I agree with you. Most sports I watch have rules lawyering part of the game. The rules aren’t an annoying part of the game, they are the game. Some sports do give the ref some leeway for interpretation, but if that leeway isn’t in the rules (I don’t know if that’s the case here), then literal following is the only outcome.
As an exception, in table tennis, all players are known to cheat with using non-regulation rubber treatments. These give extra bounciness and this speed. Players post pictures of them with banned glue visible in their background during tournaments for example. Yet this rule is not enforced. There are some rumours/theories - of course - about the cause, nonetheless, no player or country delegation has an issue with this. There may be some unwritten but widely understood practices in some sports, which maybe is the case here?
Basically they are protesting against the timing which the judge intervened (and not the penalty itself). They appealed and requested a rematch but was rejected. Hence they would not accept the result of the 3rd game.
Here is a full translation, with a more accurate translation in the comment.
As to what they are protesting, it is kinda vague, since they use the word not promptly placing captured stones on the lid on time, and didn’t specify which objections they brought up although more the “result” of the 3rd game (could mean a lot of things). The last sentence might not be a direct reference to just the previous request for a rematch (it can be just part of the reason, where the whole paragraph before all included).
They definitely are concerning today and all react very quickly. However, this left the question still, if the 3rd game is not a forfeit, what exactly is the result of the LG Cup final? CWA effectively doesn’t recognize Byun Sangil won the 29th LG Cup. And Ke Jie didn’t lose in the 3rd game. Does this mean they withdrew from LG Cup? Or the political maneuvers are still working in the background?
I suspect this will be a major focus in tomorrow’s emergency meeting in KBA, and they will be forced to make another announcement. (Hopefully not another I said so and your objection is noted, but void)
I guess if they accept the result of the 2nd game, they have to accept the penalty. But they don’t accept the result of the 3rd game because of the intervention timing
I feel they word it in a way that “captives not placed in time” as the root cause (因) as the first sentence had a certain meaning, and the whole paragraph does not break up, but as a series of events is “the whole story” (up to the rematch not accepted) is the rejection reason. (Just my interpretation, which I think is the point, to have more than one interpretation, so they can pick and choose later to emphasis which and not leave possibilities closed)
Ke Jie later found out himself and put them back in the lid (actually two captured stones)
And the referee came in after ke jie already placed them back in, so the referee’s ruling is that at no point the captured stones should leave the lid, and if you already did it, and corrected yourself it still counts as a violation.
As far as I know this is a solo competition could you explain in which way there is a “Chinese team”?
Also as far as I know there is no option in the tournament guideline that would allow for a withdrawal from the tournament. Do you have a source for your claim that withdrawing is a possibility?
This is a sports tournament. There is no need to negotiate anything.
Yes, the referees “admitted” that they enforced the rules of the game. Using the word “admitted” in this context is an interesting choice of words.
LG did not favor their countryman though.
This didn’t happen though. Enforcing the rules is not “unfair” but exactly the opposite of that.
Enforcing the rule itself is inarguably correct. The question now lies on the unfair rules and how it was carried out. If the punishment was carried out immediately, rules are rules. But the referee reacted 20 min later and picked the critical time, maybe the decisive time during the game, to pause the game. That’s why the result is so controversial. The fairness of the rule, such as why it changes during the competition and whether it’s to harsh, is open for discussion.
The referee has already made an official statement that the chosen time to intervene did not have the goal of giving an advantage to 변상일.
The rules did not change during the competition.
Edit: This was technically wrong. The cup has already started in May 2024 and there were indeed some specifications that have been added to the rules in November 2024.
Clearly, it suggests the punishment. It doesn’t help a better match but place more obstacles.
You can make any statement, but the fact is the time they picked, long after the incidence, did bring advantages.
It is changed during the lg cup despite it happened in November 2024. Still in the same match period. It’s like publishing a rule between semi-finals and finals in a tennis game, requiring each player to collect their balls at the given place after winning each point. Would you say such rule would be fair?
Correct me if I’m wrong, aren’t swedish and german quite similar? Like italian and spanish, not the same but a reasonable level of cross comprehension?
