Inthe MD final, the umpire let FHF return twice.

At 26-25 for CHN, CY served from right field to LYD. Next at 26-26 FHF returned from the right field instead of CY, and then FHF served the winning point at 27-26 from the left field.

Also the services, and the calls can be challenged. No call on CY is ridiculous and call immediately afterwards on LYD. Very decisive actions from the service judge. And impossible to see without technical help, so the judge has to rely on hunches. Very very undfortunate to have a WC final decided this way.

I believe there's something in the rules that says if the umpire does not notice that players are serving/receiving on the wrong side and the point has finished then they will fix the player positioning but NOT replay the previous point.

Inthe MD final, the umpire let FHF return twice.

At 26-25 for CHN, CY served from right field to LYD. Next at 26-26 FHF returned from the right field instead of CY, and then FHF served the winning point at 27-26 from the left field.
...
..wow, good eyes and catch..I also didn't pay attention. The umpire probably was too tense that he lost concentration as well..wow, i've gotta re-watch the video to see what transpired..

akim1 is a great observer,he/she even beat chris on that,great ^^
hope u can tell us more that we cant observe in future ya.^^
thanks

everybody knows that CY/FHF is more powerful when CY is at the front. So this serve (which is wrong) really didn't benefit chinese pair too much...

Good eyes though!

I've been waiting for the complain about a fault serve of LYD though, not this one.

Wow, I didn't notice that also. I must download this match and re-watch again. Thanks for pointing out the bad misktake :D

I've been waiting for the complain about a fault serve of LYD though, not this one.
a slow replay did show LYD serve above waist. shuttle strike after his left hand lift the shuttle above waist.
Wow, I didn't notice that also. I must download this match and re-watch again. Thanks for pointing out the bad misktake :D
every point after 20-20, floor mop, players tower down, drink water. umpire busy asking people to mop here and there cause both pairs keep diving. busy asking the players to stand in and continue play. the umpire just miss-up the side but did manage to track down who shall serve. :D

a slow replay did show LYD serve above waist. shuttle strike after his left hand lift the shuttle above waist.

every point after 20-20, floor mop, players tower down, drink water. umpire busy asking people to mop here and there cause both pairs keep diving. busy asking the players to stand in and continue play. the umpire just miss-up the side but did manage to track down who shall serve. :D
LOL :D I think he can send an email to the BWF informing them about this mistake so that it won't be happened in the future. :D

What about the service judge in the XD finals. Do u agree that Ritter Juhl's serve was double motion as indicated by the judge. I couldnt see it if it was 2x motion. Without technical help, i agree it is very subjective. I remember those days, a service judge had some kind of tool/device like a small window which they held in their hand where they will observe the serve of the player? Any one remember that?

good observation:) u are observant.

I remembered when i was laughing all the way through during the md's thrillling final, i saw 1 of the line judge eventually clapping hands when china gets a point, that was when all 4 players on court played a really long and great rally,..lol. THE LINEJUDGE also clap hands!!! wkakakakakaak..this is ridiculuous!!:p:p

Inthe MD final, the umpire let FHF return twice.

At 26-25 for CHN, CY served from right field to LYD. Next at 26-26 FHF returned from the right field instead of CY, and then FHF served the winning point at 27-26 from the left field.

Also the services, and the calls can be challenged. No call on CY is ridiculous and call immediately afterwards on LYD. Very decisive actions from the service judge. And impossible to see without technical help, so the judge has to rely on hunches. Very very undfortunate to have a WC final decided this way.
i suppose ur implying that d service judge was very bias towards to china?

The rule is like this: if the players serve or receive on the wrong place of the court, their position should be corrected, and the presence score shall stand. Means, the umpire just correct the players positions but the score remain. The umpire can check the players position from the score sheet :)

Inthe MD final, the umpire let FHF return twice.

At 26-25 for CHN, CY served from right field to LYD. Next at 26-26 FHF returned from the right field instead of CY, and then FHF served the winning point at 27-26 from the left field.

