Latest local news, weather and high school sports for Toledo area

When you think of the Olympics, you think of the world's best squaring off to determine who is the best at thier discipline.

But a rule change made back in 2004, and a less-than-stellar performance by 2011 Women's World Gymnastics Champion, Jordyn Wieber of team USA over the weekend, has brought the rule change and the reasons behind it to the front burner.

Prior to the rule change, the top 20 gymnasts, as determined by combined overall points, would square off in the all-around finals.

After the change...the top two gymnasts from each country now compete for the title.

And in the case of Jordyn Wieber, that leaves her the odd woman out.

After Sunday's qualifier, Wieber was fourth in overall points...but because two of her U.S.A. teammates scored higher, she'll be on the bench for the all-arounds.

Because of the "two per country" rule, Wieber will be forced to watch 21 other gymnasts, all who scored lower than her in the qualifier, compete for the gold.

David Wallechinsky, author of "The Complete Book of the Olympics" told The Christian Science Monitor that the Olympic philosophy is "we want to spread the wealth, we want to spread sport to other parts of the world."  "Otherwise, there would be no Saudi Arabian woman runners or American badminton players."

But Wieber's failure to make a final that her scores suggest she clearly deserved points to a philosophy run amok, Wallechinsky told the Monitor.

"Sure, let them compete in the Olympics, but you don't have to let them compete in the final," he says.

Four years ago, in the qualifying round for the all-around in Beijing, Russian Ksenia Afanasyeva posted the sixth-best score, but was the third-best Russian. She watched as a Belgian – whom she outscored by 3.650 points – competed in the all-around, and finished last.

Should the best gymnasts go head to head in the all-around finals?  Or is the "two-per-country" automatic bid to the finals the best way to promote fairness?