Lets vote for New or Old point system.

[viver]

yes I know what unanimous means
99% is not unanimous, it is "very close" to unanimous.

Obviously, we can't be unanimous as there are at least one or two persons (who said idiots? ) at IBF who defend this crap scoring system!

Another stupid change. Since they change to this way, might as well the rally loser get the serve. At least, give the rally winner the advantage of being the receiver and continue with the attack.

[terry]

OMG!!! how can a traditional scoring format just change like that?

[Double_Player]

since we have all these discussions revolving around IBF, new scoring system, popularity, etc etc. Does BF/BC has any influence in IBF? Any of the members work for IBF/have "a say" in the decision making?

IF we sign a petition/online petition to IBF to keep badminton just as it is right now, will it work? will they even consider it? I'm pretty sure some one could organize an online petition or even a real one to keep badminton as it is.

This may help since the new scoring system will be on trial for a litle while. If some one make this online petition. sticky the thread so we can sign on it.

[taneepak]

I think the proposed new scoring system deserves a chance. Let it be tested out. Neither you nor anyone are 100% certain that it will be detrimental to the game. The new system has a point in allowing a point to be awarded for a rally won irrespective who the server is. After all it doesn't really make sense that you cannot even get a point for a rally won but merely the right to serve when your opponent is serving, under the current system. Let us have an open mind. The game of badminton is evolving. It is not cast in stone. IBF officials at least have the guts to opt for change which they think is for the better. What is wrong with that?
If our poll shows we are against the proposed new system and if the new system turns out to be a real hit, then we would look foolish, wouldn't we? Maybe that is why we are what we are and the IBF officials are what they are, the former mere back-seat drivers and the latter selected because they are movers and shakers.

[2wheels04]

i am still wondering what is the proper serving ordering for doubles. anybody can shed light on this? as mentioned, it seems rather confusing who's supposed to serve, and how players are supposed to stand.<snip>

The new rule is OK for singles, but for doubles, it's very painful. People will be confused on whose turn it is for serving and which side to serve from. <snip>

Fellas, fellas, change is difficult at first, time the great healer.
The doubles serving ritual defined in IBF Laws in practical sense is:

There is only one service per side.
When the score is EVEN, the serve is from the RIGHT service court.
When the score is ODD, serve is from the LEFT service court.

You reckon, there is the fellow in the high chair to ask questions. It is your right to ask, and the ump's duty to clarify to you.
The legalese given below for reference only.

11.4 Serving
In any game, the right to serve shall pass consecutively:

11.4.1 from the initial server who started the game from the right service court

11.4.2 to the partner of the initial receiver. The service shall be delivered from the left service court.

11.4.3 to the player of the initial serving side standing in the service court corresponding to that side’s score. (Law 11.1)

11.4.4 to the player of the initial receiving side standing in the service court corresponding to that side’s score (Law 11.1) and so on.

Hope this helps. Thanks for trying the rally points objectively!

[wedgewenis]

My view is that this is a rediculous attempt by the IBF for all the reasons stated... most of these reasons havn't been addressed by anyone who's voting in favour of the change...this passive 'oh lets wait and see' attitude concerns me too.

Canada is NOT adopting this system ... i hope to god they have sense to keep it that way.

rallypoint is the stupidest thing the ibf has come up with yet

since we have all these discussions revolving around IBF, new scoring system, popularity, etc etc. Does BF/BC has any influence in IBF? Any of the members work for IBF/have "a say" in the decision making?

IF we sign a petition/online petition to IBF to keep badminton just as it is right now, will it work? will they even consider it? I'm pretty sure some one could organize an online petition or even a real one to keep badminton as it is.

This may help since the new scoring system will be on trial for a litle while. If some one make this online petition. sticky the thread so we can sign on it.

YES YES YES - the only question is How many people we can get to sign this bad boy and does the IBF even care what the non-pro Badminton Fan/Player wants?

I say bring on the petitions - FIGHT THE POWER !

[wedgewenis]

Sorry to double post ... not sure how that happend:



Just a draft. I havn't checked spelling

tell me if i'm missing anything,

Our Petition to have the IBF reject 21x3 (Rallypoint) scoring in Professional and Non-Pro Badminton


This Petition is posted on behalf of www.badmintoncentral.com but we wish to extend our appreciation to any other individuals (or members of any other badminton website or forumboard) that wish to join our cause

As badminton players and Fans we vehemently reject the Idea of the 21x3 rallypoint system in professional and non-professional badminton, for the fallowing reasons.

