So who wants to see Taufik not playing?

**cooler** · 09-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by yy_ling

what does WO mean

walkover.......................

**rudy6713** · 09-06-2006, 11:20 AM

I thought WO means Walk OUT

**rudy6713** · 09-06-2006, 11:22 AM

I think IBF may penalize Taufik..also Umpire could not challenge Taufik by saying..if you do not accept it..you can do WO...actually umpire supervisor should stepped in and helped solve the dispute...
If linesmen are not sure..Umpire can play the points from begining..meaning 3-1 for LD, not 4-1..I think it is fair..

**khwong** · 09-06-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by yy_ling

what does WO mean

walkover or to forfeit a match or to let your opponent win without finishing
the match

**zzz...** · 09-06-2006, 12:16 PM

10cm? too much exaggeration. More like 1 cm, i believe, may be it's a typo in that article.

**ctjcad** · 09-06-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by CLELY

Update news from JawaPos web (06/09/06) : PBSI is certain that TH will free of IBF's sanction because his incident in HkO last week is usual condition which has often happened with any shuttlers not is the first time.In fact (so far), IBF never give any sanction except stating a misconduct bdm player lost although the match has not finished yet.PBSI and officials were held meeting yesterday at Jakarta City Hall where PBSI Chairman Sutiyoso just asked HkO result and reason why TH refused to continue his QF-match against LD.That meeting only spent approx.30 min. without TH's attendance and didn't discuss seriously about the sanction. Well,it seems TH is really relax and doesn't care with the issue!

Hmm, i personally don't know/recall from the top of my head, but can anyone confirm this comment, highlighted in bold above, by PBSI?? And since they say it's "usual condition", can anyone bring some past events similar to this one?? Where a player disagrees with a questionable linecall and just forfeit the match??..

Another funny thing about the report is that, didn't Taufik "violate" a rule that's in IBF rule book (ie. misconduct by a player who lost although the match has not finished yet)??..If they(PBSI) don't know, perhaps we can show them the rule(s)/clause(s)..

**ctjcad** · 09-06-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by rudy6713

I think IBF may penalize Taufik..also Umpire could not challenge Taufik by saying..if you do not accept it..you can do WO...actually umpire supervisor should stepped in and helped solve the dispute...
If linesmen are not sure..Umpire can play the points from begining..meaning 3-1 for LD, not 4-1..I think it is fair..

hmm, can someone provide us the rule from the IBF Rule book on this??(ie. dropper of anyone else)..thx

**twobeer** · 09-06-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by chibe_K

In any case, it seems there were many protests from players at HO, even nice guy like LCW reacted the way I never seen before and LD did the same at the finals. I have to say this is not purely coincidence,...the tournament was simply badly made in HK. Badminton being the fastest racquet sports, still using the most traditional approach in line judging, isn't time for IBF to make a change???

Another thing to consider, is that with rally scoring to 21, each point gets much more significant so a few "missed" line-calls may be the deciding factor in close games..

So I guess this is another reason to suggest going back to 15x3!!

/Twobeer

***kwun*** · 09-06-2006, 04:55 PM

(mod: merged two threads of practically the same topic.)

**dropper** · 09-07-2006, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by ctjcad

hmm, can someone provide us the rule from the IBF Rule book on this??(ie. dropper of anyone else)..thx

There is IBF guidance and rules on how to handle a situation where a "line judge did not see the shuttlecock landing well enough to make a call (unsighted line judge)". The line judge then closes his eyes with his hands indicating he did not see the shuttle landing to make the IN or OUT call. But, the line judge must clearly indicate this by putting his hands in front of his eyes. Then if the umpire saw the shuttle landing clearly, he can make the call IN or OUT. If the umpire also did not clearly see where the shuttle landed then he will instruct the players to play a "LET"; i.e., replay the point.

However, this was not the case in the point of contention here. Line judge indicated that he clearly saw the shuttle to be "IN". Although this was a correction to his previous call of "OUT", still, the "IN" is his call and that stays as the final call unless the umpire over rules the line judge with his call of "OUT". Otherwise the line judge's call is final, and the umpire can't replay that as a "LET".

