In the final between Choon Hann and Taufit, the umpire made a couple of very dubious net calls. In a tight game like this where the phycological effect is mignified, the last thing you want is this sort of unnecessarily interruption. It also create doubt on the mind of the player on his abilities when he make another tight net play. If the umpire was suspicious of a fault, he should give the benefit of the doubt instead of being a smart ass. (tv replay shown later that he made a wild guess). The lineman also made a fool of himself when he first pointed at the line, changed his mind and yelled "out". Normally, the first indication by the lineman which is the nature judgement count because this is the "honest" judgement. The lineman was not concerntrating on his task, instead he was absord by the game like the rest of the audience. Choon Hann was visibly upset by the calls. I believe this has cost Choon Hann his title, which I think he was the better competitor of the two in this game, not taking away Taufit great play.
Here i have to say IBF is behind the time...again or is covering up their eyes. With the availability of current video recording and broadcasting technology, instant replays can be used to resolve this close call situation like they have been using extensively in amercian hockey, football, basketball, etc. I have seen in many occasion umpires forced to make quick calls that are sometime wrong and differ from audience opinion, especially when most live badminton audience is sitting no farther away than the umpire and line judges. If a call still cannot be resolved by video replay, then a let is appropriate here.
The net calls by the 2nd call made by the umpire that Choon Hann seemed fair to me. I was sitting at the 1st row and saw the call made as well as Choon Hann's actions. Also, the linesman did make a fool out of himself, no doubt about that. But his call was initially in but he changed it to out. Taufik should be the 1 to complain not Choon Hann. Choon Hann should be happy about that. It was Taufik's smash that was called out not Choon Hann's
Choong Hann got bad calls in Grand Prix against Peter Gade as well. This ill omen seems to be following him around. As cooler and lat mentioned, IBF should do something about this. The linesman's call should not always be the bottom line, they can be overuled. I watched the delayed telecast later and fully agree that the calls on the net was a mistake. A linesman's job can be very pressurised at times, they have to fully concentrate all the time as they may have to make a call if the shuttle falls on their side. I understand that they are sometimes under a lot of pressure and attention to make a call especially if they were not fully concentrating when the shuttle came(not to mention that badminton is one of the fastest-if not the fastest racquet sports). Therefore, if they are not sure, video playback should be employed. If the outcome still cannot be determined, then a let should take place. It is not fair a player should fight so hard to enter the finals just to loose due to a couple of bad calls. Shame on you IBF.
But the first one was bad. In a seven point system, all it takes is one stupid call. I am not taking credit away from Taufik, but if the calls were made correctly for both Chong Hann and Taufik.... Imagine it happening not in one tournament, but 2 straight tournaments. In Brunei and now in Singapore. How much damage this has done to CH's confidence?
I think it is because the way Wong hit the shuttle so close to the net. Even if his racket did not touch the net, the shuttle will and it will look like it is his racket which touches the net. or his racket does touch the net, ?
Thats what i thought. And to girl. I don't think the IBF can do much about this. The umpire had to make a decision there and then. Even if the umpire was proven wrong and made bad decisions, it still wont help Wong because he still lost
I already mentioned on another thread regarding the unhealthy trend that is now developing which seems to be unofficially mandated/sanctioned by the IBF. The umpires and line judges are all now adopting a high profile by drawing attention to their own shortcomings and bad decisions. I remember a time when an entire Thomas Cup event came and went almost without a single service fault called. Now you find 4 or 5 of those in a single game. Even the umpire jumps into the act by calling illegal taps over the net. The professionalism and impartiality of umpires and line judges has taken a nosedive for the worse. The IBF must pull its act together.
Each player needs to be psychologically prepared for many factors that might affect performance during a game, such as fanatic fans, opponents, ...etc. But it seems umpire's bad calls have the most impact on a player as it takes aways confidence. When this happen, the mentality becomes "one against many (umpire, opponent, linesmen..etc)". It is ironic that a player's most fear on the court could be the umpire, not the opponent
Two contradictaory statements. The umpire is supposed to call out illegal taps over the net. Therefore, this is a sign of increasing standards of the game (as is calling illegal serves a fault). The rules are there to be abided by. Anyway, agree that this thread has served its orginal purpose. Thread closed
I said the umpire and service judge called it as illegal which is different from the tap and/or serve being actually illegal. Please don't put words in my mouth or read posts with blinkers on. Aren't you being euphemistic by calling it "a sign of increasing standards of the game". This thread may or may not have served its original purpose but who are you to decree it is closed?
On a note of clarification. It is the sentence construction that determines its interpretation by other people. Even the umpire jumps into the act by calling illegal taps over the net. (which is how I interpret the statement) OR Even the umpire jumps into the act by calling illegal , for taps over the net. (still some ambiguity) OR Even the umpire jumps into the act by calling any taps over the net as illegal. (less ambiguity). This is rather going off the point which is why the thread is, perhaps, better off closed.
