To improve the staging of Badminton at International matches

[chris-ccc]

Greetings,

This thread is for serious comments for serious issues.

The main objective of this thread is to discuss issues that could help to improve our beloved matches of Badminton at International events.

For this thread, NO personal attacks against each other member@Badminton Central are allowed.

For personal attacks, please use your 'Private Messages'.

We want to start a constructive thread to improve Badminton at International events

So, here we go...

Reference: Hong Kong Open 2007: Mens Single Final (2-Dec-2007) LD vs LCW

Thank you to all who have posted as the match was progressing... the thread is "Hong Kong Open 2007: Day 7 (Dec 2nd) Final" located at:
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=50286

I was going to quote these posts to be placed in this thread "Lin Dan Vs Lee Chong Wei, MS Final?" located at:
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=50256

But unfortunately, kwun closed it because heated exchanges between our members@BC were getting nasty.

Well... since I have already taken time to quote these posts, I will post them here.

No mercy given and no mercy asked in this game ! The Finale to the year ! Winner is the real champ for the year.

LCW won a net point, 1-0

LCW's pts mostly coming from the net attacks. Lin Dan not happy with line calls n hasn't found his range, 8-3 down. Gamesmanship time.

LD complaining something on the table distracting him... or trying to distract LCW?

LD is complaining about something...oh, he's distracted by the reflection of someone's ID card...oh, he's asking for EVERYONE to get rid of anything plasticky around him because of reflection.

8-4 now, good return from LD.

but this is the 3rd final of the days, y the 6 players before this din complain???

Cool LD....I love it

LD actually hit an out but linesman called it in, 17-9

LCW makes a good return, 18-9

the 1st game look like LCW against beginner player...what happen LD????

LCW won 1st game

LD will comeback in the second.

LinDan says,"vrrroommmm.... my engine just started... watch out LCW "

hmmm..now that's what we call a game.Both player play well..now

whoa, looks like a diving competition going on. gaya mesti ada.

LCW simply have no answer to the powerful smashed by LD

LD getting his momentum back

LCW's return is out, 20-15

LD gonna take it

and LCW's play hits the net, 21-15

We're going into rubber...

Bad call by the umpire, called the ball in when it was OBVIOUSLY out...LD surges ahead 5-10

Why don't Lee just walk out of the match .. after a clearly bad calls

Yup, LD took it, 21-15...

I think the couple of really obvious bad calls really affected LCW's game. Too bad.

oh dear.... not another 'dirty' tactics?

LCW better be careful , he better not let any bad line calls affect his game for OG 08.

Please please please let's not start the 'excuses' thingy again
Lin Dan is the better player... fair and square
Lee Chong Wei lost because he isn't good enough

Conclusion: The relevant points are still...
1. LCW lost because he wasn't good enough. LD is still the better player.
2. Gamesmanship will occur at matches. It is not illegal.
3. Careful selection of lines persons is necessary/required.
4. Walking out of a match when bad lines-calls occured is not a solution.
5. The 'hawk-eye' system should be implemented ASAP.

Perhaps members@BC can add more to the list of (5) points mentioned above.

Cheers... chris@ccc
***

[chris-ccc]

Perhaps we should leave out the match between LD and LCW @Hong Kong Open 2007.

So here is the amended list for what could be applied at International events;

1. Gamesmanship is unavoidable at matches. And it is not illegal.
2. Walkover is unavoidable too. Again it is not illegal.
3. Careful selection of lines persons is necessary/required.
4. Walking out of a match when bad lines-calls occurred is not a solution.
5. The 'hawk-eye' system should be implemented ASAP.
6. Draws are to involve countrymen playing each other as little as possible.

***

[Oldhand]

That compilation must have taken quite some time
Great work, chris

[chris-ccc]

That compilation must have taken quite some time
Great work, chris

No... The list is not originated by me.

It is what members@Badminton Central have suggested/posted over time.

I was hoping that you (and other members@BC) could add in what have been suggested, but not included in the list here.


***

[Loopy]

What about:

7. Walkover should be approved by a comitte composed of members from 5 differents nations, or impartial judges (if you can find one ).

[chris-ccc]

2. Walkover is unavoidable too. Again it is not illegal.

What about:

7. Walkover should be approved by a committee composed of members from 5 different nations, or impartial judges (if you can find one ).

(a) Because of injury, walkover or retirement is unavoidable. Medical doctors are probably the best persons to determine what the injury is. But how can a player be forced to play when he/she does not want to continue play ?

(b) When we have match fixing to help fellow teammates, impartial judges could be hard to find. Judges must follow rules/policies set up to combat match fixing. However, no such rules/policies have been introduced yet.

