May 24, 2013
2012 Summer Olympics: Jordyn Wieber and “Dumb, Stupid Rules”
Posted on August 2, 2012 | in 2012 Summer Olympics, Defects, Employee Knowledge, Error-Proofing, Lean Tools, Lean Wastes, New Ideas, Sports | by Chad Walters
(AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
Congratulations are in order for Gabby Douglas, the U.S. gymnast who won the Olympics women’s gymnastics all-around gold medal today, marking the third straight all-around gold medal for the United States in this event.
However, folks just can’t seem to stop talking about Jordyn Wieber, the defending world champion in the women’s gymnastics all-around and fellow U.S. gymnast who was left out of the all-around finals event (consisting of 24 gymnasts) despite finishing in fourth place in the Olympic qualifying event just days before.
Why was she left out? Despite finishing in fourth place in the qualifiers, she finished third on her team, behind Gabby Douglas and Aly Raisman. Unfortunately, the Olympics have instituted a new rule that only allows a country to have two representatives in the all-around final so Wieber couldn’t participate.
And obviously this was devastating.
4th place isn’t good enough to make the finals, because of a dumb, stupid rule.
The objective of the Olympics is to crown the best athletes in the world, and thusly the objective of the women’s gymnastics all-around competition is to celebrate the best all-around gymnast.
However, the purpose of the two-per-country rule is to give an opportunity to under-represented countries a chance for their athletes to shine and prevent powerhouse nations (like, in this case, the United States, China, and Russia) from absorbing all of those top spots in the final.
(In fact, the rule was changed from three-per-country to two-per-country in 2004.)
Setting national pride and bias aside, this is an example of a “dumb, stupid rule” that is put in place to give other countries a chance at winning a medal that otherwise might be shut out if the quota of qualifying gymnasts only come from a handful of nations. While very generous to those otherwise under-represented countries, it violates the very premise that the Olympics are about getting the best together for competition.
Okay, so in this case, did the ends justify the means?
Well, in a word, no. The top four scores in the all-around final were from U.S., Russia (silver medal), Russia again (bronze medal), and the U.S. again (Aly Raisman). If a gymnast from a smaller country with an overall weaker team was good enough to qualify for the all-around final and truly be in the running for a medal, she wouldn’t have needed the rule in the first place. It’s true that anything can happen in sports, but it’s hard to justify penalizing a gymnast because she comes from a country with a strong gymnastics program. If a country’s best gymnast isn’t better than the top five Russian gymnasts or top five Chinese gymnasts, then how could she be considered the best in the world? Wouldn’t an open competition just further reinforce this talent gap?
This is just the latest example of a dumb, stupid rule put in place by organizations that somehow modify the entire premise or objective of the organization’s existence. Identifying the best of the best should not be contingent upon a technicality. It isn’t a sure thing, but Jordyn Wieber probably would have been a good bet to win a medal. She is, after all, the defending world champion.
Nearly every organization has these rules that benefit very few while standing as an impediment to others. Dumb, stupid rules can disrupt a company’s culture. Fast Company has a great article on these rules, including the infamous “the customer is always right” rule.
This is not meant to take anything away from Gabby Douglas. She earned her gold medal. Unfortunately, the all-around final will long be remembered because of the one that was left out.
All Jordyn Wieber can do during the all-around final is watch and wonder what could have been.
11 Responses to “2012 Summer Olympics: Jordyn Wieber and “Dumb, Stupid Rules””
Leave a Reply
Sports
Masters Pin Flag Giveaway Winners
Finally. I can finally announce the winners of the Masters Pin Flag Giveaway, six weeks...
Pingback: Olympics: 5 Reasons Not to Cry for Jordyn Wieber
Pingback: Jordyn Wieber's mom still disappointed, skips all-around
Pingback: Jordyn Wieber's mom still disappointed, skips all-around
Pingback: 2012 Summer Olympics: The SPOILER ALERT Olympiad | Lean Blitz – Do it better.
While I agree with your thoughts here Chad, it seems to have been very clear, if implemented in 2004, what the expectations were for these young ladies. It should have come as no surprise to Ms. Weiber that she did not make the finals after finishing third on her team. If our country was going to be outraged at this rule, the time to do that should have been well before the Olympics, when there was ample time for the Olympic Committee to react appropriately. Unfortunately, this year will now be remembered for the one girl that was not good enough, rather than for Ms. Douglas, whom shined in the spotlight.
Joslin -
I totally agree with you. I don’t think there was any sort of surprise, as the girls were probably well-versed in the expectations made of them. However, this is one of those scenarios where the results were not what they had projected. But I think the real concern should be with why the two-per-country (or even three-per-country) rule was instituted in the first place. If the competition was truly about finding the world’s best, it should be done regardless of geography.
I don’t think the rules were the surprise, but just the result. The rule essentially handicaps the bigger countries, and I don’t know if that’s the best thing for competition.
Pingback: US men's eight falls short of medal
It seems like a questionable rule but hardly dumb and stupid. Why limit at 3? Why not 6 from one country? If it is just about bet why not however many can make the finals? I think I wouldn’t have changed from 3 to 2 if I was the person deciding but it doesn’t seem close to as bad a decision as I would expect before calling something dumb and stupid.
Hi John!
The “dumb and stupid” portion was certainly hyperbole for the idea of implementing rules whose existence is questionable. Your questions are very valid, and I was actually thinking about the range of possibilities like that this weekend. I watched one of those NBC feel-good historical perspectives on Olga Korbut and they showed three Soviet flags being raised during a medal ceremony in the 1972 Olympics, so I can see how a single country’s dominance could be disheartening. That being said, if a country produces the three best gymnasts in the world why would you deny those three a chance to prove it so that another country could be represented on the medal stand?
I feel it is a rule that should be better thought out. Geography shouldn’t dictate whether you are permitted to participate or not. I really think it should be about finding the best of the best.
“In keeping these players out, the Olympics has allowed the enforcement of diversity to trump the quest to crown the best in the world.”
This is a quote from an article about Olympic gymnastics, but was stated in regard to the same two-per-country rule implemented in table tennis with the intent of curbing Chinese dominance in the sport.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_ring_circus/2012/07/30/jordyn_weiber_olympics_2012_the_two_per_country_rule_that_eliminated_the_united_states_most_decorated_gymnast_is_totally_indefensible_.html
http://news.yahoo.com/china-success-devastating-says-table-tennis-chief-184122641.html
Pingback: NBA and NFL Draft Eligibility Restrictions – Why? | Lean Blitz – Do it better.