If challenge is unsuccessful, they lose an additional point on top of the one they just lost. This might make for a more entertaining match.
That's an interesting proposal. How about this one? still 3 challenges as it is now, but after 3 challenges run out, players can still challenge but will lose one point for each and every unsuccessful challenge. what do u think?
How about adopting tennis rules instead. If it goes to a deciding game add on 1 extra challenge. Makes a lot more sense since hawkeye was adapted from tennis anyway.
Not a particularly good idea - the losing player can stall a match indefinitely by hitting the shuttle out every time and challenging it no matter how ridiculous the challenge is. However, if it was structured so that the player that won the point would get an additional point upon an unsuccessful challenge by the player that lost the point, then it might just work.
The challenges are time-wasters as it is. That is, people can challenge so hawk-eye must review, wasting about a minute of time in the process.
Well the point of eliminating the free challenges is so that challenges don't become a tactical play such as breather for tired players or breaking the opponent's momentum. Oops yeah this is what I meant. Opponent gain an additional point.
If we had perfect line judges, we wouldn't need challenges. Making an unsuccessful challenge would seriously discourage players from making challenges, even when they're pretty sure they're correct. Is there any data about the current state of challenges? To me, it seems players use them just as intended; I rarely see challenges that feel like they're being called for tactical reasons, and many players don't spend both challenges in the first place. I'd rather have an automated system; with that, a challenge shouldn't take more than a couple of seconds. It's embarassing that the heavily advertised system consists of people watching a replay.
Because electronic eyes for Badminton don't exist yet. As soon as they exist (and are reliable and affordable), I don't see any reason why they should not replace line judges.
If they're pretty sure they're correct, they stand to gain a point AND their opponent loses a point compared if they don't make any challenge. That's a two point advantage. The risk is comparable. Maybe it hasn't come to that yet (tho I'm sure it's happened) but I can see how free challenges can and will be used for tactical reasons.
I really doubt if the electronic eyes really work. In tennis, when the ball hits the ground, the contract area could be hugh (like about 1/2 of the diameter of the tennis ball). But when a shuttle bird touches the floor, there is no way the contract area is as big as the replay screen shows. So when the replay screen shows the center of the black cycle is out of bound, but the black cycle barely touch the line, and they callls it i!?? No way.
I don't think there should be "challenges" at all. Any time there's a very close call, the off-court judges should consult the hawkeye, and over-rule the line judges. Players shouldn't have to risk losing challenges to rectify a bad call. If a shot is out, it's out! If the line judges can't get it right, then implement a system that will. As soon as the technology is fast enough to be instantaneous, they should do away with all line judges, and use hawkeye for all in/out calls. After all, I don't pay to see how accurate the line judges are. I pay to see how good the players are. Leave the human judging for figure skating!
Im sure I read somewhere that hawkeye currently costs about £30,000 per court, so for YAE that equates to £150,000 extra that organisers have to fund. How many events would be priced out of contention by that cost and does that really equate to promoting the game. Has anyone any stats on accuracy of human line calls, generally and for challenges. What were the figure for the hawkeye test scenarios that were run. Whilst 100% 'human' accuracy would be great its also highly unlikely to be acheived but I would be surprised if the figure was far below that...especially at YAE..
Eventually, the technology will be more affordable and widespread, that the cost will be negligible. At some point in the distant future, you will be able to download an app for you iPhone, and place it beside the court, that will automatically call all your out shots. Human judges will eventually be eliminated from all sports. There will definitely become a time where the cost of paying people to sit around a court will be higher than the cost of an automatic system.
and in the real world we have real humans, who are not paid who sit there are get 99.5% accuracy, think I know which 'system' I will stick with
Obviously 99.5% isn't good enough, because you still get pissed off players complaining about missed calls. And don't get me started on the "missed calls on purpose" that has plagued certain events. This isn't some distant future technology, that will be brought here by aliens. It exists today. It just needs to be made more efficient, and used more widely.
I'd be interested to see how many of the challanges have been successful - just how good are the line judges? I've seen a couple used right at the end of a match - as in the very last point - where the shuttle was pretty obviously in or out, but most times the players all know it and just walk into the net for the handshakes.
