Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
04-10-16 07:32AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
Shuster's Decision
Given the number of comments this circumstance has generated in the two 'Worlds' threads, and given that posts in those threads will soon be about the Final game (as they should be), I think the situation that occurred between the USA and Japan in the 8th end of the 3-4 game merits its own separate discussion thread.
And so, to kick off the thread - but continue the discussion -, here is my take on it...
Firstly, it is unrealistic to say that either team should have caught - or 'fenced' - the rock that rebounded off the foam divider. I would think that most of you are curlers and, as such, should realize that all 4 members of the throwing team in particular are quite busy when their shot is being made, and do not have time to make a split second decision and movement to catch a rock that rebounds that fast.
The team which is not throwing may have the time to catch the rock that rebounds off the side boards/foam, but there is usually only one member of the non-throwing team in the House (actually, behind the House) as the other team is throwing. At most, there are 2 members of the non-throwing team behind the House. Their job is to watch to see if they need to sweep any moving rocks, and so cannot be concentrated on ensuring that they catch rebounds.
Secondly... While Shuster (and the USA team) may have been within their rights to leave the rock in question where it came to rest (and there is certainly dispute over whether they did have that right based on the rules or not - but let's assume they did have that right)... No-one can say for certain that the rock in question would have rolled out or would not have rolled out. Despite several posters here watching replays with their hearts rather than their honest common sense, where the rock would have come to rest had it not been touched by the rebounding rock was not obvious or evident either way. No member of the Japanese team can say for certain that the rock would have rolled out. As well, no member of the USA team can say for certain that the rock would have remained in the House. Shuster's insistence was therefore, at best, a wishful assumption or, at worst, a deliberate manipulation. This, too, no-one knows except Shuster himself.
Therefore, I strongly believe that the TRUE spirit of sportsmanship - and of curling - would be for team USA to give the benefit of the doubt to their opposition, and either remove the rock or place it outside of the House.
It is unfortunate that the 'non-offending team' has a significant say in these matters - but if that is to remain the case, then true sportsmanship dictates that when the outcome is not obvious - even after numerous TV replays - then the non-offending team should give the benefit of the doubt to the opposition, and not take the self-benefiting option.
__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 08:12AM |
|
dks
Hitting Paint
Registered: Oct 2012
Location:
Posts: 119 |
Having watched the game I must say that initially I thought the rock was going out. Later having watched replays I thought the rock was staying in. Regardless what I thought, it was Team USA decision on what to do. Whether we like it or not the rules allow them to decide. Based on only what I saw I respected Shuster's explanation of making his decision in the spirit of the game. He believed it would have stayed in and it happened to benefit them. That's the way the rules were written. If Japan had caught the rock it would be a non-issue, was catching the rock hard? Yes, but, that's part of the game. We can't exceptions to rules based on difficulty of each play.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 08:41AM |
|
freezetothehack
Hitting Paint
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: New Brunswick
Posts: 199 |
quote: Originally posted by dks
H........ what I saw I respected Shuster's explanation of making his decision in the spirit of the game............
Far, far from the sprit of the game. The stone was out, without question.
__________________
Freeze to the hack... the toughest shot in curling!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 09:13AM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
quote: Originally posted by dks
Having watched the game I must say that initially I thought the rock was going out. Later having watched replays I thought the rock was staying in. Regardless what I thought, it was Team USA decision on what to do. Whether we like it or not the rules allow them to decide. Based on only what I saw I respected Shuster's explanation of making his decision in the spirit of the game. He believed it would have stayed in and it happened to benefit them. That's the way the rules were written. If Japan had caught the rock it would be a non-issue, was catching the rock hard? Yes, but, that's part of the game. We can't exceptions to rules based on difficulty of each play.
What rule are you quoting?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 09:14AM |
|
decade
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 1962 |
A good physicist would be able to work this out. Velocity of rock is to get calculate Take a little off for first contact and get your answer.
Japan should petition US gov to change anthem words to "Oh say can you see that rock going out"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 09:55AM |
|
Jimbobogie
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538 |
While the rules of curling, being a gentleman's or gentlewoman's sport place the onus on the non-offending team to call their own fouls, what happened here did not involve a foul therefore there was really no offending team as you would define the word "offending". This is one instance in which a referee would have to make the decision. Maybe they need to use wooden dividers. Maybe they need to extend the ice beyond the boundary line. I'm not on the rules committee. From what I saw the US rock would have stayed biting but of course the matter is open for debate. The fans certainly made their decision well known didn't they? From what I can see the bronze-medal game didn't have that much controversy but then again it was 4 o'clock in the morning where I live! 😴
__________________
Jim
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 10:37AM |
|
Tap Back
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1096 |
quote: Originally posted by freezetothehack
Far, far from the sprit of the game. The stone was out, without question.
