I see they've changed it after learning how confusing it was...
Now a thumbs up means "IN", while thumbs down means "OUT". I think it's better this way.
No no, thumb up from referee means challenge is good, and thumb down meaning challenge fail.
You see, the technical officials will eventually get the signals "optimised" to use the BWF vocabulary, consider this SSF as a trial for fine tuning the signals, as craigandy called it "mind blowing innovation." Even a top federation such as BWF cannot be expected to get things proper and correct the first time around - recall the mucking about with the 7 point system? So this line-calling technology will eventually be implemented to achieve the desired result of innovation and excitement.
Already there are examples of using reviews, anyone who watches cricket will know how to involve several thousands of spectators in the stadium and also on the telly. The other one is from rugby when the official asks a specific question. Then there is field hockey. One thing is certain, the current signal by umpire is same as calling the referee on court. This has to now change for the review. Also, the mechanics of the signal from the referee to the umpire will need to be changed, as also the camera views. Only they know why what is being reviewed is not shown to the audience and the players. Most facilities already have a jumbo-tron in the arena.
As for the review itself, the referee is likely provided the feed by the technician in the backroom. If I was that referee, that is where I would be, in the back room, mucking about with controls to get the correct frame to freeze.
As many on this forum already know, BWF is feeding all the later round action from many places all year round, all of it freely available with a network connection. This has to count for something!
Perhaps the BCers could draw their attention to this thread so that the federation may figure out how 'crowd-sourcing' from this forum can be put to good use, yes?
If they show the instant review video to everybody (not just to the referee), i think it is better. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. It should be very easy (and not expensive) to show the video on TV.
Secondly, I am sure there may be situations where even with the benefit of instant slow mo review, it may difficult to make a call. If that is the case, I think it is fair to just call it a let.
it is a 146 posts thread on that topic. and there are other threads too.
there are always different interpretation. visual as well as mathematical interpretations.
not the simpliest of topic. and probably why BWF don't want to disclose the video as 50% will think it is in, 50% think it is out. (on the borderline cases)
Thanks. Back then, without the benefit of instant slow mo review, it's all a matter of discretion.
Now with all this high tech stuff, I think they need to issue some guidelines on this. If they can capture the landing at several hundreds frames per second from several different angles with ultra high resolutions, they need consistency on what it is in and what is out.
You are right--that's probably why BWF don't want to disclose the video. Hopefully, after a few months of trial, they will disclose it. Everybody wants to watch it.
Even the inventors of Hawk Eye technology state that it is not 100% foolproof. No one questions it's accuracy but it has been quoted to be only accurate to +/- 5mm in tennis.
Even then BWF is on the right track with these instant line call video reviews. They just have to work out their communications, and they must show it on the big screen to the audience and players if they intend on keeping their promise of injecting drama and excitement.
The Badminton World Federation announced in early 2013 that a line judging instant review system will be implemented, allowing players to challenge the decision made by line judges during a tournament. Here are some of my thoughts on the whole system and what effect it has on the organization, the linejudges and the players.. Out of all the court games, none makes as full use of the court boundaries as badminton. Think about it, tennis? nah. volleyball? neh. Easily 1/2 of the shots made in badminton the players are aiming for the boundary lines, perhaps with the exception of netshots, drops. Other shots like clear, smash, lift, even some drives are all designed to be hit as close to the line as possible in order to win or not giving away opportunities. It only make sense that something as crucial as line judging should not be trusted completely on the eyesight of lightly trained and over worked human beings, who not only can be inattentive and error prone, they can also be affected by external factors and make blatantly biased calls. I am not naming any tournaments here, but i am sure avid followers of badminton can name at least a couple. So hats off to BWF who finally realize it after all these decades. And despite some teething problem (seriously, thumbs up? thumbs down?) the system was deployed in the 2013 Super Series Finals and also in the ongoing 2014 Victor Korean Open Super Series. How has it affected the different parties involved so far? Linejudges
Linejudges are humans, so they do make bad calls (and the reason for implementing this whole review system in the first place!). However, bad calls comes in different categories. The genuine errors, or the biased calls. During the Super Series finals, there were a handful of genuine bad call and challenges were successfully made and the call corrected. Despite the small sampling population, the number of genuine bad calls seems to be around the same. So the prospect of getting reviewed didn’t make the quality of the linejudges any better or worse. And with either luck or brilliance in the part of the BWF, after debuting the system in the SSF, the next test is in the 2014 Korea Open. As most of us already know, the Korea open has, to put it mildly, a reputation of having questionable linejudges. It has been the subject of protests, fights and even walkouts. In the men’s doubles quarterfinal, the number of bad call against Endo/Hayakawa when playing against Lee Yong Dae / Yoo Yong Seong was abnormally high, all of which were overridden during challenge. That is surprising as the bias calls from the infamous Korean linejudges has not reduce despite the prospect of getting their calls reviewed. One would think any attempts would be futile but that doesn’t seem to have any effect on the (lack of) quality of the Korean linejudges. I guess old habits die hard. Players
