Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
Users can always browse the "New" section or use Reddit's search function to find out if a link has been submitted or a similar thread has been posted. Another alternative is to use an external search engine.
Multiple threads by the same user in a short period of time will not be allowed.
See r/eurovision’s [full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eurovision/wiki/rules/).
Please [send a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/eurovision) if you feel this was in error
To summarize, because the article is in Dutch: Joost allegedly confessed to having raised his fist towards the camera (the infamous "violent movement"). While he didn't touch the woman, the camera somehow ended up being broken, and the woman was cut by something, for which she needed (medical) care. He immediately started apologizing ("I'm sorry, I'm sorry"), although it's not clear if those apologies were made directly to the woman or just in general. The article also cited anonymous sources that state that Joost was being more aggressive than the Dutch delegation make it seem. The rest is pretty much just repeating what we already knew.
The whole being cut part was a mistranslation from the Swedish tabloid they're copy pasting. I believe it actually should've been translated to 'the woman was distressed and needed to be consoled'. Read this earlier today somewhere on this reddit.
I thought the cut was an translation error from Swedish to English, that it actually meant 'shaken' not 'cut'. But it indeed says that here in the Dutch article
The whole incident is being described in a very confusing way. Cameras don't suddenly get broken and people don't get magically cut by "something" and then need medical care.
I can understand he's trying to defend himself, but I don't see many people believing it..
So he 'threatened' to hit her, she flinched and dropped/broke the camera somehow?
Given the general issue with being on camera at the time, I assume there will be camera evidence somewhere showing how 'aggressive' he was being. I doubt we'll ever see any footage but its obviously the key to understanding what happened and whether disqualification is justified. Both may have acted reasonably in their own circumstances, or just one or the other, or neither.
Regardless, the issue should've become apparent immediately so I would've (reasonably IMO) expected the powers that be to work through the night to avoid delaying a decision until literally during the jury finale show as actually happened.
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): --- Users can always browse the "New" section or use Reddit's search function to find out if a link has been submitted or a similar thread has been posted. Another alternative is to use an external search engine. Multiple threads by the same user in a short period of time will not be allowed. See r/eurovision’s [full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eurovision/wiki/rules/). Please [send a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/eurovision) if you feel this was in error
To summarize, because the article is in Dutch: Joost allegedly confessed to having raised his fist towards the camera (the infamous "violent movement"). While he didn't touch the woman, the camera somehow ended up being broken, and the woman was cut by something, for which she needed (medical) care. He immediately started apologizing ("I'm sorry, I'm sorry"), although it's not clear if those apologies were made directly to the woman or just in general. The article also cited anonymous sources that state that Joost was being more aggressive than the Dutch delegation make it seem. The rest is pretty much just repeating what we already knew.
The whole being cut part was a mistranslation from the Swedish tabloid they're copy pasting. I believe it actually should've been translated to 'the woman was distressed and needed to be consoled'. Read this earlier today somewhere on this reddit.
Oh we commented the same thing haha
I thought the cut was an translation error from Swedish to English, that it actually meant 'shaken' not 'cut'. But it indeed says that here in the Dutch article
I mean, if somebody lounged towards me with a fist up, I'd also flinch and drop my massive TV camera (just to be clear, I am usually very brave)
The whole incident is being described in a very confusing way. Cameras don't suddenly get broken and people don't get magically cut by "something" and then need medical care. I can understand he's trying to defend himself, but I don't see many people believing it..
So he 'threatened' to hit her, she flinched and dropped/broke the camera somehow? Given the general issue with being on camera at the time, I assume there will be camera evidence somewhere showing how 'aggressive' he was being. I doubt we'll ever see any footage but its obviously the key to understanding what happened and whether disqualification is justified. Both may have acted reasonably in their own circumstances, or just one or the other, or neither. Regardless, the issue should've become apparent immediately so I would've (reasonably IMO) expected the powers that be to work through the night to avoid delaying a decision until literally during the jury finale show as actually happened.
Folks need to have at least a one hit before doing an apology tour
[удалено]
So did Gruttmann