I watched it 10 times and my first and only thought was it was not only out but going to hit the cushion as well. There is just no way it would have stayed in the rings. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
__________________
Tap Back
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 11:48AM |
|
dbsdbs
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812 |
thanks for starting another thread on this -- we really need that. there just have not been enough posts on this since yesterday.
what is left to be said? some people think the right call was made -- and they are not going to convinced otherwise. Other people think the wrong decision was made -- and they are not going to be convinced otherwise. enough already
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 12:15PM |
|
ngm
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272 |
The delusional people are:
- those who think they know with 100% certainty whether the rock was going to stay in the rings or not, especially considering the unknowable amount of spin (either way) that might have happened when the rock would have come to rest.
- those who think teams at any level of the game, let along the top level of the game, should be giving the benefit of doubt to the offending team.
I'm glad to see non-offending teams quietly but firmly assert their rights when these things happen. I would like to see the offending teams be more insistent that they do not get any benefit of doubt when they've screwed up, and accept whatever happens with equanimity.
I disagree as a matter of opinion on whether Japan had a realistic chance to stop the rock from bouncing back into play. The rocks were barely moving and the sweeper was right there watching it all happen.
It would also be nice for the 10(3)(c) people to stop imagining that they have determined the "correct" interpretation, in which teams are somehow magically absolved of any responsibility when rocks they've put out of play come back to interfere with rocks in play.
Here is exactly what the head umpire for the game said at the time: "...it is the responsibility of the playing team, which is Japan, to have stopped that, difficult though it is; the fact you didn't, it's then up to the USA to place the yellow where they think it should have finished..."
I'm inclined to believe this interpretation than the ones offered by the 10(3)(c) truthers here.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 12:39PM |
|
RuleMaster
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
Unfortunately, there are certain posters who are belittling those who actually know and understand the rules of curling. It is especially troublesome since they are trying to do it under the guise of educating people when they have the wrong rule interpretation. 10(3)(c) isn't applicable.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 04:22PM |
|
TJNCJ
Swing Artist
Registered: Nov 2008
Location:
Posts: 209 |
quote: Originally posted by Tap Back
I watched it 10 times and my first and only thought was it was not only out but going to hit the cushion as well. There is just no way it would have stayed in the rings. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
After watching dozens of times I cannot see any way this could have hit the cushion. You realise the momentum heading toward the cushion ended when he hit the Japanese stone, correct? It's momentum at that time was slowly straight back towards the endline until the Japanese rebound tapped it. The momentum on a frame by frame view was only a fraction of the speed of the rebounded stone. It may have been a biter, maybe not but I cant see the stone being more than a inch or two out of the ring, most likely a solid biter.
I thought my judgment was clouded, but a day later looking at this I can't see how that stone was out for sure and it certainly was not going to hit a cushion.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 04:26PM |
|
celtichound
Swing Artist
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 280 |
First off, congratulations to the American team on their bronze medal win.
I was travelling to a bonspiel and missed a bit of this game. I heard about this when I got there, but didn't get a chance to view the shot till today.
After having viewing several times, in regular and slow motion, it is hard to say whether the rock would've touched the house or not. Before contact, it "appears" that the rock is travelling towards the back of house at a slight angle towards the center and with enough speed to clear the house. But still inconclusive.
" R9. (d) If a stone which would have altered the course of a moving stone is displaced, or caused to be displaced, by an external force, all stones are allowed to come to rest, and are then placed in the positions in which they would have come to rest had a stone not been displaced. If the teams cannot agree, the stone is redelivered after all displaced stones have been replaced to their positions prior to the violation taking place. If agreement on those positions cannot be reached, the end is replayed. "
Given the way the rule is written, and without having the benefit of slow motion replay on the ice, Mr Shuster made the best decision possible. It's also possible the Japanese team didn't understand the rule fully and didn't press the issue.
As far as the Japanese sweeper stopping the rock, difficult is an understatement. It all happened in a second. He is looking left towards the thrown stone, and doesn't look right at the hit stone till after red stone has hit the divider and bounced into the yellow stone. I don't think he would've had chance to stop it.
This is a pretty good take on it
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/e...-163530331.html
__________________
It's not just a rock. It's forty-two pounds of polished granite, with a beveled underbelly and a handle a human being can hold. Okay, so in and of itself it looks like it has no practical purpose, but it's a repository of possibility. And, when it's handled just right, it exacts a kind of poetry - as close to poetry as I ever want to get. The way it moves.... Not once, in everything I've done, have I ever felt the same wonder and humanity as when I'm playing the game of curling.
