User Tag List

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 69 to 85 of 143
  1. #69
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,788
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Since most foreign players are already familiar with the words "over rule" and "in" "Out" maybe when the decision comes back from tourny ref to the umpire he should state in a nice loud voice
    either of these three statement depending on what's happened

    "No over rule, (state score), (state challenges remaining)"
    "Overule in, (state score), (state challenges remaining)"
    "Overule out, (state score), (state challenges remaining)"



    I also think it is still important at the start like I said, to say who is challenging and what the existing call is clearly before the tourny ref gets back with the result so everybody gathers whats going on
    Last edited by craigandy; 12-12-2013 at 11:42 AM.

  2. #70
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,472
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, here's a mess up by the umpire who was confused by the hand signals, whether the thumbs down signal from the referee meant in or whether the original line call was wrong.

    So Ahsan's shot to the KOR baseline was called in by the linesman, even though without replay anyone could see it was out. Kim challenges the call. After 10-15 secs, referee gives thumbs down signal. Umpire interprets thumbs down as in. INA gets the point. But if you wait longer, there's a side view slow mo replay that shows it was out by at least 4 inches! It should have been a point to KOR, not INA! I'm impressed the KOR kept their cool and just accepted it... or maybe they were just as confused as the umpire.

    WTH was BWF thinking when they came up with this review system, but didn't think it through with clear terminology or even with big screen display where it'll be obvious to everyone. :duh:


    Start at 28:51.

    Last edited by visor; 12-12-2013 at 07:43 PM.

  3. #71
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,788
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    OK, here's a mess up by the umpire who was confused by the hand signals, whether the thumbs down signal from the referee meant in or whether the original line call was wrong.

    So Ahsan's shot to the KOR baseline was called in by the linesman, even though without replay anyone could see it was out. Kim challenges the call. After 10-15 secs, referee gives thumbs down signal. Umpire interprets thumbs down as in. INA gets the point. But if you wait longer, there's a side view slow mo replay that shows it was out by at least 4 inches! It should have been a point to KOR, not INA!

    WTH was BWF thinking when they came up with this review system, but didn't think it through with clear terminology or even with big screen display where it'll be obvious to everyone. :duh:
    Lol, it really is unbelievable.

    What I don't understand about this situation is everything was going swimmingly:

    Challenge made by Koreans
    umpire states challenge accepted (it was clearly out), and stated 2 challenges ramain
    they give the point to the Koreans,
    they change the scoreboard to read correctly,
    then.....
    something very strange happened, mind control from Indonesians?
    point was taken back off Koreans and wrongly given to the Indonesia
    Nothing more was said about challenges remaining so Koreans still kept 2 challenges

    I am just wondering why they delayed bringing this technology, it couldn't have gone any worse than this 8 months ago.

    Thumbs up or down across a badminton arena, classic idea
    Last edited by craigandy; 12-12-2013 at 08:01 PM.

  4. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Carboard box mansion
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    OK, here's a mess up by the umpire who was confused by the hand signals, whether the thumbs down signal from the referee meant in or whether the original line call was wrong.

    So Ahsan's shot to the KOR baseline was called in by the linesman, even though without replay anyone could see it was out. Kim challenges the call. After 10-15 secs, referee gives thumbs down signal. Umpire interprets thumbs down as in. INA gets the point. But if you wait longer, there's a side view slow mo replay that shows it was out by at least 4 inches! It should have been a point to KOR, not INA! I'm impressed the KOR kept their cool and just accepted it... or maybe they were just as confused as the umpire.

    WTH was BWF thinking when they came up with this review system, but didn't think it through with clear terminology or even with big screen display where it'll be obvious to everyone. :duh:


    Start at 28:51.

    Either way, I think it's plain stupid.

    They should not be using thumbs up/down or using the phrases "chellenge accepted/rejected".

    Furthermore, why was the umpire confused? All umpires/officials had a meeting and briefing of the rules and what happens. It's all to their knowledge and they should understand it better than the players.

    For me, this time I don't think the little man behind the review screen was wrong. He has the easiest job ever. I think the umpire was just confused and mistook the thumbs up as "in" when it meant that the challenge was indeed CORRECT.

    2014 will be another year and I think BWF will need to get together with all umpires/officials to clearly state out the best way to approach players' challenges as well as their terminologies. Because frankly the players are confused, umpires/officials confuded, I'M confused.

    Like I said before, it's a good STEP. But there is HEAPS we can improve on. Tennis atm is WAY WAY ahead of badminton in technology and organisation. I really hope one day the call will be determined by a computer or robot than a person behind the screen.

