Results 52 to 68 of 81
10-03-2006, 07:40 AM #52
kwun or somebody make a website about this let the ibf know that the fans don't like with the new system score
10-03-2006, 11:45 AM #53
Originally Posted by 2NDround
10-03-2006, 02:34 PM #54
Originally Posted by 2NDround
10-03-2006, 10:35 PM #55
I think it is backward to go back to the old system. If the current system is too short, increase it to 25 (but WS to remain 21), but keep the point-per-rally. 5 sets are too much for badminton. Do you really want matches to last for at least 2 hours like tennis?
10-04-2006, 06:29 AM #56
Originally Posted by taneepak
Before the start of this season my club secretary wrote to the chief executive of badminton england about the NSS and the vote for it. In his reply he revealed that England did NOT actually vote for the system as the council of the IBF was the body that held the vote, and England has no member on this council. Badminton England were only able to ask for more time to consider the decision at the IBF AGM, and by then the decision was already made. And the chief executive also said Badminton England only became aware of the proposals to change to the NSS in November 2005 - so how was there a one year trial period Taneepak?
I therefore would like to know who the members of this council are, as these are the people that are responsible for voting this in, and potentially decimating my local league. Many players may be lost in my area as they will not have this system imposed on them.
10-04-2006, 06:47 AM #57
I have done my research...if indeed the IBF council voted for the system, then these are the people that voted:
Dr Kang Young Joong - Korea
Korn Thapparansi - Thailand
Punch Gunalan - Malaysia
Torsten Berg - Denmark
Robin Bryant - Australia
Rudy Hartono - Indonesia
Roger Johansson - Sweden
Cephas Lar - Nigeria
Paisan Rangsikitpho - USA
Gustavo Salazar - Peru
Tong Wai Lun - Hong Kong
VK Verma - India
Erak Weikesinghe - Sri Lanka
Edgar Aglipay - Philippines
Bang Soo Hyun - USA (?)
Emilia-Stavroula Founta - Greece
Peter Gacheru - Kenya
Raj Gaya - Mauritius
Puzant Kassabian - Bulgaria
Dieter Kespohl - Germany
Horst Kullnigg - Austria
Li Lingwei - China
Anne Smillie - Scotland
Wayne Somers - Canada
Junichiro Yamada - Japan
Steven Yeo - Singapore
So no representative from England.
10-04-2006, 07:06 AM #58
so adjust number of points to fit 5 sets, i.e 5x15pt in rally point system.
I just think that due to the unexpected nature of games in rally point system you need to allow more space for a player to recover from bad start / bad set. so 5 sets can be very good for that matter.
10-04-2006, 07:39 AM #59
Originally Posted by yuval_ba
I agree with that. Rally point system and 5 x 15pt will be much better, or maybe even 7x11 pt : then you have to play a minimum of 44 rallies, by now 2x21=42 rallies.
The problem with 5x15 or 7x11 or so is that the time length will be more unpredictable then with 3x21.
But like in tennis, the more (and shorter) games the more exciting points you get.
10-04-2006, 10:17 AM #60
I think the Old Scoring System is still the best though. Although sometimes it takes 1.5 hours to 2 hours. It makes the game more interesting.
10-04-2006, 11:05 AM #61
My only complain about the rally point system would be the length of the double game. I agree that the points of double games should increase to somewhere above 25pts to extend to length of the game while single could remain at 21pts.
10-04-2006, 10:36 PM #62
Originally Posted by andymcg
I think England has the max. votes. Whether England chooses to cast its votes directly or through proxies, England did have the votes. Any change to the laws of badminton requires members to vote. If the 21-rally point system was voted in by the IBF Council alone, this would be invalid. There are 149 member nations, each with varying number of votes. There are also a lot of proxy votes, and most of them are blank proxy votes without speicific ways given to the persons given the proxies on how to vote.
I think the IBF (BWF) works through the 5 Continental Confederations, who in turn work directly with their respective continental member nations.