Paul Gross-Men With Brooms
Most games are lost, not won!
Casey Stengel
Last edited by celtichound on 04-10-16 at 07:04PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 05:42PM |
|
bjacks217
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Aug 2013
Location: Michigan, United States
Posts: 22 |
I guess I am delusional. I agree with Shuster's placement of the stone. I believe the Japanese rock pushed the US rock further than it would have gone and increased the rotation.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 06:38PM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
Our game, thank heaven, has the overarching rule of the "Spirit of Curling" which demands fair play and good feeling. I watched the video twice. First as the players saw it: everything and everyone moving fast and in the heat of a critical game and critical end.
I watched the Japanese player closest to the "messy" stones immediately challenge in word and body language how the American skip replaced a rock. I watched the video once more thinking if I were an official and could see one replay or have a different viewing angle what would I have "seen". My first thought was a US rock was placed an inch or more closer to the button that it had been before, but I was not 100% sure.
I then wondered why the chief umpire was not called in by the aggreived Japanese player to make a ruling on rules if there was any serious doubt. But the players all continued on. As an official myself, I loved that moment since our game is SUPPOSED to be decided by the players themselves not any "externals" like us.
We play a game on ice We'll all freeze to death if we take hours to do video repays or stone re-throws. Many will debate this forever. I prefer to do what the participants did: move on and forget having a long rules discussion. Let the Spirit waft along,
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 06:57PM |
|
chinabar
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 48 |
quote: Originally posted by Alice
our game is SUPPOSED to be decided by the players themselves not any "externals" like us.
We play a game on ice We'll all freeze to death if we take hours to do video repays or stone re-throws. Many will debate this forever. I prefer to do what the participants did: move on and forget having a long rules discussion. Let the Spirit waft along,
Curling at championship level today is not a beer league anymore and needs to be officiated, "gentleman forgiveness" needs to be taken out of the game and played within rules and officiated like all other sports. What a steaming load posted by Alice.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 09:16PM |
|
darkwingone
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Feb 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
i watched it a number of times and am not sure if it would have gotten out or not
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 09:54PM |
|
Ajay
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 570 |
Alice, as an official what are your responsibilities and what authority might you have?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 09:56PM |
|
jhcurl
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431 |
quote: Originally posted by chinabar
Curling at championship level today is not a beer league anymore and needs to be officiated, "gentleman forgiveness" needs to be taken out of the game and played within rules and officiated like all other sports. What a steaming load posted by Alice.
Except that the official was seated 20 feet away with no view of what happened. So, was the official supposed to make a call based on the replay? The two teams involved were 2 feet or less away and couldn't decide. How about we go for the redo and replay the entire end? or just start over with officials located all around the ice including following the sweepers on the ice to call sweeping infractions. Just what curling needs.
JH
tongue firmly in cheek
PS I still think Martin should not have thrown that rock away, not enough discussion on that.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 11:10PM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
quote: Originally posted by Ajay
Alice, as an official what are your responsibilities and what authority might you have?
Ajay,
I'm a USCA certified Level 2 official. That means I've done timer and timing supervisor duty, and some on-ice officiating. USCA officials' training emphasizes that officials let the players decide what to do until asked to give a ruling, do a measure or other "intervention".
About the only time officials will intervene without being asked is if we see ice being deliberately hacked to bits by an enraged broom-pounder or blood on the ice without a player calling a time out. We'll also usually get within eyesight of a coach or skip when a team calls for a coaching timeout to show them we've got the stopwatch out and will be having the clock start as soon as our stopwatch timeout clock runs out.
If you are not an official yourself you might be surprised how few willingly do it for more than one event, especially the on-ice duty. I've met many good people who refuse to do on-ice officiating or even timing since at many important tournaments there are players, coaches and families who will try to bad-mouth or intimidate officials who are just doing their best. When I've been a timing supervisor at national events I've spent a lot of time "protecting" the timers from such hyper-competitiveness unpleasantness. Timing duty is mind-numbing, physicallyl exhausting, and very stressful. On-ice duty is bone chillingly freezing and can be very high stress, too.
I haven't seen any comment on that 3-4 page game from the tournament chief umpire. But, I wouldn't expect to see that. USCA teaches its officials to have a culture of confidentiality while letting the players decide what to do whenever possible - which is what happened in That Game. If we see people behaving badly, even cheating or patently violating rules - and certainly when rocks go wild and the players have decided themselves how to proceed without officials' help - we usually leave it to the unoffending team to ask us to intervene and are grateful when players don't ask us for a ruling which is likely to leave one side bad-mouthing officials!
