Separate names with a comma.
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!
Discussion in 'Olympics LONDON 2012' started by FlamingJam, Aug 1, 2012.
Well, they are the boss. They decide what is right.
They don't have to always be right in fact given that it is an organisation made up of human beings it would be rather startling if they were always right. If an competitor feels that they don't like the structure of the tournament or how the IOC applies the rules they are free to stay home. It's not about some moral concept of right.
Seriously, anyone watching those matches play out and thought there would be no consequences to the teams involved doesn't have a very firm grasp of reality.
@thunder.tw, I do agree with both of your most recent two posts. It's odd all parties are not responsive to the referee's warning. Not sure if they understood what's happening, but even if there's language barrier, they should have recognized the black card (which means DQ?).
Given that they're likely following their head coach's instruction, wonder if CBA would do anything for their future. Or maybe CBA told them to lose (from strategic standpoint), but they chose the worst way to implement it. So they have themselves to blame.
There is a very clear clause in the BWF code of conduct that can be used as a catch all for this type of behaviour. There really isn't any ambiguity in the wording or the spirit of that clause. There has been a great deal of ambiguity in how the BWF has enforced it. But, expecting them not to enforce this rule under the circumstances and the venue is insane.
Could you point out which clause you are talking about? Perhaps quote it?
I'm just curious...
Can someone please help me clarify my doubts (sorry I was unable to skim through 22 pages):
1. So KOR VS CHN tried to throw the match in order to not meeting World No.2. KOR tried not to meet World No.2, CHN is more like not meeting them because they are friends, understandbly so.
2. However in KOR VS INA, why did KOR tried to lose? If they lost they would face their own teammates? In this article here it says that they DO NOT WANT to face their teammates that's why they tried to lose?
" Sung said: "The Chinese started this. They did it first. It's a complicated thing with the draws. They didn't want to meet each other in the semi-final."
He said after the Chinese set the precedent, the South Korean pair in the second match deliberately emulated the Chinese tactic because they did not want to face their team-mates in the quarter-finals. "
I don't understand, can someone help me out here?
In the 2nd game (INA Vs KOR), the winner get's to play WZL/YY. Very un-enviable position.
Yes I know, but the Korea coach said they do not want to face their teammates? So are they trying to lose so they don't face WZL/YY but face their own team?
By looking at this video, I cannot really tell if Korea deliberately want to lose. I mean, they won eventually, didn't they? It's just that they did not play too aggressively, but that is probably because they sensed that China is not playing too seriously, that's why... Can't really tell. However, it is blatantly obvious that CHN is trying to give away the match. They really need some acting lesson.
don't know if you know that there are practice courts in the arena behind the black curtain that also has practice cam for the audiences to see. before the match the Korean are nowhere to be seen on the practice court and everyone knew what is going to happen. and surprise surprise the Korean came out and duly served the first point to the net.
If that's not enough they had the vulgarity to tried it again the next match with a different pair!
Served them right to have both pairs DQd
I agree with all you've mentioned here. Except that it IS a moral issue.
It is NOT a regulatory issue, because everyone is aware of (or had access to) the regulations before hand, and they did blatantly act against it. And got punished for it.
However, every regulation has a moral imperative behind it. I just don't think that what the WD players did (trying to secure a better draw for themselves) is 100% morally wrong in the name of competition. Surely, there is room for discussion, like 50% wrong perhaps.
In the end, I think what's done is done. BWF should learn from this because players/teams will certainly not, when their ultimate aim is still to win tournaments. I understand the teams' intention behind their strategies, which I repeat, surely cannot be 100% wrong morally, in the name of competition.