Some people are grasping for straw, where the right thing to do is to follow the rules and laws that govern all the players, umpires, line judges, and referees. I remember telling that people's emotions are going to rule the day rather than following the laws and rules that are already in the IBF books; what a shame...!

**ctjcad** · 09-07-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by dropper

There is a law on how to handle a situation where a "line judge did not see the shuttlecock landing well enough to make a call (unsighted line judge)". The line judge then closes his eyes with his hands indicating he did not see the shuttle landing to make the IN or OUT call. But, the line judge must clearly indicate this by putting his hands in front of his eyes. Then if the umpire saw the shuttle landing clearly, he can make the call IN or OUT. If the umpire also did not clearly see where the shuttle landed then he will instruct the players to play a "LET"; i.e., replay the point.

However, this was not the case in the point of contention here. Line judge indicated that he clearly saw the shuttle to be "IN". Although this was a correction to his previous call of "OUT", still, the "IN" is his call and that stays as the final call unless the umpire over rules the line judge with his call of "OUT". Otherwise the line judges call is final, and the umpire can't replay that as a "LET".

thank you again for the explanation, dropper. Re the statement i've highlighted in bold above, if i may add, i think in order for the umpire to over-rule the linejudge's call, the umpire must have a clear & firm view himself of where the shuttle landed. And of course, he can do that, only with the request from the player, correct..?!?!..

**dropper** · 09-07-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by ctjcad

thank you again for the explanation, dropper. Re the statement i've highlighted in bold above, if i may add, i think in order for the umpire to over-rule the linejudge's call, the umpire must have a clear & firm view himself of where the shuttle landed. And of course, he can do that, only with the request from the player, correct..?!?!..

Yes, the umpire must have a clear view himself of where the shuttle landed.

No, the umpire does not need a request from any of the players to over rule a call made by a line judge. Actually he must not wait for the player request; as soon as the umpire cleary - 100% - sees the line judge's call is incorrect, the umpire should immediately say, "Correction", and make the correct call. No player request or indication is needed.

Actually, the umpire has the option to bring in the referee and request the line judge be replaced, if in the umpire's opinion the line judgs was doing a bad job. But, umpire is not going to do that unless the line judge had been not paying attention and/or had blown a couple of calls prior to that.

**ctjcad** · 09-08-2006, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by dropper

No, the umpire does not need a request from any of the players to over rule a call made by a line judge. Actually he must not wait for the player request; as soon as the umpire cleary - 100% - sees the line judge's call is incorrect, the umpire should immediately say, "Correction", and make the correct call. No player request or indication is needed.

Actually, the umpire has the option to bring in the referee and request the line judge be replaced, if in the umpire's opinion the line judgs was doing a bad job. But, umpire is not going to do that unless the line judge had been not paying attention and/or had blown a couple of calls prior to that.

thanks again for the explanation, dropper..Re the statement i've highlighted in bold above, i concur. That's why there is/are linejudge(s), watching those shuttles, as they are the "2nd eyes" or sometimes even the "1st eyes"(for the linejudge(s) on the far back corners) of the umpire; meaning, if there is/are any doubt(s) from the umpire abt the call, s/he can basically confer & confirm with the linejudge(s) themselves.

***Cheung*** · 09-08-2006, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by twobeer

Another thing to consider, is that with rally scoring to 21, each point gets much more significant so a few "missed" line-calls may be the deciding factor in close games..

So I guess this is another reason to suggest going back to 15x3!!

/Twobeer

That's quite true. Actually, I think that is probably the main reason for the disputes. Wether that means going back to 15x3 is another issue. I think we need to go forward rather than go back. We have had some great matches with the scoring system. The rules, line judges and IBF will have to work on these issues for the world's fastest racquet sport. Change will inevitably to other changes. We, and IBF, should expect it. The reaction should be active rather than passive.