1. First we believe this change will NOT be positively recieved by players nor fans alike it is easily clear from reactions on the internet from players
of many different countries and skill levels that this is not being positively recieved.

BadmintonCentral has one of the most popular Badminton forums on the net. In a Forum Poll 85% of members chose the Old system This is not only an example of how this change is currently being percieved, but in our view how it will be widely recieved by players worldwide.

We can further validate this point by looking at the mostly negative reaction to the attempted (5x7) change. That change was far less drastic than rallypoint yet was widely rejected.

2. We do not believe this change will positively affect the games perception or popularity among fans or players

we strongly believe this will only cause confusion and discord among most players (as to which scoring system is appropriate for local clubs, Tournaments and national events etc. In a sport that already lacks unity among players this is not a positive step.

3. We believe this change to rallypoint will drastically decrease the chances of a player making a significant come-back; at any level of play and we contend this will degrade the level of drama and our own enjoyment of Watching and playing Badminton.

4. We do not believe this change will positively affect our own enjoyment of playing the game.

- First we contend that rallypoint will make the game far more difficult and even frustrating to keep score,
especially in doubles.
- Second, we contend ralypoint will decrease the level of challenge of the average game by making the duration shorter. We believe duration is important to the difficulty and challenge of badminton as well ad the perception of badminton as a difficult sport. As an example we can see that Tennis matches can go for over 4 hours, yet the average Badminton match (for singles ex: is about 49 minutes with 2 games and around 1hr 20 mins with 3 games) With Tennis matches exceeding such Times we also find it hypocrytical that Badminton's match durations be shortened.

- 3rd, we do not believe rallypoint is a fair means of scoring as it only benefits 'Fast Starters'. By creating a scoring system
that suites only certain players we think this would not be a fair means of scoring overall.

5. As both players and fans, we wish to show our disproval with even the possibility of this change to rallypoint and strongly hope the IBF will consider overturning this ruling. We believe there are many ways badminton's popularity and TV coverage can be increased that are not being
looked into by the IBF. We also know that there are far more reasonable means of allowing for commercial breaks and apeasing TV sponsors in general that are Not being considered by the IBF.

[taneepak]

Sorry to double post ... not sure how that happend:



Just a draft. I havn't checked spelling

tell me if i'm missing anything,

I, for one, do not agree with your proposal to petition the IBF on everyone's behalf. It would be better for each forum member who is aggrieved by the new system to fight his own battle. Let the proposed scoring system be tried out first. Then and only then can we be in a better position to pass judgement.

[DinkAlot]

I, for one, do not agree with your proposal to petition the IBF on everyone's behalf. It would be better for each forum member who is aggrieved by the new system to fight his own battle. Let the proposed scoring system be tried out first. Then and only then can we be in a better position to pass judgement.

Agree, I think we should just wait and see if this new scoring actually becomes etched in stone (which I highly doubt). I know locally, the change would not occur until much later, if at all.

[event]

I, for one, do not agree with your proposal to petition the IBF on everyone's behalf.

This seems like an oxymoron to me. A petition is a document that only carries the weight of the people who sign it and the number thereof. In other words, a petition is presented on behalf of only those who sign it. If only 80% of BCers are in favour then only those 80% will sign.

It would be better for each forum member who is aggrieved by the new system to fight his own battle.

This, of course, is nonsense. The whole point of collective action is to accomplish something together that one can't do alone. If anything, those who feel most strongly about it can elect to write their own letters in addition to the petition. There is no reason why a collective opinion should not also be expressed.

Let the proposed scoring system be tried out first. Then and only then can we be in a better position to pass judgement.

You may have a point in suggesting that we not tell them what we think and then try it out...in that order. I, for one, have already tried out the new system from the point of view of a spectator and I don't like it. The impossibility of comebacks is a real downer. The IBF claims to be giving it a trial run. Some decision-making bodies basically ram decisions through and only have trial periods in the runup to a preordained rubber-stamping. The IBF, though, may have proven its willingness to act on good faith when they scrapped that 7-point madness a few years ago.

[tonyglandille]

Hi,

I'm french and new at Badmintoncentral but I will give you the experience I saw in France. France National Team has experience this system with the Deutch National Team and for what I see is that all the game has a maximum time of 40mn for 3 sets.
Each set duration is above 10~15 minutes.
And the other point is that this system are really benefit for player who has less stamina (maybe Peter Gade can win Lin Dan with it).

Some player has told that this system is really disturbing and does not push the player to take risky shot now that even if you serve your are not in security.

