The 2012 London Olympics Sports Thread

[Berkut]

The thing that common sense tells us about rules like the 6-second goalie rule is not that they should always be enforced or never enforced.

It is that they definitely need to be enforced when it matters, and let slide when it does not.

When one team is gaining a clear advantage by exploiting the rule not being enforced, then it does in fact need to be enforced.

That is what separates the good officials from the mediocre ones - understanding the context of the game, the intent of the rule, and how to apply it.

The 3-second violation in basketball is a good analogy. If someone is camping in the lane, and it desn't matter because they aren't getting the ball anyway, I am probably just going to tell them to move.

If you are camping in the lane, they pass you the ball, you make a move or two, use up your three seconds, force the defense to collapse on you, then after 4-5 seconds pass the ball out to an open teammate for an easy three - you better believe it is getting called. Or it better be.

I don't know soccer well enough to judge if this was that kind of case, but it sounds like the intent of the rule is to keep players from doing exactly what the goalie was doing - trying to run out the clock to protect a lead.

[DGuller]

At this point, I think all you can say about those two decisions is that all's well that ends well.

[Admiral Yi]

The thing about the goalie call is the penalty more than the call itself.  I've seen a goalie called for stalling and he got a yellow.  Give the Canucklehead a yellow, that tells her the ref is not fucking around.  Not a free kick from 20 yards.

The "Abbie Waumbach cheated" thing is horseshit too.  If you want to go by the book, the goalie penalty is legit.  Soccer refs don't go by the book.  Every single time a ball goes out of bounds three guys lobby the ref to give it to their team.  By the book they're all cheaters too and should be carded or whatever.

[Liep]

Give the Canucklehead a yellow, that tells her the ref is not fucking around.  Not a free kick from 20 yards.

Thing is, if the ref decides to call something he can't freely choose the punishment. A yellow card was not an option there iirc.

[Admiral Yi]

Thing is, if the ref decides to call something he can't freely choose the punishment. A yellow card was not an option there iirc.

I've seen it given, the only time I saw a goalie penalized for stalling. 

[Liep]

Stalling at goal-kicks is a yellow cardable offense, stalling while keeping the ball in hand is not. I'm pretty sure.

[garbon]

So question on this whole - Phelps could lose his medals thing.  All articles seem to suggest Louis Vuitton has to be convincing that they didn't leak the photos but that they were stolen/leaked by someone else or Phelps could get dinged.  Doesn't it seem like there would need to be proof that Phelps knew/agreed to have the photos leaked early too? Otherwise sounds like athletes could get ruined by dishonest corporations (who don't have much to lose).

[Berkut]

The actual rule:

Indirect Free Kick
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper,
inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before
releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from
his possession and before it has touched another player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from
a throw-in taken by a team-mate

[garbon]

The Monkees apparently decided they miss each other now that Davy died. They're doing a reunion tour with holographic Davy Jones.

Do you have any proof of that? All the articles I see with hologram mentions are variations on: hopefully there won't be a holographic Davy Jones.

[Drakken]

So question on this whole - Phelps could lose his medals thing.  All articles seem to suggest Louis Vuitton has to be convincing that they didn't leak the photos but that they were stolen/leaked by someone else or Phelps could get dinged.  Doesn't it seem like there would need to be proof that Phelps knew/agreed to have the photos leaked early too? Otherwise sounds like athletes could get ruined by dishonest corporations (who don't have much to lose).

Not sure I follow on this, why would Phelps lose his medals?

[garbon]

IOC has a rule that olympic athletes can't be featured in non-olympic ads during the games.

[Drakken]

IOC has a rule that olympic athletes can't be featured in non-olympic ads during the games.

That doesn't make any sense. Every medal-hopeful in every country appears in non-olympic ads during the games.

Here in Canada we have Alexandre Despatie and Emilie Heymans, both of them medalists in diving, always appearing on ads having nothing to do with Olympics (Despatie was in ads for Gillette and McDonalds during the whole London Olympics). We also had Mary Spencer, who was a gold medal hopeful, appearing as a spokeswoman for CoverGirl. So that means that they would lose their medals too?

[garbon]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48694728

The mysterious release of a photo of Michael Phelps in a bathtub, shot for a Louis Vuitton ad campaign, threatens to cause a splash of a different kind. Everyone involved in creating the photo denies having released it early, perhaps because it may put Phelps in hot water with the International Olympic Committee.

A new IOC regulation, called Rule 40, prohibits athletes from appearing in ads for non-Olympic sponsors from July 18 to Aug. 15. According to the IOC's 19 page explainer, Rule 40 is designed to prevent ambush marketing, defined as non-Olympic sponsors trying to associate themselves with the Olympic brand.

