Ok, so Paul Hamm of the USA wins the gold medal by a very slim margin in the Men's All Around Gymnastics. Now it seems there's all this controversy. I'll posit a question, but first the facts as I understand them:
1. There was a mistake in judging the parallel bars performance of a South Korean gymnast. If scored properly, he would have won the gold, but he ended up with the bronze.
2. The rules state that if you want to protest or appeal a score, you do it after the score is given before moving on to another apparatus (or before the medals are awarded if it's the last apparatus, I assume). The South Koreans didn't protest until the next day.
3. The rules also state that the gymnastics governing body can't review videotape in considering an appeal, which they did. (I'm not sure why they were even considering the appeal since it wasn't issued within the required time.)
Ok, so Paul follows the rules and wins. Yet, the South Koreans and the Federation are getting all this press and attention. They're not changing the results (which seems appropriate) but Paul is being asked to give up his gold to the other guy. He followed the rules while everyone else is breaking them (or ignoring them), yet he seems to be "attacked" publicly for not doing "the right thing" in the minds of some people.
So, am I right that the South Koreans seem to be rewarded (by convincing some people that they deserved to win) by breaking the rules? Shouldn't there be negative consequences for breaking the rules, not positive ones? If breaking the rules is a net positive for someone, why have the rule at all?
Why the gymnastics people seemed to break their own rules I have no idea. It just makes them look dumb and makes their future actions more open to suspicion.