Also the services, and the calls can be challenged. No call on CY is ridiculous and call immediately afterwards on LYD. Very decisive actions from the service judge. And impossible to see without technical help, so the judge has to rely on hunches. Very very undfortunate to have a WC final decided this way.


Good observation, but I think the last statement is a bit too bold. Yes, I agree the incident might put a dent on probably the greatest match of WC09 (or, year of 09). However, just say the whole game is decided on this is a bit too much. Overall, KOR also has 5 or 6 match point, but they did not capitalize it earlier.

Anyway, good catch. ;)

LYD/JJS, both also didnt notice.
KOR pair should have voice it out.
this mean, the umpire miss-notice isnt the cause LYD/JJS lose the world champ.

Inthe MD final, the umpire let FHF return twice.

At 26-25 for CHN, CY served from right field to LYD. Next at 26-26 FHF returned from the right field instead of CY, and then FHF served the winning point at 27-26 from the left field.

Also the services, and the calls can be challenged. No call on CY is ridiculous and call immediately afterwards on LYD. Very decisive actions from the service judge. And impossible to see without technical help, so the judge has to rely on hunches. Very very undfortunate to have a WC final decided this way.

If what you've observed is true, then the umpire has made a mistake. He should not have because he has a detailed scoresheet to assist him on which player served last and on which side of the court. If CY last served to LYD on the right court at 26-25, then when CHN won the next rally 27-26, FHF should serve from the left court to JJS.

I believe there's something in the rules that says if the umpire does not notice that players are serving/receiving on the wrong side and the point has finished then they will fix the player positioning but NOT replay the previous point.

However, if the Koreans did not protest at 27-26 that FHF was serving from the wrong court, then the wrong positions will remain till the end of the game. :(

Of course in this case, the umpire had made a mistake but the Koreans did not protest so the result stood. A pity as it was such a good final game and any pair could win. Perhaps justice should prevail and extend the game to the last allowable point, ie, 30-29 to decide the issue! :D

wow great spot! didnt even notie it 1st time round on live telecast... adds even more drama to an already thrilling finale!

What about the service judge in the XD finals. Do u agree that Ritter Juhl's serve was double motion as indicated by the judge. I couldnt see it if it was 2x motion. Without technical help, i agree it is very subjective. I remember those days, a service judge had some kind of tool/device like a small window which they held in their hand where they will observe the serve of the player? Any one remember that?

I only heard of the service judge using a cardboard to check if the service is above waist level. Maybe yours is another tool altogether.

i suppose ur implying that d service judge was very bias towards to china?


That was why I claimed it was 2 Korean players vs 3 Chinese players in other threads.

a slow replay did show LYD serve above waist. shuttle strike after his left hand lift the shuttle above waist.
...


when I was watching the match live on TV, it appeared that most of LYD's serve were above waist but were not fouled... anyone got the video and see the replay to prove (or disapprove) this???

when I was watching the match live on TV, it appeared that most of LYD's serve were above waist but were not fouled... anyone got the video and see the replay to prove (or disapprove) this???

Yes LYD needs to work on his serve, KOR lost many unnecessary points this way.

That was why I claimed it was 2 Korean players vs 3 Chinese players in other threads.

Alright, you can claim that's 2 vs. 10 if you want to. It's not like all KOR (LYD in particular) serve did not raise up any questions as many others have pointed out. Some times, it's very hard to determine, when in the "gray area".

I remember last year in a tournament (sorry, bad memory), ZYW/XZB has lost 11 points to a RUS pair, due to service fault, mostly on ZYW's side. Later on, they protested, as ZYW is short, and you can not use normal height standard to judge what's the height for her "waist" level. However, there's nothing can be done after the match, either.

So, suck it up, and try to improve on your own. If you have to face 10, let it be, and show if you are ready for it or not. :cool:

If what you've observed is true, then the umpire has made a mistake. He should not have because he has a detailed scoresheet to assist him on which player served last and on which side of the court. If CY last served to LYD on the right court at 26-25, then when CHN won the next rally 27-26, FHF should serve from the left court to JJS.