(c) In order to send a protest, walkover or retirement has been applied before. In such a case, fines were issued.

[cooler]

my highlight composition of the HK MS final

No mercy given and no mercy asked in this game ! The Finale to the year ! Winner is the real champ for the year.

LCW is showing no mercy. I like that.

LCW is devastating !

1st set to LCW for sure.....

LD is out of sort. not his usual self in terms of speed and judgement.

Dont make excuses for him ---LCW has locked it in no chance for LD

Keep count of the minutes -- this might be over before you blink your eyes

going onto 3rd set, my eyes are getting dry now, can i blink now?

[chris-ccc]

my highlight composition of the HK MS final

Hey cooler,

Looks like you have chosen X Ball's composition.

[madbad]

I've voiced my opinion on the hawk-eye system before and it invariably comes back to money. Can the BWF afford it? It ain't cheap, especially to equip 3 or 4 courts. Perhaps a challenge system, as proposed by some member(s) before (can't remember) like in tennis. You get 2 challenges per game. The referee/ higher-ups review the TV footage to determine the correctness of the call.

Re. linesmen, you'll never get more than volunteers to do this. No way BWF can afford to pay for them, not at this stage anyway. So I think we'll have to live with them and a challenge system until something better comes along.

[chris-ccc]

I've voiced my opinion on the hawk-eye system before and it invariably comes back to money. Can the BWF afford it? It ain't cheap, especially to equip 3 or 4 courts.

Perhaps a challenge system, as proposed by some member(s) before (can't remember) like in tennis. You get 2 challenges per game. The referee/ higher-ups review the TV footage to determine the correctness of the call.

Re. linesmen, you'll never get more than volunteers to do this. No way BWF can afford to pay for them, not at this stage anyway. So I think we'll have to live with them and a challenge system until something better comes along.

Usually controversial disputes happen most of the time during the Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals and Finals.

Yes... for these finals, I agree that "The referee/ higher-ups review the TV footage to determine the correctness of the call".

And it should be fair for the "challenge system" to be introduced.

Regarding volunteers to man the lines-calls, we need "quality, experienced and unbiased" volunteers... not just any volunteer.

[madbad]

Regarding volunteers to man the lines-calls, we need "quality, experienced and unbiased" volunteers... not just any volunteer.

Yes, perhaps it's time to have some stricter guidelines for volunteers. For example, it should be mandatory for all volunteer linesmen to:
1) attend and pass a certification course
2) To gain practical experience, they have to line judge a certain number of lesser tournaments first. This would also be part of the certification process

I know it's all voluntary and it can be sometimes hard to get enough people but shouldn't a standard be set before the BWF allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to line judge tournaments of the highest level?

[hcyong]

What about:

7. Walkover should be approved by a comitte composed of members from 5 differents nations, or impartial judges (if you can find one ).

A waste of time. To have a player go out there and purposely losing in a practice match may be more of a farce.

[hcyong]

Yes, perhaps it's time to have some stricter guidelines for volunteers. For example, it should be mandatory for all volunteer linesmen to:
1) attend and pass a certification course
2) To gain practical experience, they have to line judge a certain number of lesser tournaments first. This would also be part of the certification process

I know it's all voluntary and it can be sometimes hard to get enough people but shouldn't a standard be set before the BWF allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to line judge tournaments of the highest level?

Technically, it's not hard to have good linejudges. But when it comes to partiality, it's hard to root out even with all the certifications you can have.

[Loopy]

A waste of time. To have a player go out there and purposely losing in a practice match may be more of a farce.

Better than not playing at all, isn't it? And, if the game is viewed as a farce by the spectators, then it can easily be judged as match fixing.
If not for approving a walkover, it should at least be reviewed by a committe.
If the comitte finds out the intent of the walkover is match fixing or benefits a player, then sanctions should be given to both players or team (ie. not able to play for the following 4 tournaments for example, or immediate DQ). Believe me, that kind of message will change attitudes for both coach and players.
In comparison (but not a very good analogy), golf has very strict playing rules. Anything the player does that benefits him but isn't allowed by the rules results either in 2-points stroke loss (which is huge in pro tournament) or immediate disqualification. That's the reason golfers are very careful about what they do.

[chris-ccc]

In comparison (but not a very good analogy), golf has very strict playing rules. Anything the player does that benefits him but isn't allowed by the rules results either in 2-points stroke loss (which is huge in pro tournament) or immediate disqualification. That's the reason golfers are very careful about what they do.

Hi Loopy,

In another comparison, swimming has strict rules too.

Under FINA rules, countries are allowed a maximum of two swimmers per individual event at the Olympics.

In the USA and Australia, there are many swimmers who not could participate, but they could meet the time standards to qualify, and they who could beat other nations' top swimmers.