I think effectively for what I saw that this system deserve badminton. Has many people say, we like the physical challenge in badminton and with this system this is lost!

[seven]

I am with event and wedgewenis on this one.
Those who don't want to sign the petition don't have to do it.

Once we have the definitive petition, I can translate it into french as I think many french players/fans are ready to sign it too.

[taneepak]

The forum has more than 11,000 members. Wouldn't it be more proper that at least 50% of the members are in agreement re the petition before we can claim in the petition that we are representing the BF? If you must petition then I think it is fairer if you were to state in the petition that we are XX number of players/members out of a total of 11,000 plus players/members, instead of claiming that you are petitioning on behalf of the BF.

[event]

The forum has more than 11,000 members. Wouldn't it be more proper that at least 50% of the members are in agreement re the petition before we can claim in the petition that we are representing the BF? If you must petition then I think it is fairer if you were to state in the petition that we are XX number of players/members out of a total of 11,000 plus players/members, instead of claiming that you are petitioning on behalf of the BF.

Those are valid points. The wording can certainly be altered. wedgewenis posted that as a draught. You are right in that a petition represents the views of only the people who sign it and so what would be the point of wording it such that it sounds as if it represents the views of 11,000 people who may or may not have signed it. I think it could still mention the vote and the percentages as well as the number of people who voted. But if you draw up a petition that claims to represent the collective viewpoint of an organization 11,000 strong and only a few hundred sign it, then it serves only to mislead some and to convince the others that it's just hot air.

[DinkAlot]

Those are valid points. The wording can certainly be altered. wedgewenis posted that as a draught. You are right in that a petition represents the views of only the people who sign it and so what would be the point of wording it such that it sounds as if it represents the views of 11,000 people who may or may not have signed it. I think it could still mention the vote and the percentages as well as the number of people who voted. But if you draw up a petition that claims to represent the collective viewpoint of an organization 11,000 strong and only a few hundred sign it, then it serves only to mislead some and to convince the others that it's just hot air.

How about a simple:

"Dear IBF,

Please bring back the old scoring.

Sincerely,
11,000 signatures."

[taneepak]

Have you ever considered that the new scoring system could have been the collective proposal from the major national badminton associations? Without their input or blessing do you think the new system would even get off the ground? National badminton associations are more representative of their country's views and opinions than any of us. Are we punching above our weight? Personal opinions, yes, but to punch way above our weight, no.

[event]

Have you ever considered that the new scoring system could have been the collective proposal from the major national badminton associations? Without their input or blessing do you think the new system would even get off the ground? National badminton associations are more representative of their country's views and opinions than any of us. Are we punching above our weight? Personal opinions, yes, but to punch way above our weight, no.

Do you think Punch Gunalan had the blessing of major national badminton associations when he proposed that women players wear sexy clothes? The IOC gets money from TV networks when they award coverage rights to the Olympics. I'm sure the IBF works the same way. This measure has been proposed under the pretense of making badminton more marketable to TV audiences. They have been unequivocal about that. The two effects of larger TV audiences are money and popularity. That's what they are hoping for. If this measure accomplishes that, then the IBF will be happy when the money comes in. National associations will get a piece of that pie for TV rights within their countries so they will support it if they think it will work.

Just where do you get this idea about the representativeness of national associations? Members of national badminton associations do not stand for elections on platforms relating to point systems, etc. Nor are they delegated from local groups of players to represent collective views at the national level. They may make guesses about their compatriots' wishes but they are not elected representatives. Did anyone from the Hong Kong association contact you and ask you for your views before giving this notional okay to the IBF? Did they contact anyone you know? KBA didn't contact me. There is no poll on their website in the aftermath of the trial of the new system at the nationals. This forum is as good a place as any to gauge rank-and-file player/fans' opinions on a new system. Our opinions count. We are the ones who play and watch the matches. We theoretically buy the products that are advertised during commercial breaks. If a forum like this of 11,000 members is the only one that has come up with a way to poll constituents, then it needs to be used.

Having said all that, the voices of people who have no experience with a new system are not very persuasive. On the other hand, we don't have that much less experience than the people at the IBF. They made a decision without knowing what the resultant matches would look like. We have a right to oppose that decision without knowing what the resultant matches will look like. People who make decisions based on money only reverse those decisions when the money doesn't flow in. Since we are consumers, maybe our dissatisfaction means something. Or since so many of us are addicts and will watch anyway no matter how lame they make it in the name of attracting TV contract offers, maybe our squawking will be ignored. I mean the whole point of getting it on TV is to attract audiences who aren't currently watching badminton...