User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 35
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,216
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Challenging Fault Call

    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. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,990
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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). ;-)
    Last edited by Fidget; 03-10-2014 at 09:00 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,216
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #5
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    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.
    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. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #7
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #8
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,568
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |_Footwork_| View Post
    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...;-))
    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.
    Last edited by AlanY; 03-11-2014 at 08:13 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #10
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,135
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    I think he is talking about the 2 times Chen long took the shuttle before or after the shuttle had crossed the net... Wrong (call) both times IMO.
    This is where two wrongs do make a right.
    Last edited by visor; 03-11-2014 at 12:59 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post

    I think the rule is sufficient as it is. It will each time come down to the umpire's judgement.
    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. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    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?
    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. #13
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post
    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.
    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. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    203
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #16
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by insaint84 View Post
    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.
    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. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    907
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post
    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?
    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.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •