Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

Bitburger Badminton Open GP Gold 2014 (28th October-2nd November 2014)

Discussion in 'French / Bitburger Open 2014' started by CLELY, Oct 3, 2014.

  1. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,574
    Likes Received:
    671
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    she did call a let on the first one...

    it was on the second one right after that that she awarded the point to thw... although the service judge managed to convince her to change her mind...

    and then it happened a third time...:rolleyes:

    ctc was really lucky to have passed thru that 3 times unscathed...
     
  2. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    15,362
    Likes Received:
    423
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    I think a "Let" call is in order.

    In the sporting environment, "fairness" to all players is important and should be exercised by officials, especially the Umpire, whenever the need arises.

    Rivals should not be allowed to take undue advantage over their opponents and the culprits should be cautioned.

    In this regard I think the umpire has finally taken the right decision on this service controversy.
     
  3. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    38,560
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Occupation:
    Self-employed
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    With all due respect,the way you put it, surely nobody should disagree with you but I'm afraid you're merely stating the obvious and missing the real point of the controversy.

    Right, good point which some seemed to have missed or glossed over. Well said.

    Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. Hopefully, it doesn't set a bad precedent in future. May everybody including the players and officials draw the right lesson from it. Time to move on, for me.
     
  4. AlanY

    AlanY Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    England
    Now I'd watched that incident on video, here is my take

    There are two players on court the server and receiver, and two officials, the umpire and service judge.

    Am I right to assume that the service judge will be watching the server at all time and no way that he will be able to judge if the receiver is ready or not? The umpire being on the high chair will be able to watch both players and is always her call if the receiver moved before the shuttle being hit etc.

    Bearing in mind that both officials didn’t ‘faulted’ the server with regarding to the second service at 19-19 but after the receiver’s protest the umpire called the service judge over (twice) for enquiry. The question can only be if the serve was legal or not according to the service judge as that was his only job at that moment of time. If the answer was yes then point to the server, otherwise to the receiver.

    Then how comes we had another ‘let’? That can only happened if the service judge’s answer was ‘not sure, don’t know’ if the serve was legal or not.

    So, THW been robbed by the incompetence of the service judge and indecision of the umpire.
     
  5. nokh88

    nokh88 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,133
    Likes Received:
    408
    Occupation:
    Badminton Trainee
    Location:
    Badminton Academy
    I agree with you.
    The point cannot be awarded to the server because the receiver is not ready. It would not be fair to the receiver as posted by someone. So a "let" call is the correct one.

    As I have posted earlier, if we see them as server and receiver, the umpire was correct.
    If we see them as THW vs CTC, the umpire was definitely wrong.:D
     
  6. nokh88

    nokh88 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,133
    Likes Received:
    408
    Occupation:
    Badminton Trainee
    Location:
    Badminton Academy
    Wonder if you know the umpire personally to ask her what was discussed between herself and the service judge that made her to call for a "let".

    ..and thanks for the above explaination.
     
  7. AlanY

    AlanY Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    England
    as the empire didn't acknowledged that the receiver was not ready with the point awarded to the server proved.

    so what had changed her mind after the discussion with the service judge that got nothing to do with the receiver's readiness?
     
  8. tsae75

    tsae75 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Developer
    Location:
    Singapore
    The receiver may be construed as having moved before service even though he actually stumbled - which may in turn be attributed to his eagerness to prowl on the service but got his timing wrong. Imagine if the receiver had gotten his timing right, i.e. he didn’t fumble but moved just in time or just before the serve; tapped it down nicely and was awarded the point? The receiver took his chance but fumbled on his gamble and therefore should be penalised.

    *

    In any case, under such circumstance where all opinions and judgements would be subjective, the umpire had already made her call/decision by awarding the point to the server. She could have checked with the service judge first but no, she awarded the point. To rescind on her decision for whatever reason (coerced by CTC) is a total disgrace and a lack of professionalism. How this injustice would not affect the server at such a crucial moment of the game is beyond any sportsman’s comprehension.

    *

    Take for example in another game between Lin Dan & LCW (Asian Games semi-final match) when the umpire clearly made a mistake in over-ruling the lineman on his furthest end of the court. Even the video replay showed the shuttle landed on the line. It became quite clear to all that it was a mistake. But once a decision is made, the umpire CANNOT simply reverse it even if he thinks in his heart that he may have made a mistake.

    *

    However, I strongly believe this incident will work in favour of THW and quite unfavourably to CTC the next time they meet. I see this as a good opportunity for THW to be motivated; to train even harder and become a stronger player – to gain strength from ‘injustice’ and ‘righteousness’. I wouldn’t be too surprised if THW beat CTC the next time; if not pretty soundly.* **
     
  9. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Once a state of mutual readiness is established, it is no longer the server's responsibility to ensure the receiver being ready. In the contrary, it is the server's duty to explore any lapse in the receiver's readiness.

    CTC was ready. THW saw it. The umpire saw it. The service judge probably didn't, if he was doing his job right. THW did not hold the shuttlecock forever to wait for CTC to falter (a "technique" that I detest). THW served soon after seeing CTC being ready. THW made a legal, good faith service. That was that.

    Would I make the no call? As I stated earlier, I would call a let if it was the first service attempt. After a let had already been called, CTC must hold his readiness for more than a fraction of a second to get my let call.

    The "no call" is harsh, but no harsher than calling a service fault which is called on game point or even match point from time to time.
     
  10. ahcash

    ahcash Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Surely THW is up to something..hence the first and the third serve. The second serve was arguable. From what I saw from the replay, THW hold his second serve a tat longer than usual. As soon as he saw CTC lost balance, he served right away. To me, that's completely unnecessary. Just serve the norm and win the game during play.
     