But my sympathies lie with the players who are made scapegoats, laughing stocks, and roundly condemned in this incident. Yes, even Yu Yang, who I don't like very much.
so KOR VS CHN:
KOR (by losing) wants to setup CHN VS CHN quarterfinal (CWIIW) (avoiding CHN get gold and silver) and also if possible, maybe all KOR eight finals (so one of them would qualify in semifinal and got a chance to grab a medal, wheter go to final or bronze)
CHN (by losing) wants to avoid their teammates to setup all CHN final
and then, KOR VS INA:
these pairs, will fight against the 2 pairs above (KOR and CHN)
winner of this group will fight against the loser of the other group (which is CHN pair, WZL / YY world number 1 WD)
and the loser will fight against the winner of the other group (the KOR pair)
no one wants to fight against world number 1, so everyone wants to lose too
More fuel for the fire?
Oh, let me just clarify that I don't mean "the ends justify the means". Fairplay is also important. However, I would say trying to get a better draw is fair game; everyone wants it and can attain it (depends on how hard they try to lose)
The Algerian's intention in the 800m event is really not to progress any further in the event (though admittedly, his intention is actually to rest and do better for 1500m).
The WD's intention in the WD event is really to progress further in the event.
There's a difference.
The reason I say it's not really a moral issue is because as we see, people have different morals. Also, you get people trying to make arguments based on moral relativism. By that I mean people attempting to excuse their actions by pointing out the actions of some jackass in another circumstance such as cycling or women's soccer.
Fair play (actually I mean something broader here) is more than important in this case, it is actually a concept that is codified in the rules regarding players conduct. Yes such rules can be applied with some flexibility but the actions of the WDs went way beyond the tolerance levels. Furthermore they were warned that their actions were unacceptable and they were warned so in no uncertain terms. So yet another reason why morality doesn't factor here is because despite what some people seem to believe, there is actually very clear language in the rules pertaining to the actions the women took.
Well I disagree with you because not every team enjoyed that option so by definition the playing field wasn't level. The reality is that the format they decided on, while stupid was fair the Chinese teams could have avoided meeting each other early by winning their matches. The 2nd ranked team failed to do that and lost to the Danes in a legitimate match. Why should the other Chinese team be given the power to nullify the consequences of that legitimate result? Ultimately though this concept is a mere philosophical discussion. The hard reality is that the women broke the rules as determined by the relevant governing bodies.
But not curious enough to do a simple search. Very well here's the relevant link;
Pay specific attention to points 4.1.1 and 4.5. The women's actions made them vulnerable to either one or both of those clauses. For good measure throw in the last sentence or so of 5.1.
i think they were charged under 4.5 and 4.16.
Of course, that is true. It is still interesting that he is charged with essentially breaking the same rules as the women did. He had basically the same mind set (lose deliberately to have a better chance at a medal, all be at at a different event).
I just wonder if badminton has set a precedence for Olympics in terms of sportsmanship or maybe IOC are just trying not to be blatantly hypocritical
Hi Avenger, yes I get it. But the news and articles make me confused. In the news the Korea coach said to the tournament referee that the reason they want to lose is because they do not want to face their own teammates. BUT, if they lose, they will face their own teammates isn't it? Also, it does not really make sense to face their own teammates rather than facing CHN pair, even if they are world number 1.
So are you saying the news are wrong? That's what really get me confused...
I agree that it's a bit confusing. Here's my GUESS:
KOR was hiding their true intention of setting up both WYL/YY together with TQ/ZYL in the top half of the draw.
If JKE/KHN lost against WZL/YY, I reckon, HJE/KMJ would have won against INA's PG/JM.
An automatic SF for KOR in a relatively weak group. Sure, they would have to sacrifice JKE/KHN but the KOR WD2 pair's chances weren't very good anyway.
When WZL/YY were 'successful' in losing against JKE/KHN, HJE/KMJ wanted to lose against INA in order to avoid WZL/YY in the QF.
Bottomline, both of them don't want to be in the same half as CHN.
In the surface, KOR wanted to lose BOTH matches in order to avoid meeting each other in the QF (as what they ave released to the press); quite similar to YY's 'injury excuse'. Sly sly girls... shame on them for speaking in forked tongue. hehehe.
I can't fully blame em though. I believe 80% of the blame is on the organizer. Stupid format.