Recently, the score in the women's 10-meter platform final of the Tokyo Olympics, which has attracted much attention, has sparked heated discussions.
Many viewers and media have doubts about the referee's scoring criteria, worried about whether Quan Hongchan will be affected by the "black box operation".
In order to answer this doubt, this article will analyze the video of the game in detail, and cite relevant data and cases, in order to help you understand the truth of the incident more comprehensively and objectively.
In this final, Quan Hongchan and teammate Chen Yuxi performed well, but due to the slight gap in the last jump, Quan Hongchan unfortunately failed to win the championship.
After the game, some online comments pointed out that Quan Hongchan may have been pressing, citing her low minimum score and the much-anticipated focus jump event scoring lower than expected.
However, a closer look at the footage of the match reveals that this is not the case.
First of all, Quan Hongchan scored 8.5 points from three judges, 9.0 points from two judges and 9.5 points from one judge on the fourth jump.
One of the judges gave a minimum score of 8.0, which has since been removed.
At the same time, we saw that the other competitor scored on the fourth jump with different scores, which is enough to prove that the judges are adhering to the same principles and standards in scoring.
Secondly, for questions such as whether there is a "pressure score", you can refer to the scoring data of other players in the whole game.
As shown in the figure, the other competitors accurately completed three and a half laps of action in the process of jumping to entering the water, and the quality of the action completion was unanimously recognized by the referee.
This shows that when judges score, they are indeed evaluating based on the judging criteria and the actual performance of the athletes.
In addition, there are factors that do not affect the outcome of the game, such as technical guidance.
In the live broadcast, the host once pointed out that the timing of Quan Hongchan's force was slightly earlier, and the toes could not be fully deployed.
Chen Yuxi's overall performance in the game did not find such problems.
Obviously, Quan Hongchan is not inferior to Chen Yuxi in terms of technology.
Finally, it is worth noting that despite the various voices and opinions in the game, many reports and commentaries have now agreed that the referees of this match showed a professional and fair attitude.
On the contrary, those netizens who deliberately lead public opinion are nothing more than out of their own interests or emotional factors, full of loopholes, and cannot withstand scrutiny.
In general, after in-depth analysis, I believe everyone has a clearer understanding.
We should respect objective facts, abandon bias and subjective assumptions, and look at the results of the game rationally.
Although Quan Hongchan and Chen Yuxi both have extraordinary talents and performances, victory and defeat are common things in soldiers.
We should pay more attention to the spirit of fair competition and hard work of athletes, and give them more applause and encouragement.
A "full-dimensional" look at each competitive competition requires not only the performance of the athletes, but also the work of the event organizers and referees.
We should maintain an objective and rational attitude, respect the right of individuals to think independently, and at the same time promote the positive energy of sports culture and actively promote the healthy development of China's sports industry.