|
|
Post by shunsukenumber98 on Jun 9, 2024 2:49:17 GMT -5
Was Takeda's DQ in sasuke 38 justified? Or was it flat out unfair?
|
|
xelA197
Shane Kosugi
Probably the only Italian superfan
Posts: 390
|
Post by xelA197 on Jun 9, 2024 3:09:37 GMT -5
For me this is an absolute injustice and one of Inui's many quirks, why would it be illegal to jump part of an obstacle? Going back, I remember that Orosco in 26 completely missed the swing of the Hazard Swing and yet they pretended nothing happened there, why is it mandatory to take a Fishbone pedestal instead? You can also save time by doing this, so it can be useful too. For example, with the 10-12 version of Tarzan Rope, if Inui was like he is now, you would have had to pick up all the ropes?
|
|
|
|
Post by dakohosu on Jun 9, 2024 3:10:56 GMT -5
Was Takeda's DQ in sasuke 38 justified? Or was it flat out unfair? Some people say it was justified because others got disqualified for doing the same thing earlier in the same tournament, but my counterpoint to that is that it shouldn’t be a rule to begin with. Skipping a Fish Bone peg is considerably riskier and harder than doing the obstacle normally, it’s not like Mori’s DQ in 36 where he straight up cheesed the conveyer by going “out of bounds”, which imo is where DQs become more justified. Besides, within reason I’m an advocate of designing an obstacle such that the only way you can complete it is in the intended way. If they don’t want people skipping Fish Bone pegs, don’t make the landing platform 10 feet wide to allow for that. If it was narrower, skipping pegs and jumping to the side wouldn’t be an option. Not to mention that Takeda didn’t do this on purpose, he did it as a reflex action to avoid falling in the water, removing that agency would make for everyone having to do the obstacle in the way Inui wants them to or failing. Overall, I think the ruling was “fair” in the sense that he got DQ’d in the same way as others did, but I think the rule itself was bulls**t. I especially hated how they let Takeda clear the stage, where he got incredibly emotional, only to tell him he’d been DQ’d. I think even the producers knew this was a bad move hence why they tried to hide this in the broadcast. Making it out as though he got stopped right after the Fish Bone. It also generally baffles me that certain moves were allowed to be made in the most recent tournament (if you know you know), which are fairly analogous to this situation, yet skipping a peg was a DQ lol. |
|
|
|
Post by sasukewarrior333 on Jun 9, 2024 13:09:21 GMT -5
Was Takeda's DQ in sasuke 38 justified? Or was it flat out unfair? Unpopular opinion: Yes, it was completely just. There was nothing unjust or unfair about it. It WAS a stupid rule that I find pointless as if anything it makes the obstacle harder. Like the Swap Salmon Ladder DQ rule, it is a remarkably dumb rule, but it is not unfair or unjust as long as it is enforced equally and fairly, which it was, as stupid as it may be. The only DQ in SASUKE that was unfair is Kong's DQ in 30, as it was just straight up not his fault, and it was not something he could have prevented. He should have gotten a rerun, as it was completely and utterly out of his control that the run popped back in the moment he made the transition. Call the rule whatever you want, call it stupid, call it unnecessary, criticise it for ruining what could've been one of the greatest SASUKE, but in my humble opinion, calling it unfair or unjust is categorically wrong, as it was a rule that everybody had to abide by and he wasn't put in a position where there was literally nothing he could've done like Kongu in 30. |
|
|
|
Post by dakohosu on Jun 9, 2024 13:50:53 GMT -5
Was Takeda's DQ in sasuke 38 justified? Or was it flat out unfair? Unpopular opinion: Yes, it was completely just. There was nothing unjust or unfair about it. It WAS a stupid rule that I find pointless as if anything it makes the obstacle harder. Like the Swap Salmon Ladder DQ rule, it is a remarkably dumb rule, but it is not unfair or unjust as long as it is enforced equally and fairly, which it was, as stupid as it may be. The only DQ in SASUKE that was unfair is Kong's DQ in 30, as it was just straight up not his fault, and it was not something he could have prevented. He should have gotten a rerun, as it was completely and utterly out of his control that the run popped back in the moment he made the transition. Call the rule whatever you want, call it stupid, call it unnecessary, criticise it for ruining what could've been one of the greatest SASUKE, but in my humble opinion, calling it unfair or unjust is categorically wrong, as it was a rule that everybody had to abide by and he wasn't put in a position where there was literally nothing he could've done like Kongu in 30. Yep, this. Fair is determined by whether it's the same treatment for everyone, which in this case it was as others got disqualified before him for doing the same thing. Sensical is a different story because then that brings into play the pretense of the rule itself, which