Alice
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-10-16 11:34PM |
|
RuleMaster
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
quote: Originally posted by celtichound
[B]First off, congratulations to the American team on their bronze medal win.
" R9. (d) If a stone which would have altered the course of a moving stone is displaced, or caused to be displaced, by an external force, all stones are allowed to come to rest, and are then placed in the positions in which they would have come to rest had a stone not been displaced. If the teams cannot agree, the stone is redelivered after all displaced stones have been replaced to their positions prior to the violation taking place. If agreement on those positions cannot be reached, the end is replayed. "
Given the way the rule is written, and without having the benefit of slow motion replay on the ice, Mr Shuster made the best decision possible. It's also possible the Japanese team didn't understand the rule fully and didn't press the issue.
This is not the rule that applies in this case. Rocks set in motion by the action of one of the teams involved in the game are, by definition, not "external forces"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 12:14AM |
|
RuleMaster
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
Sorry for the folks who aren't interested in continuing the discussion. dugless_zone 13 had a serious case of mental diarrhea yesterday and had several rules misinterpretations out there that should be corrected, in the interest of education.
quote: Actually I'm asserting you cited a rule that is for a stationary rock that is hit by a rock that may have touched the sideline before it makes the hit, not a moving rock which is hit by a rock deflected of the divider after it has hit another rock.
The stationary rock rules in this case no more applies than the external force rules you continue to quote.
External forces have one rule. Those caused by neither teams actions must be agreed upon
Rocks bouncing off a divider have a different rule. (If rocks bouncing off dividers were 'external forces' per the rules, the this rule would be unnecessary and not even exist) In this case, rocks not stopped by the delivering team are replaced by the non-delivering team. Hence, per the rules of curling, the delivering team which does not stop the rocks from bouncing of the dividers are an offending team.
I can draw a Venn diagram, in case your mathematical skills are better than your reading comprehension.
Among the experts, there is NO assertion that the wrong rule was applied, only that their judgement different from the skips whose responsibility it was to place the rock.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 12:22AM |
|
RuleMaster
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
quote: And again as requested before, please cite the rule stating a player is responsible to catch rocks, section and rule number please, a feat that a rulemaster would no doubt have no problem producing.
Per WCF rule R2(h), a stone which touches a divider SHALL be IMMEDIATELY removed from play
Per WCF rule R4(a) non-delivering players will stand between the courtesy lines or behind the end line
So, unless your club has stone fairies which makes rock disappear once they hit the endlines, it is the responsibility of the players in the area (per the rules, the sweepers from the delivering team between the back line and hog line) to immediately remove the rock from play.
Game. Set. Match. Cut and dry.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 12:28AM |
|
RuleMaster
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
quote:
where in the rule book does it say you are supposed to catch rocks? A simple example to illustrate this is to imagine where that rock would have ended up in your curling club, most likely back four foot of the sheet next to you since there are most likely no sideboards. That rock would have continued on in the direction it was traveling, out of play , had it not been redirected back onto the playing surface by an artificial barrier. It is no different than a rock from another sheet entering that playing surface.
Wow Legend, The rules are cut and dry yet you disagree so we walk through it. Where in the rulebook does it say that the player was responsible for catching a rock that was out of play? Secondly, where does it say that a rock that is out of play can be allowed to influence a rock in play? Following that line of questions, where does it say that a player can make up a rule different from the rule in the book to satisfy his own needs. Shuster's ignorance of the rules ( also the officials ignorance) is no excuse for what happened. there is no fault in Japan's actions.
See above for citations.
The only one making up rules based on ignorance is you, Dugless_Zone13
The official pointed out, correct, that Japan is responsible for stopping that rock.
The rule was applied correctly. The entire crux of your argument relies on a definition of 'external force' that is not in the rulebook, and that you have yet to provide a citation in any rulebook. In fact, there are contractictory citations and examples that completely contract your definition.
Game. Set. Match. In the interest and in the spirit of curling, it is perfectly acceptable to own up o your mistake and admit you're wrong.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 01:49AM |
|
hurryhard
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 10 |
Shusters Decision
AS was said on the TV by the two commentators curling is a game of sportsmanship. Whatever happened has happened but being a ref at one time should the ref have had the final decision and both teams gone by the decision.
Unless the rules have changed that much since I was a ref for curling there should be one at least watching the ice and a head ref as well that could have or should have come into play.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 09:07AM |
|
curlerbroad
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2668 |
Seeing as there was only one game going on at the time and an important one at that, would it be so hard to have a ref close to the sheet and with access to see a replay?
__________________
Well Behaved Women Don't Make History.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is . |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|