, because sports have subjectivity built in.

This only affects statistics. The baserunners can run at any time, but they risk getting out if they do so at a time when it only delays the catcher for a second or two.

If it's on the third strike, and nobody is on first base, then doesn't the batter get to advance to first base if the pitch is declared 'wild', even though it's called a strike?

It's not automatic. The batter can still be put out if the catcher grabs the ball and throws it quickly enough.

[kphoger]

Well, either way, it can be the difference between an out and a man on first.

[hotdogPi]

Well, either way, it can be the difference between an out and a man on first.

That's entirely determined by whether the catcher is quick enough. The call of a wild pitch means nothing.

[hbelkins]

The only thing subjective about an errant pitch is the determination of whether it's a wild pitch or a passed ball. One puts the blame on the pitcher; the other, the catcher.

[wanderer2575]

The Polish Swimming Federation selected 23 members for its team -- but only 17 are allowed, so six were pulled off the team and sent home.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2021/07/20/poland-swimmers-sent-home-tokyo-olympics-country-sent-too-many/8023981002/

Now ten athletes from Nigeria have been bounced because the Athletics Federation of Nigeria screwed up and did not comply with drug testing requirements prior to the Games (no Nigerian athlete had actually tested positive).
https://www.bbc.com/sport/africa/58010359

Can you imagine training for years and then not being able to compete at all because of someone else's bureaucratic screwup?

[english si]

Just look at American football, which on the surface appears more 'objective' than gymnastics.  Yet how many rules are there about actually playing the game, and how many rules are there about penalties?  I'd argue that the penalties are at least as important as the actual game play.  And a lot of those penalties are subjective.

Certainly. My point, however, wasn't going for those more obviously subjective things, but rather pointing out that something that seems very not-up-for interpretation "has the ball crossed the line" is sometimes very subjective. There's often debate among the officials about whether its a first down, or were they an inch short - remeasuring it with the chain, looking at video evidence, etc.

[Big John]

The American announcers don't know how to pronounce Qatar.

[Alps]

The American announcers don't know how to pronounce Qatar.

It's Equator without the E, right?