  5. #73
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,788
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heong View Post
    Either way, I think it's plain stupid.

    They should not be using thumbs up/down or using the phrases "chellenge accepted/rejected".

    Furthermore, why was the umpire confused? All umpires/officials had a meeting and briefing of the rules and what happens. It's all to their knowledge and they should understand it better than the players.

    For me, this time I don't think the little man behind the review screen was wrong. He has the easiest job ever. I think the umpire was just confused and mistook the thumbs up as "in" when it meant that the challenge was indeed CORRECT.

    2014 will be another year and I think BWF will need to get together with all umpires/officials to clearly state out the best way to approach players' challenges as well as their terminologies. Because frankly the players are confused, umpires/officials confuded, I'M confused.

    Like I said before, it's a good STEP. But there is HEAPS we can improve on. Tennis atm is WAY WAY ahead of badminton in technology and organisation. I really hope one day the call will be determined by a computer or robot than a person behind the screen.
    What about making two signs, the guy behind screen hold up either, one says "in" and another says "out". Just couple quid for a marker pen and some cardboard for the rest of the tournament.
    Then next year they can think of investing heavily in something like a ear piece for the umpire for like 20 dollars

  6. #74
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,472
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd suggest using the KISS principle. (Keep it simple, stupid.)

    The referee should just use the same signals as the linesman's: hand pointing down for in, and both hands pointing sideways for out. No confusion at all. No challenge accepted/rejected or overturned/overruled messy business required.

  7. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In bwf mind, they have to do less offend to anyone as possible.
    So, when the challenge is to the line judge call, they use thumb down to say:
    line judge is WRONG.

    Maybe that's just the culture in bwf.
    While some of fans were thinking of much better way, bwf just try, if wrong try again.
    Anyway noone can do anything

    They really need more positive mind inside the organization to develop the sport.

  8. #76
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not as if they even had to figure out the challenge system by themselves. For god's sake, all they had to do was copy tennis!

  9. #77
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,788
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    I'd suggest using the KISS principle. (Keep it simple, stupid.)

    The referee should just use the same signals as the linesman's: hand pointing down for in, and both hands pointing sideways for out. No confusion at all. No challenge accepted/rejected or overturned/overruled messy business required.
    Except the referee is not visable enough, so the umpire still needs to make the call on court to the players and state, "overturned/overruled" or "accepted/rejected".

  10. #78
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Carboard box mansion
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And, what happens if more than one court challenges at the same time?

    How would THAT play out? It'll be chaos... everyone would be WAITING for those replays to que up and get a response for each call.

    I know it's unlikely, but we need to think of the possibilities. For me, I think each court should have their own designated reviewer, rather than 3 or more courts to one.

    And when the reviewer/ref gives a signal, how do the umpires from each court know who its directed to? It could be for any of them.

  11. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,866
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why don't they show the instant slow mo replay on TV so that everybody can see it? I don't get it.

  12. #80
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,945
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    another controversial challenge in the Wang/Yu vs. Pedersen/Juhl game.

  13. #81
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,472
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    another controversial challenge in the Wang/Yu vs. Pedersen/Juhl game.
    that one was tougher to call... may have just nicked the line, or not...which is what the referee called it

    from what i see, it was close but not touching the line...
    Last edited by visor; 12-13-2013 at 02:51 AM.

  14. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Carboard box mansion
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    that one was tougher to call... may have just nicked the line, or not...which is what the referee called it

    from what i see, it was close but not touching the line...
    again, see? even if it's zoomed in and reviewed in slow-mo, it's still possible to get the call wrong.

    this is why getting a computer to decide the call is better like the hawk-eye in Tennis. That way, players cannot argue with it as it's generated by a program.

    BWF needs to find the right people and design this software. The brains behind the hawkeye can easily do the same thing with a shuttlecock. It's not round/symmetrical, but I still feel it's possible combined with slow-mo technology.

  15. #83
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Carboard box mansion
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    also, it's not good in a spectator's P.O.V anymore, since players have to stop play and wait for a decision.

    prior to this tournament, I thought replays will be shown on-screen for all viewers to see.

    if this case, there's no real drama or excitement as BWF claimed. Spectators now have to deal with continuous pauses...

    if there was a large computer screen for each court and the replay was broadcast to the audience... THEN it adds to the drama and excitement of the game as the spectators are involved

  16. #84
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,866
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hm, they use MacBook to review it... interesting.

  17. #85
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,447
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the moral of the story regarding BWF is ... if you give them a chance to f*** it up, they will!

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •