2nd August 2021
At a spare moment yesterday, I happened to turn on the television and I was quickly engrossed by the high jump final.
It was transfixing.
Anybody who watched the events unfold – as opposed to forming an opinion on the news afterwards – will understand how, in that dramatic moment, the resolution of the final made perfect sense.
The resolution, of course, was the shared gold medal.
Watch this video from beginning to end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb2gMh8_gF0
The result was absolutely appropriate for that exceptional sporting moment.
But.
Was it the right thing done against the rules?
No: it was done in accordance with the express rules of the sport.
Indeed, it would seem that the rules of the very event envisaged what could happen in the circumstances, see rule 26.8 generally and rule 26.8.4 in particular of the technical rules of world athletics.
If both jumpers were equal in that neither could clear 2.39 metres (and they could not be differentiated by rules 28.1, 28.2 or 28.3) then there could be a ‘jump-off’ or ‘if the relevant athletes at any stage decide not to jump further, the tie for first place shall remain’.
And this makes sense: if the jumpers have jumped the same height but cannot jump any higher then it is reasonable for the jumpers to jointly win.
*
So this was not an exercise in sportsmanship in breach of the rules – and still less a cynical exercise in gamesmanship.
This was an outcome that was envisaged by the rule-setters for that particular sport, and so it was a result in full compliance with the rules.
Some have complained on social media that sharing the gold medal ‘literally defeats the object of having a sporting event’.
But this is incorrect: the technical rules of that sport ‘literally’ provide that the gold medal can be shared in these circumstances – and so the critics should have respect for the rules of the sport.
And finally: this is a blog that often criticises those who make rules (in many contexts) for not properly anticipating what can go wrong – and so it is nice and heartening to see a practical example of rule-making done well.
**
Thank you for reading.
Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
On the one hand, clearly if at the onset you had said to the athletes that they could have a gold medal, but it wouldn’t be the only one, they would have jumped at it. Pun intended.
On the other, there isn’t any evidence that they colluded to come to this result, and I got the impression watching that they weren’t entirely sure that there could be two golds. Kudos to the official for knowing the rules.
So on balance. A sweet moment.
It was a wonderful thing to see, and most certainly didn’t defeat the objects of having a sporting event, in my view.
This tweet is spot-on:
https://twitter.com/MarkWCo/status/1422234634209873920
I despair of some people’s train of thought – I can barely conceive of anything more sporting (in its “sportsmanlike” sense) than this outcome.
Wasn’t there a similar issue – not Olympics – of two marathon runners deciding to finish together as they were so close. In that case (although my memory is hazy), I think the rules were changed.
Sportsmanship – and sportswomanship – is about far more than winning. And this did take the mind off the weightlifting.
Famously, in 1981, the men’s race at the first London marathon ended a tie, with the winners crossing the line hand in hand. eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02ptvd1
Some competitive races prohibit a “contrived tie” now: for example, two British triathletes were disqualified at a Tokyo test event in 2019. Just as one Brownlee brother assisting the other across the finish line would also end with two disqualifications now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/triathlon/49355267
In this case, the two high jumpers (Gianmarco Tamberi and
Mutaz Essa Barshim, who have been rivals for years, and know and respect each other) competed fairly until both failed at the same height, and they could not be separated on count-back. Literally, their positions were equal. The sportsmanship comes with deciding that honours were even, rather fighting to some bitter end.
This tied result was much more uplifting than at Test match ending in a draw after five full days of play, or a nil-nil draw on a cold and wet December evening.
It is not even the first time this sort of thing has happened at the Olympics. In 1948, three gold medals (but no silver or bronze) were awarded for the pommel horse. In 1984, there as a gold and four silvers (but no bronze) for the men’s vault. Barshim himself was in a three-way tie for bronze in the high jump at the 2012 Olympics (and that is likely to be upgraded to three silvers shortly, as the Russian winner has been retrospectively disqualified for doping). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ties_for_medals_at_the_Olympics
I believe it was really the highest moment of sportmanship, mutual respect and solidarity, perfectly in tune with the ideals of the Olympic Games.
Well done and congratulations to Giancarlo Tamperi and to his gold co-medallist whose name I regrettably forgot.
In passing, for what that may be worth, Giancarlo lives only ten kilometres from my home, in the Marche.
Every time I see that clip, I wonder if the steward was trying to hint. It had been an amazing contest, but it had run on and was delaying the 100m final, which is one of the big TV highlights worldwide. The two athletes were so evenly matched that they might well have gone on for quite some time. Were the organisers thinking of asking them to come back after the 100m? I guess we’ll never know. But it was the right outcome, given the highly unusual circumstances that the tie couldn’t be split however far back the countback was taken. Plus the fact they’ve both come through serious injury and are friends, which doubtless made the decision that bit easier for them.
Neither of them may have been outright champion, but they made history and that moment will be remembered long after anyone can remember who won any of the other medals.
I’m wondering if “rulemaking done well” is simply easier to do for sports than the fields you usually write about. With dozens of international competitions each year at various levels, even the most unusual edge case gets triggered once in a while. The governing bodies have more opportunities to find the problems and fill the gaps.
That Brandon Starc was placed fifth may or may not be relevant