10-04-2006, 10:45 PM #63
In any AGM votes are required to pass or rescind a resolution. If you have some experience in corporate AGMs you should know how to get the votes you want. Most of the ground work is done before the AGM. Proxies are worth thier weight in gold, especially if they are substantial enough.
It so happens that I have some experience in this field, from company AGMs to Incorporated Owners of an apartment complex. Sometimes you make enemies, especially when you get the proxies you want.
But if you control 51% of all the votes, all your work behind the scene to get enough proxies to topple the main shareholder is futile. That is why swing votes are important. In politics, swing votes are king-makers.
10-05-2006, 03:46 AM #64
Quote from email from Eric Brown, acting chief executive of Badminton England at the time:
"Although I am Acting Chief Executive my roots are in the grass roots of
the game we have made every effort to engage with the public on this
matter. I sympathise with your views but I think it is important to
firstly spell out how this decision came about.
The History Behind the Decision:
We became aware of firm proposals to change to rally points in November
2005 and in the December Magazine, which followed, not only did we run 3
pages on the subject but also in my own article at the front of the
magazine I requested views from members. Very few came in.
The matter was also referred to in my article in the November Update to
council (which is circulated to all counties) and discussed at the
November Council Meeting where it was agreed that we should not campaign
against the changes, (partly because at the time we did not know the
exact nature of them), but should try to exert influence wherever we
could. The council are the democratically elected members from the
counties who have a responsibility to provide the key communication link
between the Counties and Badminton England.
At the same time we put a poll on our website and again asked for
views. Our postbag produced a very neutral response although the poll
showed 70% of those who clicked the button were against.
The council of the International Badminton Federation (IBF) agreed to
adopt the new Laws in May, and as we have no member on this council we
had no opportunity to vote for or against these changes. At the IBF AGM
the only opportunity we had was to voice our opinion on the floor of the
meeting and ask for more time to consider the matter. The vote that took
place at the AGM was to allow Council to change the Laws annually rather
than every four years at present."
I think the chief executive would know if his association or a representative of his assocation had a vote. Are there any minutes of the meeting available to show who voted?
10-10-2006, 05:11 PM #65
i have never heard so many excuses for losing in my life...
you don't lose because of the scoring system...you lose because you made more errors then your opponent, forced or unforced.
the new scoring system works because it weeds out the players that don't have the mental toughness to win, only the stamina to rally. less mistakes = better chance of winning.
how many of you have actually tried the NSS? i agree that the doubles games are quicker so yes, going to 25 points might be a good compromise, but going back to the old scoring only rewards failure.
10-10-2006, 05:21 PM #66
i believe there are plus and minus in both scoring system. Yes, there are more hope for a come back under the OSS BUT your opponents think that way too. Every player loves to come back from behind but i bet the same player who is leading would hate their opponent come from behind. So, a smart player adapt to win. So, isn't a smart deserve to win?
10-10-2006, 06:02 PM #67
Originally Posted by cooler
10-11-2006, 04:45 PM #68
More changes please....Originally Posted by sunofabeach
BCs the only better place that allows us to share our feelings about badminton... So I wanted to let this thread dedicated for someone to frown just like me, Its just a start, a good feedback from BC for the representation...
Thanks Ctjcad Ive seen the new naming convention.... looks like a new lame idea came into their minds now... naming the cool IBF as something similar to BMW or WWF... From now on Ill have to hang around talking about badminton representation as WBF something that will sound as a BMW or WWF for someone for sure....
Even look at their website... I think even a kid can do a better job at it... Yeah badminton needs a change though to grab attention...
hiccups.. excuse me...
Originally Posted by chikkubhai
By chris-ccc in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 448: 11-24-2011, 08:16 AM
By maximR in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 5: 01-20-2011, 04:36 PM
By Break-My-String in forum Coaching ForumReplies: 0: 11-08-2006, 05:47 AM
By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 21: 06-05-2006, 06:03 AM
By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 50: 04-26-2006, 04:40 PM