However, if the Koreans did not protest at 27-26 that FHF was serving from the wrong court, then the wrong positions will remain till the end of the game. :(
...
LYD/JJS, both also didnt notice.
KOR pair should have voice it out.
this mean, the umpire miss-notice isnt the cause LYD/JJS lose the world champ.
- It was the Umpire's responsibility to keep track of the details of the game (e.g. who's serving, which side of the court, the score etc.) as the players were too focused on the match and esp. in this highly intense match.
- I don't blame the KORs for not protesting as they would have been too focused in that last few pts of the game. I wonder if CY & FHF were aware of the error during that junction of the game??
Good observation, but I think the last statement is a bit too bold. Yes, I agree the incident might put a dent on probably the greatest match of WC09 (or, year of 09). However, just say the whole game is decided on this is a bit too much. Overall, KOR also has 5 or 6 match point, but they did not capitalize it earlier.

Anyway, good catch. ;)
- It is a bit unfortunate also. I don't think the original poster meant to say it "boldly" or put "too much" emphasis on the Umpire's error as the deciding factor in the whole match. I also could imagine what would've happened if we were to put CY & FHF in LYD & JJS' shoes and they were the ones who suffered from the error (reverse role).
- True, LYD & JJS had their chances to clinch the match. Btw, they only had 2 match pts, once at 22-21 and 23-22.

when I was watching the match live on TV, it appeared that most of LYD's serve were above waist but were not fouled... anyone got the video and see the replay to prove (or disapprove) this???

Good observation..

Have u guys seen the photos of jump smashing by any players? They seem to make a very big and high jump; but actually not. That's all about the camera angle.

You can't exactly notice esp. the real HEIGHT by the pictures from cameras. That's actually happening in the service heights like in jump smashes.

If you want to know more; check the services of esp. these guys: TBH, LWW, etc. All their services are acceptable even though they seem to too high to the sights of TV or video viewers.


:)

From the side view, it appears that LYD serves were a little too high.

Good observation..

Have u guys seen the photos of jump smashing by any players? They seem to make a very big and high jump; but actually not. That's all about the camera angle.

You can't exactly notice esp. the real HEIGHT by the pictures from cameras. That's actually happening in the service heights like in jump smashes.

If you want to know more; check the services of esp. these guys: TBH, LWW, etc. All their services are acceptable even though they seem to too high to the sights of TV or video viewers.


:)


Good explanation, Narnia. All this while from the TV camera, I wondered why LWW's serves which looks very high above the waist were not faulted. Thanks.

Good observation..

Have u guys seen the photos of jump smashing by any players? They seem to make a very big and high jump; but actually not. That's all about the camera angle.

You can't exactly notice esp. the real HEIGHT by the pictures from cameras. That's actually happening in the service heights like in jump smashes.

If you want to know more; check the services of esp. these guys: TBH, LWW, etc. All their services are acceptable even though they seem to too high to the sights of TV or video viewers.


:)

Jumping very high to execute a smash has its advantages provided the player does it well. In order to do this he has to be very fit and must have practised the jumpsmash almost to perfection in his training.

Imagine if he should land awkwardly, that would probably mean the end of the match for him if he should break a bone, receive an ankle sprain, tear a leg muscle, especially the Achilles tendon, etc.

So the higher he jumps, the greater the risk and his smash may also be returned by his opponent.

If you have a chance to watch some very old tapes, say in the sixties, of the old masters, I think they hardly jumpsmash. It seems the jumpsmash was first credited to "the King" of INA. ;) But some also said it was "the Thing" of CHN/INA who first demonstrated it. :D

That's all about the camera angle.
yes, camera's angle of view does affect what we see.
if there is a service fault, a slow-mo(sometimes play for us to view) from the service judge's eye level. one can notice the head of service judge. the camera view normally is slightly above the service judge's head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt827rAhmzE

i didn't watch this match, only the above youtube link.
From what i've saw, CY/FHF look pumped and LYD/JJS look nervous and edgy.
On the service fault, my belief is that service judges are usually more lenient on tight games but would call it if the foul was very obvious and blatant. To me, LYD was trying to push his luck what he can get away with. Too bad, he got caught.If a chinese player does it, he would be accuse of trying to cheat. Just like when chinese player raises hand to pause service. in this case, one can't blame the fouled service by LYD on the chinese side so some blame it on the service judge.

that last service foul by lyd was to execute a drive serve, a stroke that benefited greatly by a 'higher' contact point.