personally I have an issue with because the landing platform was 10 feet wide allowing for pegs to be skipped, as well as the fact that skipping pegs is easily the kind of thing you can do almost accidentally as a reflex action to avoid falling in the water, which several competitors did. In an ideal world, DQs should only be so when the competitor has blatantly gone out of bounds, or actively gone out of their way to cheese the obstacle, like grabbing supports that aren't in the way, etc. Sasuke in general I think is very fair these days, even with the sleuth of celebrities the same rulings apply to everyone. The only gripe I have fairness-wise is the fact that some obstacles sporadically malfunction for some but not for others, but those wronged don't get re-runs. Then obviously weather conditions but those are hard to account for. I don't think we've had any re-runs in the Inui era bar Drew in 31 who only got one because he started a shouting match with Inui; none of the guys who experienced the hazardous jets in 29 got one, no one who got screwed over by the numerous Dragon Glider or Swap Salmon Ladder malfunctions etc. got one, and so forth. Ironic how Drew's DQ was the most justified of all of them as he committed an action he knew wasn't allowed. But yeah, I'm not saying the rule was dumb just because Takeda got DQ'd, if they were to make an exception for Takeda they'd have to remove the rule entirely, so no one else gets DQ'd for doing the same thing. Obviously people bring up Takeda as he's a fan favorite and I think all of the other instances got cut, but yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by shunsukenumber98 on Jun 10, 2024 4:09:57 GMT -5
Was Takeda's DQ in sasuke 38 justified? Or was it flat out unfair? Some people say it was justified because others got disqualified for doing the same thing earlier in the same tournament, but my counterpoint to that is that it shouldn’t be a rule to begin with. Skipping a Fish Bone peg is considerably riskier and harder than doing the obstacle normally, it’s not like Mori’s DQ in 36 where he straight up cheesed the conveyer by going “out of bounds”, which imo is where DQs become more justified. Besides, within reason I’m an advocate of designing an obstacle such that the only way you can complete it is in the intended way. If they don’t want people skipping Fish Bone pegs, don’t make the landing platform 10 feet wide to allow for that. If it was narrower, skipping pegs and jumping to the side wouldn’t be an option. Not to mention that Takeda didn’t do this on purpose, he did it as a reflex action to avoid falling in the water, removing that agency would make for everyone having to do the obstacle in the way Inui wants them to or failing. Overall, I think the ruling was “fair” in the sense that he got DQ’d in the same way as others did, but I think the rule itself was bulls**t. I especially hated how they let Takeda clear the stage, where he got incredibly emotional, only to tell him he’d been DQ’d. I think even the producers knew this was a bad move hence why they tried to hide this in the broadcast. Making it out as though he got stopped right after the Fish Bone. It also generally baffles me that certain moves were allowed to be made in the most recent tournament (if you know you know), which are fairly analogous to this situation, yet skipping a peg was a DQ lol. How would skipping a peddle be considered riskier? I would think that method is a lot more safer tbh but that's just me, considering that when skipping one at the end, you won't have to worry about the pendulums swinging you down |
|
|
|
Post by dakohosu on Jun 10, 2024 5:47:35 GMT -5
How would skipping a peddle be considered riskier? I would think that method is a lot more safer tbh but that's just me, considering that when skipping one at the end, you won't have to worry about the pendulums swinging you down I meant riskier as in more difficult, which it definitely is. Jumping across a peg means you can't time your approach as well as you're effectively going across multiple sets of pendulums that rotate at different angles. The reason Takeda did it was because he timed his approach poorly, he was about to get knocked off but also couldn't go to the next peg as he would've been knocked off by an incoming pendulum as well, so as a do-or-die move he just jumped slightly to the side to the landing platform. Personally I think this kind of thing should be rewarded as 95% of people wouldn't think of/be able to pull this off and would just get knocked off, and it's not like he completely cheesed the obstacle, like, say, Mori did in 36, or Nagano did in 18, where both of those respective moves were out of bounds. I still do not get why this was a rule whereas a particular move in 41, which if anything was worse as it was straight up skipping the entire obstacle rather than just part of it, was allowed. I obviously know that the competitor in question verified with Inui whether it was allowed prior, but it does make me question why the Fish Bone rule.... is a rule, lol. |
|