  11. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    United States
    Like I said, this sport is for the players. If you feel it's a delay tactic or such, you call the player over, and if needed, you will give them a yellow card for delay of game. You cannot just award the server the point because you deemed he was ready when he was not.

    If he does indeed stumble like that, or if he put his hand up again, you cannot just let the point stand and claim he was ready when he obviously was not. That is not a judgement call, but an obvious he was not ready. A similar situation happened in Canada that went from 19-18, the point standing when the receivers claimed they weren't ready, and then got warned for delay, then tried to get the referee, the umpire then gave them a red for delay and that ended the match. I did not see the actual service and how the receiver was, and neither did the referee, but at the briefing the next day, the referee stated that if they are clearly not ready, you cannot just say they were. You can card them, but a let should be played. This is a referee who has worked at multiple Olympic Games.
    [MENTION=51369]nokh88[/MENTION], Yes, I do know the umpire, but I do not keep in contact with her. She is using a US coin to do the coin toss at the beginning of the match :p
     
  12. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    I was looking forward to your professional input but you keep throwing up things that are simply not there (e.g. first it was "not a receiver fault", and now "calling not ready as ready").

    I never claimed CTC was ready at all times. In fact, my position was always that CTC was ready and then soon after, he appeared not ready. See my post on top of page 19.

    If the receiver keeps switching between being ready and not ready, the game simply can't be played. As I said, I would give the receiver the benefit of the doubt and call a let if that occured on the first service attempt. On the actual second service attempt, THW executed by the book and served soon after CTC was clearly ready. THW was not called for any infraction but lost his awarded point anyway. How fair was that?

    Note that if the media report was acurate, CTC was not even appealing for "not being ready" but rather THW's double action drawing him off balance.
     
  13. bigying

    bigying Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    ERP Consultant
    Location:
    SF

    In my opinion, what happened here in this case was not a matter of whether both server/receiver were ready. I think the fact that CTC stumbled was not entirely due to his eagerness to jump on the serve, but rather the "stuttering" motion of THW's serve. I think CTC was complaining to the Chair-umpire that THW's motion (at least in the 2nd serve) was not a single smooth motion. He was anticipating/timing the THW's racket head touching the shuttle at the same moment that he was going to lift his foot to move forward (all professional players do this, esp in doubles play). If the service motion is not 1 single swing, but with halting stop during the service, the serving rulebook is violated and the timing on the receiver's forward momentum is also disrupted.

    I think that was CTC's main point on THW's serve on the 2nd try.
     
  14. badrad

    badrad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,651
    Likes Received:
    7
    Occupation:
    currently unemployed
    Location:
    Surrey, Canada
    Most sports (other than NFL, MLB or NHL and some others), umpires/refs do not have the privilege of instant replay to recant their decisions. Badminton - with the exception of tournaments with Hawkeye for line challenges, have no such benefit for officials. Based on their own visuals, and consultation with all officials on the court, they will make the best decision at the time. And that's a thankless task as evidenced by some of the posts here.

    My sincere thank you to all umpires and refs out there. Good job done!
     
  15. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Correct. It shows how little we know by only watching TV/Video.

    As the service judge did not call a service fault at the time, they should just play on. When the play was dead, the umpire simply called it as it was, a point to THW.
     
  16. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Looking back, it was so funny how we were misled by GC's commentary and the official's mind boggling decision. Thanks to a clue provided by a reporter who called Scott Evans a young Indian, we are finally getting to the what actually happened on court, although we are still no closer to knowing how the umpire ended up with her final decision.
     
  17. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    While this may be peripherally related to the discussion above, I think there is a para in the rule book that clearly mentions that the server must serve at the earliest that he sees the receiver is ready to receive. Or the moment that both are ready.

    edit: OK, found it.
    http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file.aspx?id=558306&dl=1

    serving.jpg
    There are many players nowadays who when serving, take an inordinate amount of time to actually make the serve. It is apparent to everyone watching that they are waiting for the receiver to lose shape. It is also part of a mental battle of wits being played out, albeit using unfair means. I have actually seen receivers backing off and walking away after waiting for what seems like hours for the server to make the serve.

    IMO the umpires need to remind players just once before play begins that this form of gamesmanship will not be tolerated, because it actually does violate the rules of the game. It is what yellow cards are for. Players are not stupid, or forgetful. They all know exactly what they are doing.

    I also feel that rule needs to be amended for the last part to read:
    "On completion of the backward movement of server's racket head, any delay in the start of service (Law 9.2) shall also be considered to be an undue delay;"
     
  18. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    168
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    Yup, as I mentioned, this is a "technique" that I detest.

    For the pros who are playing for next month's rent or a new Porsche, I can understand why some of them may want to stretch the rules. The horrible thing is that some recreational players learn from what they saw and use it in friendly pick-up games. That pretty much ruined a fun game.
     
  19. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    United States
    I'm only talking about what should happen when that scenario arises. At worse, he would get a warning, not lose a point. There is no reasoning why THW should've kept that point. What actually happened, it's a he said/she said thing that we will probably not find out. I leave it as, the umpire eventually made the right call in the end, play on. Mistakes happen. We can continue arguing whether the course of the action of the umpire was correct or not, but that will never end since we will most likely never find out what was really said.
     
    #579 CantSmashThis, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014
  20. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,574
    Likes Received:
    671
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Don't even bring up Ma Jin's name in slow as molasses service.

    Even though I admire her great skills, but from the time she gives two hand signals to her partner as to which serve she's doing and which return she's covering, and then slowly deliberately serve, the opponents could've gone off court, have a drink, wipe some sweat and still return in time to receive.
     

Share This Page