..(thank you cooler for the video link)..and the incident of the Umpire not paying attention of who's supposed to stand where. It happened when the score was at 26 all and the KORs were serving to FHF. After the CHN pair got their match pt and abt to serve, Cai Yun was a bit surprised when the Umpire told him it was FHF's serve. They acknowledged and FHF moved back to the odd court to serve.

Personally, it's not really bad, i mean not a blatant one. Just a moment of concentration lapse by the Umpire.

As for LYD's service, i thought he's been serving a tad bit above his waist esp. after watching the Semifinals match vs. KKK & TBH.

when I was watching the match live on TV, it appeared that most of LYD's serve were above waist but were not fouled... anyone got the video and see the replay to prove (or disapprove) this???funny that nokh88 didn't mind those uncalled fouled before.

when I was watching the match live on TV, it appeared that most of LYD's serve were above waist but were not fouled... anyone got the video and see the replay to prove (or disapprove) this???
and LYD got the nerve to compliant about KKK's service was high toward the end of their SF match!

some photos of the korean duo serving

The pictures seem to show the server started legally. Problem comes when they first hit the shuttle. Whether they contact it below waist level, ie, the lowest rib, which many will agree is very difficult to see, unless you have X-ray eyes. So most times the service judge will have to use his discretion and this is subjective.

I have observed that low serves are less likely to be called 'fault' compared to high or flick serves. For the latter the tendency is for the server to move his shuttle-holding hand a bit higher, maybe to gain more momentum. It is this last minute quick action to flick the bird high that is prone to being called a fault service.

In that first photo, it definately looks illegal, cant be sure about the others
In a side note I have a question about the "racket pointing down rule"

does that mean
A: the line along the shaft, from the cone to the head is pointing down
B: the vector normal to the plane of the face is pointing down

thanks

edit: wooo 100th post, glad i used it on something somewhat useful

In that first photo, it definately looks illegal, cant be sure about the others
In a side note I have a question about the "racket pointing down rule"

does that mean
A: the line along the shaft, from the cone to the head is pointing down
B: the vector normal to the plane of the face is pointing down

thanks

edit: wooo 100th post, glad i used it on something somewhat useful

I think 'A' will suffice, so long as the shaft is pointing downwards, not sideways or upwards.

This is to ensure that the racket head is not above the wrist when it comes into contact with the shuttle.

But the other 'ingredients' must be fulfilled to make it a legal serve, namely, the bird must not be hit above waist level, the serve must be a continuous action (you can't stop the forward motion with your racket holding hand midway and resume the action) and you can't lift your feet above ground. :D

ah, thanks for clearing that up, I actually thought it was B, meaning you would have to "slice/cut" the shuttle over, pretty difficult

Inthe MD final, the umpire let FHF return twice.

At 26-25 for CHN, CY served from right field to LYD. Next at 26-26 FHF returned from the right field instead of CY, and then FHF served the winning point at 27-26 from the left field.

Also the services, and the calls can be challenged. No call on CY is ridiculous and call immediately afterwards on LYD. Very decisive actions from the service judge. And impossible to see without technical help, so the judge has to rely on hunches. Very very undfortunate to have a WC final decided this way.

I don't know about you, but in my eyes and the eyes of many. The MD WC Finals ended in one of the best matches ever. It was a thriller! To me, I don't think don't it can get any better.

Both side received the same amount of service fault. Nearing the end of the 3rd when CY did a flick server and got JJS off guard, is a different flick then LYD to CY. LYD is more like a driving serve that everyone hates.

Over it's just a great game. It's not our job to call the serve or correct the position of the players when serving or receiving, so we should just enjoy the match.

I don't know about you, but in my eyes and the eyes of many. The MD WC Finals ended in one of the best matches ever. It was a thriller! To me, I don't think don't it can get any better.

