Go to explanation 1. It is COMPLETELY at the referee's discretion how to handle the situation. Either he gives a warning, a penalty point, or disqualifies. Obviously, it didn't merit a DQ. So whether it's a penalty point or not is the refs call. Of course we know why he made his choice, BUT DANIEL DIDN'T.
NO IT IS NOT AT THE REFEREES DISCRETION AT ALL. IT IS ACCEPTED THAT CONTACT HAS BEEN MADE, THERE IS NO REFUTING THAT. NOW THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE REFEREE HAS TO FOLLOW THE RULES. HE HAS NO RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF HERE AS THE RULES ARE CLEAR, CONTACT HAS BEEN MADE ACCIDENTAL OR NOT. THE REFEREE IS THERE TO IMPLEMENT THE RULES NOT DECIDE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER TO OR NOT. FURTHERMORE YOUR SAD ATTEMPT TO SHOW THE RULES AND QUOTE EXPLANATION FALLS FLAT FOR ONE SPECIFIC REASON....IT IN NO INSTANCE SAYS IT IS THE REFEREES DISCRETION TO CHOOSE TO AWARD A PENALTY OR NOT. IT IN FACT STATES THE LEVEL OF PENALTY HE CAN IMPOSE. CARE TO CHECK FURTHER DOWN THE LIST UNTIL YOU REACH (V) AND (VI) AND THE OFFENCE WE ARE DISCUSSING COMES UNDER THESE CATEGORIES, IN PARTICULAR (VI) WHERE AN OPPONENTS CHANCES OF WINNING ARE SLIGHTLY DIMINISHED, WHICH COMES WITH A PENALTY OF KEIKOKU. THAT PENALTY IS A POINT TO THE AFFECTED PARTY OR A POINT DEDUCTION TO THE OFFENDING PARTY.
DON'T QUOTE SOMETHING YOU THINK PROVES YOUR POINT WHEN IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T!
You seem to be having a hard time understanding his one basic concept: DANIEL DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE REF WAS PAID OFF.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER UNDERSTANDING THAT. YOU ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE A HARD TIME ACCEPTING THAT THE REFEREE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE NOT TO PUNISH TORY WHEN THE RULES ARE CLEAR. AS FAR AS DANIELS POSITION IS CONCERNED, WHETHER OR NOT HE KNOWS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE REFEREE OR NOT, HE KNOWS THE REFEREE DIDN'T DO HIS JOB RIGHT. EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT THOUGH, WHETHER DANIEL KNOWS IT FOR SURE OR NOT, SILVER DID CHEAT SO WHY SHOULD THE VIEWING AUDIENCE HOLD IT AGAINST DANIEL?
reply
share
Sandman81 (1509)
3 years ago
V. CHOKOKU is normally imposed for the first instance of an offence that has not reduced a competitor’s chances of winning by the opponent’s foul.
VI. KEIKOKU is normally imposed where the contestant's potential for winning is slightly diminished (in the opinion of the Judges) by the opponent's foul.
dis·cre·tion
/dəˈskreSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information.
"she knew she could rely on his discretion"
2.
the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.
"it is up to local authorities to use their discretion in setting the charges"
It is the judge's (referee) decision as to whether Sam's ability to win was slightly diminished or not. You could make a case for either way, but the audience found out later the real reason he made the decision he did.
So the Referee was the one who had to decide, or in other words IT WAS AT HIS DISCRETION. Just because they didn't use that exact word doesn't change the meaning. I'll send you a thesaurus.
reply
share
wearsalan (5554)
3 years ago
The indisputable fact is that she was hit in the eye and that has reduced her chances of winning (slightly) and that isn't up for opinion or discretion. Also the other indisputable fact is that it was an uncontrolled technique which automatically puts it in the keikoku territory. This is also not down to anyones discretion. He has no choice other than to follow the rules here. The only thing down to his discretion is the severity of penalty, the minimum in this case already being keikoku (point awarded against offender or for offended).
VI. KEIKOKU is normally imposed where the contestant's potential for winning is slightly diminished (in the opinion of the Judges) by the opponent's foul.
Note the word JUDGES (plural) not JUDGES' (singular). It refers to the referee, mirror judge and arbitrator, or the referee and two flag judges. This tells you that one persons discretion on the matter is not enough. The referee can only make a decision like this alone by following the rules (ie) in this case awarding keikoku. In other words IT WAS NOT AT HIS DISCRETION. He made a decision that, whether you like it or not, went against the rules.
No need for a thesaurus, but you need to stop picking out the parts you think proves your point. THEY DON'T!
reply
share