Talk:Shin A-lam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time keeper's fault[edit]

I know these things happen, but this is one to watch as it was the ineptitude of the officials that caused the heartbreak here!! The time keeper didn't press start when, what have been the final round, started. Instead in one of those "wakey wakey" moments, the clock went from 0:01 to 0:00 only after Heiderman had attacked. I think by putting time back on the clock was a grave error of judgement, arguably it could have been done again and again. Shin was robbed because the letter of the law was applied not the spirit. The German certainly knew it! You could see it in here eyes, there wasn't any exaltation for her win.109.151.218.67 (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.44.172 (talk) [reply]

The referee was a major element as well[edit]

The ref, Barbara Czar, did not enforce proper distance at the critical time. BOTH fencers were crowding, but Britta, to me, appeared to be the greater offender. Czar said several times "Distance" to Britta, who would step back to proper distance...and then immediately step forward again...several times.

Frankly, Czar screwed the pooch by not yellow carding Britta for refusal to obey the ref (rule t.82.2 and t.84). You want the shiny thing around your neck? Obey the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.247.231 (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported explanation[edit]

Unfortunately the BBC reference does not support the description of events in the article.

It is unclear if the clock is a factor at all. It's widely reported that it "froze" but I have also seen claims that it misfunctioned and the referee discarded it. The technical aspects of a fencing clock are obscure. Presumably a bout is timed from the referee's command to "fence" until the electronic signal of a (possibly double) touch. If the clock is hand started and electronically stopped, this would certainly allow multiple attacks within a second. It is also unclear how the clock is managed. I have seen it asserted that it is only set to the second, so any retake would provide an additional second.

From the tape, it appears the Korean coach was protesting as soon as the clock registered zero on the sudden death minute, before the winning touch. The referee instructs the bout to continue for one second. This has been variously described as due to an infraction by A-lam, or because the referee had stopped the match before expiration of time due to a double touch (and presumably the bout could only continue with a full second due to clock management?)

From a sporting viewpoint, it is unclear if the decision came in 20 minutes followed by 40 more minutes of protest, or if the decision took a full hour. Nor is it clear if A-lam really needed to stay on the mat or could have asked to be excused. And it is not explained that A-lam's "priority" was not earned, but simply awarded by chance.

I'm not sure that is really much of a controversy within the sport.

Hew Johns (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've rewritten the description of the incident based on my understanding of the discussions on fencing.net, which seems to be down at the moment... Yeah, this isn't sound, but it is a whole lot better than the complete nonsense found in sport reportage, and since this article may be going away, no reason not get it right in interim.

149.142.201.254 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. However, is there any way to reflect how Shin protested and the amount of time spent, as most of the news reports made a note to highlight that. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on recent bout[edit]

This now reads like a news article, which per WP:NOTNEWS is not what we're for. The coverage of her Olympic bout needs to be reduced, and the article needs to be expanded with more information about her career, including about the rest of her performance of the Olympics.  Sandstein  11:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One way is to rewrite as about the incident, if we take Sockgate as a good reference for comparison. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Shin A-Lam is notable independent from the incident, and we need an article about her. An article about only the incident would fall afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS, but it might be mentioned in the article about the Olympics.  Sandstein  08:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
I actually meant another separate article for this incident, keeping this article intact (but shortening the description on the incident since it can then be linked to that article). I made a similar recommendation in her competitors article. Me suggestion then was to make the writeup at the Olympic Controversy article the most detailed, then have short 2-3 liners here while linking to that article. Its very troublesome having mirror copy write-ups in both articles, as any issue debated has to be addressed on both articles. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spurious and unhelpful. Shin A-Lam is notable for what happened at the 2012 Olympics. As a competitor she would probably have been a consigned to a two line stub but this happened. How on earth can you moan about undue, when the only notable thing to happen is this? Why not try and dig up some other details then?86.139.44.172 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, from the perspective of an encyclopedia, which is different from that of a newspaper, Shin A-Lam is notable principally for her accomplishments as a sportswoman, which include numerous medals (see WP:NSPORT). The recent incident, although highly publicized, is a footnote in her career, and it should be given the appropriate relative weight.  Sandstein  08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think so. As a German I think you should keep your politics out of this regarding a Korean. The clock according to the Yahoo source said it had only 0.02 sec left. In effect the FIE gave the German 0.98 seconds back. In a sport where attacks can be made in 40 milliseconds the "rogue" second gave the German a chance for at least two attacks (she had nothing to lose, it was attack and score or lose with no score). An almost certain impossibility if the 0.02 sec had remained. If the timekeeper made a mistake, that error should not have been to the detriment of the competitors. This whole episode despite your blustering that it's a "is a footnote in her career" is already rumbling through the FIE and the Korean Olympic team (Aug 3: Koreans want investigation: National Olympic Committee ask for probe into Shin A Lam loss). The FIE knows its decision was wrong (note: the offer of a medal). Shin A-Alam just happens to be the unfortunate competitor to have fallen foul of a failure in the time keeping. This is not a footnote to history. Rules will change within the FIE after this, so until then stop trying to spout rules when it's all really petty WP:IDL. 109.155.72.105 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken, but the only thing  Sandstein  has done is suggest theat the article be tweaked to place emphasis on Sin's accomplishments as a sportswomen rather than let the single issue of the controversy overshine her achievements. AS the article stands now, with the amount of text describing the controversy, it ends up making all her other accomplishments seem like a footnote, especially her team medal in the same Olympics. Its unbecoming of you to make the ASSumption that  Sandstein  is siding her competitor based on his nationality, because he has made good and valid points. Lets stick to addressing the issue, not the messenger please. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:An Ji-Man which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shin A-lam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shin_A-lam&oldid=1207172211"