Both side received the same amount of service fault. Nearing the end of the 3rd when CY did a flick server and got JJS off guard, is a different flick then LYD to CY. LYD is more like a driving serve that everyone hates.

Over it's just a great game. It's not our job to call the serve or correct the position of the players when serving or receiving, so we should just enjoy the match.

I think most of us will agree that it was a thrilling match and we all enjoyed it. The result could well go the other way. But rules are rules and they are made so that all players will be treated fair and square and no one should have undue advantage over their opponents.

Because the umpire made a mistake and it was not corrected in time, the Koreans have somehow been disadvantaged as the rules were not adhered to strictly and as such the umpire lend himself to criticism.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2743
re-quoting from kwun's post

12. SERVICE COURT ERRORS

12.1 A service court error has been made when a player:
12.1.1 has served out of turn;
12.1.2 has served from the wrong service court; or
12.1.3 standing in the wrong service court, was prepared to receive the service and it has been delivered.
12.2 If a service court error is discovered after the next service has been delivered, the error shall not be corrected.12.3 If a service court error is discovered before the next service is delivered:
12.3.1 if both sides commiteed an error, it shall be a 'let'
12.3.2 if one side committed the error and won the rally, it shall be a 'let'
12.3.3 if one side committed the error and lost the rally, the error shall not be corrected
12.4 If there is a 'let' because of a service court error, the rally is replayed with the error corrected.
12.5 If a service court error is not to be corrected, play in that game shall proceed without changing the players' new service courts (nor, when relevant, the new order of serving).
-----------------------------

Also not often mentioned, it is a service fault if the height of the racket frame top exceeded the racket hand knuckles.

If there is any mistake happened in this WC......there is no comparison to the obvious mistakes made Umpire during French Open...( MD: KKK/TBH ve JAPAN)..

The service judge rule oftentimes become controversial. Maybe not for the one in favor of getting the point.

Last night, I played with someone who did a double motion. Not the kind that Kamilla did in the 2009 WC XDF. It was really a double stroke, intentionally making a first stroke to confuse me, and then hitting the shuttle at the second stroke. I complained saying that it was illegal. And then he said that it was my service that's illegal because it was above he waist. I don't know if it was sourgraping because they were losing big time. And there weren't even a service judge there.

In the course of reading this thread, I think it would be better if they revise the rule. Gill Clark said the call of the service judge is irrevocable, that there's nothing the players can do about it. So, instead of giving out points to the opponents of the server who was called by the service judge with an error, why not make the first call a let and give a 2nd service just like in tennis. That way, a point would not be garnered especially during crucial situations.

Your proposal is from the player's point of view, but it still fails
to address the subjective 'waist line' issue. Also the side effect
is that plays might always try fault service on the 1st serve and
hope not being caught.

I think I've seen somewhere mentioned that the new rule might
be as long as the contact point is below a certain height, then
it is okay or something like that.

I too think the 'let' service is not a good idea. It only delays the game unnecessarily and departs from the present rally-point expediency that makes it clear, short and sweet.

I also agree that some players would take advantage of your 'let' proposal to test the patience and consistency of the service judge. In most matches the service judge is unlikely to be changed unless he made massive blunders and is challenged many times by players from both sides. So the same judge with the same pair of eyes will oversee the serves of all the players and he is expected to be impartial. Unless the SJ is biased, as it could happen with players from his own country, then the present service rule should continue.

BWF should find a better way to solve the problem. Recently for important tournaments, international judges from other countries have been sent to officiate to make judging as neutral as possible. But judges are humans and can make mistakes now and then. So how can we make judging consistent without resorting to machines? But machines can also fail at the crucial moments. :D

Anyway, 'the rice had already became porridge'. I hope all the umpires will be more careful next time. And i also hope BWF reads this thread;)

Bad service judge calls both in MD & XD as I can see, they involve too much of the games, no good like that.

Anyway, 'the rice had already became porridge'. I hope all the umpires will be more careful next time. And i also hope BWF reads this thread;)

Actually, i think it's "padi had became porridge" :cool: no offence.