Yet two photos of the Olympic swimmer, shot by the photographer Annie Leibovitz, began circulating during the time period in which athletes are prohibited from appearing in advertisements. A website in Barcelona called elperiodico.com printed the bathtub photo on Aug. 7 and announced that Phelps was the new face of Louis Vuitton. Then the Daily Mail in Britain followed up on Monday, Aug. 13, with two photos and the headline "Let the fashion endorsements begin, Michael Phelps announced as latest face of Louis Vuitton core values campaign."

The second photo shows Phelps in a three-piece suit sitting on a couch next to Larisa Latynina of Russia, 77, who is the previous holder of the title "most-decorated Olympic athlete." In both photos, there is a strategically placed Louis Vuitton bag.

A quick Google search shows the photos went viral and appeared on dozens if not hundreds of websites on Aug. 13 and 14.

An agent for Leibovitz confirmed to CNBC that she shot the photos, and that a Louis Vuitton campaign with Phelps was supposed to begin sometime this week.

The release of these photos before Aug. 16 raises the thorny question of whether the world's most decorated athlete is in violation of rule with sanctions that could include fines and the stripping of medals.

Thus far, answers are not forthcoming from either the U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee or the London Olympic Committee. None of the organizations responded to attempts for comment. In fairness, many people involved in the Olympics have gone on vacation or are still traveling back from London.

Louis Vuitton representatives will say only that they did not release the photos. Leibovitz's press agent says her office did not release the photos. Yet, the Daily Mail contained a quote from a Vuitton representative about the campaign. (That page has since been removed from the newspaper's website.)

If the photos were leaked intentionally, "it is probably a violation of Rule 40," said Sekou Campbell, an intellectual property attorney at Fox Rothschild, who has written about Rule 40.

Just because the photos were part of a news story and not an official advertisement doesn't mean they can't violate the regulation. The rule was designed expressly to combat forms of marketing that aren't official advertisements, Campbell said.

"That's the point of ambush marketing," he said. "There's no formal ad, but they somehow generate coverage."

The imposition of Rule 40 for London 2012 angered many athletes because it prevented them from monetizing their brand at the precise moment when it was most valuable. Most Olympic athletes are not household names like Phelps and are far less likely to garner lucrative sponsorship deals.

The U.S. Track and Field team began a Twitter campaign to end the regulation, with two hash tags: #rule40 & #wedemandchange. Gold medallist Dawn Harper tweeted out two photos mocking Rule 40. One was a self-portrait with a white tape covering her mouth; the words "rule 40" written on the tape. Olympic runner Nick Symmonds, who specializes in the 800m, was especially vociferous on Twitter. In a conversation with me Wednesday, he expressed frustration that he was unable to thank his sponsors, Nike and the Orgeon Track Club, during the Olympics. "It's about being able to give them a return on their investment."

His agent Chris Layne told CNBC if the IOC is going to continue with Rule 40, the athletes should be compensated monetarily for their participation in the Games. An example he cites is the Track and Field World Championships, where the top performers receive prize money. Layne said he believes Rule 40 emanates from antiquated thinking about the Games—that the athletes are amateurs but not professionals. But "the Olympics have changed," and now, "It is truly a professional, commercial event from start to finish."

Neither he, nor his client Symmonds, thinks Phelps should be sanctioned for the photos because it is unlikely that Phelps himself released them. Layne points out that, if anything, the situation highlights the difficulties of enforcement. "If this photo shoot were prior to Rule 40, how you can enforce that?"

Sanctions can range from removal of accreditation (not relevant once an athlete is finished competing), financial penalties, disqualification from the games, and according to the Olympic charter "a competitor or a team may lose the benefit of any ranking obtained in relation to other events at the Olympic Games at which he or it was disqualified or excluded; in such case the medals and diplomas won by him or it shall be returned to the IOC."

Campbell said, "I imagine there is a negotiation going on behind closed doors to settle this without much fanfare."

Sports law attorney Joe Baghat thinks the Olympic Committee will do nothing to Phelps because "it would be a public relations nightmare to come down on him because he is so well loved."

Emails to Phelps' agent were not returned.

[Drakken]

Ah, I see now, the caveat is that they are not sponsors of the Olympic games. 

It's still dumb to punish the athlete though, who usually has won his medals fair and square and despite this give him the same sentence as if he had been caught doping himself, rather than sue him for breach of contract.

[sbr]

Ah, I see now, the caveat is that they are not sponsors of the Olympic games. 

It's still dumb to punish the athlete though, who usually has won his medals fair and square and despite this give him the same sentence as if he had been caught doping himself, rather than sue him for breach of contract.

Pissing off big money corporate sponsors is a much bigger deal to the IOC than doping.