User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 18 to 30 of 30
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcpoirot
    Even Peter Gade crumbles against Sony Dwi Kuncoro in SF when usually he won most of the time against Sony.
    This doesn't prove anything, Peter Gade ALWAYS crumbles when pressure is high!
    But you are right about the atmosphere in the hall!

  2. #19
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,462
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatolii
    yea-ah.. but then how'd you explain the point they got, yet a change of service??? the confusion occurred during the first serve. and after that little mess, it became the 2nd server's turn.

    i called it a 'compromise' because it seemed the umpire couldn't entirely make up his mind as to whether it was short or not and so ended up with the action, which i agree is rather a bizarre one.
    When dzgdz explained the situation earlier and it is good that he witnessed the 'commotion' clearly as he was sitting nearby, I can now understand why but not exactly who has been overruled.

    It appears that the 'overrule' decision by an umpire is in its experimental stage approved by the IBF. Such a rule allows the umpire to overrule or overturn a 'wrong' decision by the linejudge, for the time being until further notice, if the umpire is certain that the linejudge has made an error. In most cases an umpire can be more certain if a decision has to be made when the shuttle landed along the lines (short service and side lines preferably) near to where he is seated so that his vision is not impaired in anyway. For example, the umpire should not attempt to overrule if the shuttle landed far away from him on the opposite side.

    Now we come back to the actual situation. Unfortunately it was not made clear what was actually at stake. Who served to whom? Did the Danes serve to the Chinese?

    Assuming this is the case, the Danes served to the Chinese; the linejudge erred and called 'fault' (for a short service) but the Umpire saw the shuttle landing 'in' or a good serve, therefore he overruled the linejudge and gave the point to the Danes. In so doing, the Danes, by making a disputed 'good' serve, therefore continued to enjoy service and they also scored a point in the process.

    If the opposite is true, ie, the Chinese served to the Danes, then the decision wouldl be the other way round and the Chinese would have scored a point and continued to maintain service.

  3. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatolii
    ok, lemme get this straight. there was only one time that the confusion occurred, wasn't it?

    right, as i remembered very vividly (i found the scene amusing, that's why ), yes, the chinese served - SHORT (not out ). the replay showed that quite clearly. but the problem occurred because the linesman gestured the shot as 'in', and the umpire seconded it. JR was not wrong in trying to reason it out (i think), and i think (too) that in the end the umpire decided a compromise. the chinese gain a point, but lose their service. this was obviously quite a weird decision, seeing as normally the linesmen's calls are to be accepted without question.. so you can't blame cai/fu to make a little noise as well.
    No way. This cannot be done. The point was won by the Danes, no hanky-panky. I think the umpire at first concurred with the lines judge, then probably saw the replay on the big screen in the arena and ruled the other way. I think he had the right to do so, and he did the right thing.

  4. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatolii
    yea-ah.. but then how'd you explain the point they got, yet a change of service??? the confusion occurred during the first serve. and after that little mess, it became the 2nd server's turn.

    i called it a 'compromise' because it seemed the umpire couldn't entirely make up his mind as to whether it was short or not and so ended up with the action, which i agree is rather a bizarre one.
    No extra point was given. It went to second-server straight away.

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzgdz
    The other think there is that the umpire's decision was not fast and clearly enough and might be confusing, especially for the spectators.

    Apart from that I think that overruling is stupid and makes even more problems than it solves.

    regards,
    dzgdz
    I disagree. The umpire must have the ultimate control and decision. The line-judges are only his/her helpers. For instance, if the shuttle falls way out, and for some reason, the line-judge calls it in, the umpire should have the power to overrule. Previously, he can only ask for the line-judge to be replaced, which is too late. It is best if we can do away with line-judges altogether. They do impede viewing.

  6. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    PJ, Mal
    Posts
    585
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    No extra point was given. It went to second-server straight away.
    alright. my mistake. big big mistake. sorry for giving you all the wrong picture. and making you do all those reasonings for nothing

  7. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    -
    Posts
    687
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    Now we come back to the actual situation. Unfortunately it was not made clear what was actually at stake. Who served to whom? Did the Danes serve to the Chinese?
    Actually it was Cai Yun serving to the Danes... The service was called "in" by the linesjudge but was clearly a "short" service if you view the replay... So the umpire overruled the linesjudge's decision and so it was the second serve for the Chinese... The Chinese thought it was "in" and so did Li YB (I assume), that's why they argued the case with the umpire...

  8. #25
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,462
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by *izzyC*
    Actually it was Cai Yun serving to the Danes... The service was called "in" by the linesjudge but was clearly a "short" service if you view the replay... So the umpire overruled the linesjudge's decision and so it was the second serve for the Chinese... The Chinese thought it was "in" and so did Li YB (I assume), that's why they argued the case with the umpire...
    Yes, last night I took a look at my taped replay. This was what happened:

    Michael Fyrie-Dahl of Norway was the umpire. I hate to say that he obviously did not update himself with the calls as he was still sticking to the very, very old call of "second service" instead of "second server" every time when the serve went to the second server. I hope the IBF has taken note of that so that there will not be further confusion by so-called qualified umpires themselves!

