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!

Challenging Fault Call

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by pcll99, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    231
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    BadmintonCentral
    Fault call is often contentious, especially for over the net shot.

    Instant replay can easily revolve the issue. The technology is already there.

    I think it is now time for BWF to allow challenges to fault call.
     
  2. Fidget

    Fidget Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    54
    Occupation:
    something far too busy for my badminton needs
    Location:
    Canada
    Good idea. But even with video it is contentious.
    LCW's block of CL in second game of 2014 AE final is probably the example you mean.
    The replay shows that CL completed his stroke on his side of the net. So there was no actual interference with his follow through. But what the replay can't show is whether his stroke would have been any different if LCW hadn't been bringing his racket up. That is in the realm of conjecture and not fact.

    So a video judge would be ruling with just as much opinion as the umpire. (Unless he had the cojones to say that he couldn't be sure). So, even with a video replay ruling, the fans would still be in disagreement .

    In my house, I and my two boys had three opinions: fault (me), no fault (little LCW), and not sure(little LD). ;-)
     
    #2 Fidget, Mar 10, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2014
  3. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    I think he is talking about the 2 times Chen long took the shuttle before or after the shuttle had crossed the net. The first one was called a fault and actually by the slow mo he made contact on his side. The second time it looked clearly as though he made contact on his opponents side but the umpire allowed it. Wrong both times IMO.

    With regards to that net blocking there is no doubt in my mind that it should have been a fault. LCW racket was ridiculously close to Chen Longs and there is no way CL could make a full stroke. The most annoying thing about this is that any club player that watched it, is going to be sticking their racket up at the net and saying "LCW did it", thinking it's fine. Leaving 2 options, play stroke and maybe break my racket or play half shot and maybe loose the point from an illegal move, either way is terrible, Umpire sent out a terrible message
     
  4. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    231
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    BadmintonCentral
    I was thinking about LXR vs WSX. There was a block by LXR, which in my view, was a fault, but there was no indication from the umpire.
     
  5. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    Oh right we both had the wrong guess lol.
    Fidget is right with regards to blocking calls, vid replay will not make a difference because the rule is obviously too subjective anyway. Take the LCWvCL one, looking at the rules, that was a prime example of a definite fault in my eyes, but the umpire thought different. Saw a couple comments agreeing with umpire too. For some reason people interpret "prevent making a full stroke" with "you have to clash".
     
  6. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    I don't think the situation was THAT clear. I'm more into calling LCW's block a fault, but I think it's close. He was some cm away from the net, maybe far enough for allowing CL to do his stroke.
    I think it's a tough call!
    (and def nothing you can judge by review, as we see in our discussion here...;-))
     
  7. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    They just need to change the rule.
    In the case where a player is following the shuttle over the net the receiver must not present his racket above the net tape within half a rackets length of the net until after the shuttle has been struck.
    **Or just scrap the current rule and allow it all.

    That's the 2 options. The current rule doesn't work, plain and simple, we have seen it time and time again.
    Even re watching this one, I am thinking the only person that really knows is Chen Long himself.
     
  8. AlanY

    AlanY Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,067
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    England
    M Frost did commented then if Chen Long continues with his follow thro' and hit LCW's racket it's definitely his point, quite agree with him on that one.
     
    #8 AlanY, Mar 11, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2014
  9. vixter

    vixter Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Germany
    It was definitely a close call, but I thought the right decision was made. Chen Long's choice of shot (a thumb-grip backhand "tap") required not much follow through and he evidently did not hit LCW racket.

    I think the rule is sufficient as it is. It will each time come down to the umpire's judgement. I don't think a video replay challenge is suitable because who is going to overrule the umpire? The guys by the monitors watching the line calls? No, the umpire must have the authority and final decision of this kind of call, I think.
     
  10. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,647
    Likes Received:
    287
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    This is where two wrongs do make a right. :p
     
    #10 visor, Mar 11, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2014
  11. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    With the current rule though it's not down to judgement, It is just down to the umpires opinion..
    The players have a different opinion of what is obstructing them than the umpire. Every one needs to be on the same page

    I believe there are two theories/interpretation of the current rule, can he it the racket or would he have hit the racket with the shot he had to go with(natural reaction avoiding).
    The "can he hit the racket theory" the LCW example and many others would be straight forward fault. easy! (and a rule that could be judged in distance)
    The "would he have hit the racket" total imagination, very grey, pure opinion and umpire can interpret whatever.

    Tweaking the rule to take away the second grey interpretation would be best no?
     
  12. vixter

    vixter Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Germany
    But even if you change the rule to "can he hit the racket = fault", will there not still always be a grey area? Let's say LCW was 25 centimeters further back in the court, then we would the same question "could he have..."

    How do you suggest the rule should be tweaked, to take away interpretation?

    It's the same problem as with service fault - racket too high, right? It will always come down to interpretation of individual umpires.
     
  13. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    If you look at my post#7 you will see my suggested rule. There will always have to be a judgement and sometimes it will be wrong, fair enough but it does not need interpreted like the current rule is open to.
    With service there is a lower rib that exists its just hard for reference so yes it is a bad rule but not on the same level as how bad this current net blocking rule is. There is no point of reference and not even a common idea of what the rule means, never mind judgement.
     
  14. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    and one must admit, the rule is not a big problem!

    how many really problematic cases are there? 3 per year?
    most of the cases are absolutely correctly judged by the ref! there are millions of wrong calls concerning services, rushing, etc.
    no need to care about the very, very few misjudged cases of netblocking/distraction.
     
  15. insaint84

    insaint84 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    19
    Occupation:
    -
    Location:
    -
    Lol the game has ended get over and move on.
    Every game has wrong calls , wrong decision. That is life. There some even obvious and bias call. Ntg can be done. Players have to live with it.
     
  16. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    What game? This rule constantly comes into play for me as a player and team member. I have watched other people in club matches bring it up mid match numerous occasions and not once has the all 2 or 4 folk on court agreed. I like the way the only defence for this rule is- it doesn't get used that much, just let it get called wrong lol.
     
  17. raymond

    raymond Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    18
    Occupation:
    Top Secret
    Location:
    USA
    If there's an issue with authority, how about we delegate the job to the service judge, who after all is sitting idle there after services. Then Umpire is out of the way, and video replay can be used.
     
  18. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,647
    Likes Received:
    287
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I'd still say do it the Roman way... let the crowd/audience decide on the slow mo replay. Then a sign will be flashed on screen whether legal or not. The one that gets the louder response will be the call. :D
     
  19. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    231
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    BadmintonCentral
    Better yet, let badmintoncentral decides!!! We can have a poll on every fault call!! :D
     
  20. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,647
    Likes Received:
    287
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Haha... that'd be too much delay...

    How about smartphone apps on location at the tournament? Everyone including their grandma has one right?

    So, on any of these challenges, while the slow mo video is played overhead on the big screen, the audience can whip out their smartphones, go to the app, and click legal or not. And the results are instantly tabulated on screen. :D

    Great audience participation and great use of technology. :D

    We've come a long ways since the Roman times... ;)
     
    #20 visor, Mar 14, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014

Share This Page