There is also an interesting change of behavior from players. In the post-umpire-override and pre-review days, players often makes a big deal out of any calls, as the only person they can plea to is the umpire, might as well make a big fuzz to see if it works. However, after the review system is implemented, I noticed players are much less likely to throw a big tantrum. My take on it is this. Badminton player have excellent perception, eyesight, and awareness. They have to in order to be the best players in the world. After any shuttlecock lands, they already know exactly whether it is out or not. Before review, they can try to throw a big tantrum, but now with the review system, they know whatever they do won’t affect the outcome. In other words, players has been force to be more honest. Sometimes some players, like Lee Chong Wei in the recent Korea Open quarterfinal, did he usual “I don’t believe you called it in” reaction after one call, but in the end, he let it slip without asking for a challenge, as he already know that it was a good call. He didn’t even bother looking at the umpire. Before the system was put into practice, there was a concern of players abusing the system to get some breathing time as have happened often in tennis. So far we have not see any of that happening. Only time will tell if players will take advantage of the system this way. And in a brilliant move by BWF, the 2 incorrect challenge limit should prevent that from happening. Fans
The last group of people affected would be the fans. And there are two different takes on this. Everyone love to see fair competition, and everyone love to know that the heros and heroines win or lose a match in a fair manner. The addition of the review system will definitely make that happen. Perhaps the tantrum and walkover that we have experienced before will go away from now on. And also badminton will gain a better reputation, in which we haven’t been very good at lately as most of the headline news we got seems to be bad ones. On the other end, being a devil’s advocate, taking out the human variability into the system seem to have taken away the organic part of badminton. No longer we will see players twisting their faces, walking up to the umpire chair and shout “not fair!” to him. Line calls will be more clinical and lack in emotion. Overall, this is a great direction that badminton is moving towards. Hats off to BWF this time.
Have to correct myself above, just watched the Lee/Yoo vs Endo/Hayakawa match, they do show it on screen. Dang, there are some really bad line judging against the JPN. Fortunately they had this line challenge system in place.
I don't know why it took BWF so long to do this. LCW vs CL finals was fairly called. Line judge was overturned at least 2 times during the match from my count (I only tuned in during the middle of the first set). That's 2 points that would have gone the wrong way.
I have only just become aware of this forum and thread but having seen it I feel compelled to comment. I have been a line judge for many years and have line judged at almost every major tournament including the Olympics and although the initial post from Kwum differentiates between what he calls genuine bad calls and biassed calls I believe he displays a lack of understanding about calls in how he describes them. A biassed call is bad in anyone’s book and it is well known that this happens predominantly in the Far East. In my view a genuine bad call is an unbiassed call that lands more than 2 cms inside or outside the line. It would be more accurate to describe a call where the shuttle lands within maybe less than a centimetre as incorrect. It is all too easy to be judgmental about line judges and their calls when one hasn’t actually done any officiating. Unless you have actually sat on a line you cannot possibly know how difficult it can be.
Having said that I can also say that I have experienced the Instant Review System at an event and have first-hand knowledge of how it operates and what information it gives us. Firstly, the fact is that at the event I attended all the calls were monitored, whether challenged or not. The overwhelming number of calls were correct. The actual percentage deemed incorrect was just over 1%. However, there is a more interesting side to this. Kwun made an erroneous statement when he said that, after any shuttlecock lands, players already know exactly whether it is out or not. This is a generalisation which simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Very often players see what they want to see. The percentage of incorrect challenges at the event was higher than the correct challenges. In addition, there were a small number of occasions where players could challenge but didn’t because even their eyes couldn’t pick up on where the shuttle actually landed. The reason for this is because the eye only sees 25 frames per second while a camera sees 200 frames per second. Knowing this, players are no better qualified to be certain where a shuttle lands than a line judge. Their instincts might be better simply because they have constant daily exposure to shuttles landing, but their eyes can’t actually see any quicker than anyone else. When reviewing a shot, the referee can split a shuttle landing into frames of 200th of a second. It isn’t surprising the camera will be better able to see if a shuttle is in or out. Nevertheless, the fact that it sometimes needed an enlargement to determine where the shuttle landed demonstrates how difficult a line judge’s job can be.
Personally I welcome the introduction of the Review System because I believe nothing is more important in a match than accuracy. However, unless you have actually line judged don’t be smug and think you understand what is involved. Also, don’t write as if all line judges are lumped into one homogenous mass. We all know why overruling was brought in but most line judges try to do an impartial and accurate job to the best of their ability, using their own money and time to do it. They sit on the line for hours on end and yet all too often they are treated like rubbish; but most umpires say they wouldn’t want to do the job themselves. All those of you who think you can do better why not have a go at the job and then you might like to revise some of the comments made in this forum. You will soon find out it isn’t as easy as some of you appear to think