    The Chinese had won the service and led 10-6. Cai served to Paaske. The Chinese won the point again 11-6 and then Cai served to JR from the Left Court. This was the serve that caused all the commotion and confusion!.

    The shuttle landed close to JR's short service line. Apparently the linejudge, a big lady, must have called 'in', ie, a good serve from Cai, but JR disputed and umpire Dahl agreed with him (the replay also confirmed) and overruled the linejudge's decision and called out "second service", meaning Cai's serve was short and therefore was a fault and service then went to the second server, Fu. But Cai and Fu thought Cai's serve was good and Cai went over to his head coach, LYB, for clarification, which is not allowed under the rules, unless during the official breaks. So there were some shouting and gesticulation between Cai and LYB to straighten things out.

    Nevertheless, the umpire stood firm and play continued with the Chinese losing the first serve and then Fu having to do the second serve. IMO, although he was right in his decision, the umpire did not make it clear to the players, maybe because of the language problem for the Chinese, that had led to this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

    Of course, there were no points awarded during this melee and the score remained at 11-6 in the Chinese' favour, but now it was Fu's turn to do the second serve as instructed by the umpire.
    Last edited by Loh; 03-15-2005 at 09:24 PM.

  9. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    m'sia
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    andycmg, didn't you say you would upload some pictures?

  10. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    PJ, Mal
    Posts
    585
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh

    Of course, there were no points awarded during this melee and the score remained at 11-6 in the Chinese' favour, but now it was Fu's turn to do the second serve as instructed by the umpire.
    i apologise then. like i tod hcyong, i did think i heard the score read to be 12- after the hiccup, and 2nd server. i guess i was wrong.

    you can imagine my embarassment now esp since i told my mom the same thing when we watched the match together (along with my bro).

    might sorry for ruining the thread content.

  11. #28
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,462
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatolii
    i apologise then. like i tod hcyong, i did think i heard the score read to be 12- after the hiccup, and 2nd server. i guess i was wrong.

    you can imagine my embarassment now esp since i told my mom the same thing when we watched the match together (along with my bro).

    might sorry for ruining the thread content.
    Not to worry, Anatolii. We all learn from this extraordinary incident and are better for it. Good to note that your mom too is a badminton 'addict'.

  12. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    289
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    Yes, last night I took a look at my taped replay. This was what happened:

    Michael Fyrie-Dahl of Norway was the umpire. I hate to say that he obviously did not update himself with the calls as he was still sticking to the very, very old call of "second service" instead of "second server" every time when the serve went to the second server. I hope the IBF has taken note of that so that there will not be further confusion by so-called qualified umpires themselves!

    The Chinese had won the service and led 10-6. Cai served to Paaske. The Chinese won the point again 11-6 and then Cai served to JR from the Left Court. This was the serve that caused all the commotion and confusion!.

    The shuttle landed close to JR's short service line. Apparently the linejudge, a big lady, must have called 'in', ie, a good serve from Cai, but JR disputed and umpire Dahl agreed with him (the replay also confirmed) and overruled the linejudge's decision and called out "second service", meaning Cai's serve was short and therefore was a fault and service then went to the second server, Fu. But Cai and Fu thought Cai's serve was good and Cai went over to his head coach, LYB, for clarification, which is not allowed under the rules, unless during the official breaks. So there were some shouting and gesticulation between Cai and LYB to straighten things out.

    Nevertheless, the umpire stood firm and play continued with the Chinese losing the first serve and then Fu having to do the second serve. IMO, although he was right in his decision, the umpire did not make it clear to the players, maybe because of the language problem for the Chinese, that had led to this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

    Of course, there were no points awarded during this melee and the score remained at 11-6 in the Chinese' favour, but now it was Fu's turn to do the second serve as instructed by the umpire.
    Loh,

    perfectly described, it was exactly as you said.

    The umpire should have announced his decision more clearly. From the other hand the Chinese players (as well as other players) should be aware from that experimental rule. I think that the umpire should also worn CY for consultation with his coach.

    regards

    dzgdz

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    Posts
    310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laughable c.
    andycmg, didn't you say you would upload some pictures?

    laughable c - There is another thread, titled Various All England Pics. There are about 12 pics or so in there. I will try and put some more up if I get the chance.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone want to write a trip report for UC/TC?
    By kwun in forum Thomas/Uber Cup 2002
    Replies: 0
    : 05-15-2002, 03:15 PM
  2. WC trip report - part 1.
    By kwun in forum 2001 Sudirman Cup / World Championships
    Replies: 10
    : 07-14-2001, 11:23 AM
  3. ARTICLE: Japan Open Trip Report
    By kwun in forum General Forum
    Replies: 9
    : 04-18-2001, 07:11 AM

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
  •