Still, many support FINA rules...
Why allow a nation to clean sweep all 3 medals (Gold, Silver, Bronze)?
Why not allow more nations to participate ?

FINA even allow Wildcards for their Olympics events.

For those not familiar with Swimming, here is a USA article located at:
http://universalsports.nbcsports.com...57?sport_id=21

====== ====== start article ====== ======

Qualifying

FINA, the world governing body for swimming, sets time standards that athletes must meet in order to qualify for the Olympics. Countries are allowed a maximum of two swimmers in each individual event and one team in each relay event. A country may only send two swimmers if those swimmers both qualify under the "A" time standard set by FINA.If a country does not have a swimmer(s) who qualifies for an event under FINA's "A" time, it may still send a swimmer to the Olympics if it has a competitor who meets FINA's "B" standard for an event. In this case, one and only one competitor from a country can contest the particular event. In all cases, a country's National Olympic Committee holds the authority on choosing which competitors who qualify under the time standards will compete in the Games. No nation may enter more than 26 men and 26 women in the swimming competition.

10k open-water qualifying (men and women)

• Top 10 finishers from the FINA World Open Water Swimming Championships on April 29-May 4, 2008 in Seville, Spain.
• Top finishers from each of the five continental championships
• Nine or 10 top finishers, FINA Olympic Marathon Swim Qualifier, May 31-June 8, 2008 in Beijing

Total: 25 male athletes, 25 female athletes

U.S. trials
The United States swimming team for Beijing will be selected in July at the U.S. Swimming Trials in Omaha, Nebraska. Under FINA rules, countries are allowed a maximum of two swimmers per individual event at the Olympics. Since the time standards to qualify for the U.S. Trials are nearly as stringent as those to qualify for the Games, the U.S. will have maximum representation in all 27 individual events on the Olympic program. In the 100m and 200m freestyle events, the top six finishers at the Olympic Trials earned Olympic berths. The top two will swim the 100m and 200m individual events in Athens, while the others will be used to fill out the four-member relay teams. Having two extra swimmers allows those participating individually to skip relay preliminaries.

Wildcards
Federations(Nations) without qualified swimmers may enter one man and one woman (regardless of time standards) in one competition each of their choice, if the individual(s) participated in the 2007 Swimming World Championships. According to FINA rules, FINA will determine whether to allow the swimmer(s) to compete at the Olympics, "based on their performance."

====== ====== end article ====== ======

Cheers... chris@ccc
***

[kwun]

I've voiced my opinion on the hawk-eye system before and it invariably comes back to money. Can the BWF afford it? It ain't cheap, especially to equip 3 or 4 courts. Perhaps a challenge system, as proposed by some member(s) before (can't remember) like in tennis. You get 2 challenges per game. The referee/ higher-ups review the TV footage to determine the correctness of the call.

Re. linesmen, you'll never get more than volunteers to do this. No way BWF can afford to pay for them, not at this stage anyway. So I think we'll have to live with them and a challenge system until something better comes along.

a challenge system is more feasible IMHO. however, the cost is still rather high. we are talking at least 6 cameras and the associated recording system for each court, as well as the associated infrustructure for replaying and reviewing. it is probably going to be as complicated and expensive as the current livescoring system. it is definitely doable but i am not sure with the present BWF disorganization (remember they are hardly capable of getting the draws correct) it will be feasible.

hawkeye will even be more technically complicated.

[Oldhand]

a challenge system is more feasible IMHO. however, the cost is still rather high. we are talking at least 6 cameras and the associated recording system for each court, as well as the associated infrustructure for replaying and reviewing. it is probably going to be as complicated and expensive as the current livescoring system.

High-resolution cameras are decidedly expensive (as someone in the broadcast industry, I should know ). It would simply be out of the question for every national badminton association (even just those that host the bigger tourneys) to equip themselves with a multi-camera system. (And at least one association whose players would be disadvantaged by such a system would also NOT want to buy one )

Even if the rigs were to be bought by the BWF and then shipped to the tourneys as and when they happen, it would still require expensive manpower and would also turn out to be quite an unfamiliar logistics challenge. Additionally, it would be quite a drain on the organiser's financial resources as the systems and the accompanying manpower need to be shipped in and out.

The other option would be to use ERS (Electronic Refereeing Systems). But badminton presents quite a number of unique problems. Unless just one court is to be used for all matches, an electronic line-judging system for badminton (using tracking devices) will be prohibitively expensive (unlike the scenario in a high-revenue sport like cricket or tennis).

Worse, the ERS tracking devices require a great deal of alignment and would also be difficult to position without either inconveniencing the players (if too close to the court) or running the risk of being disturbed by spectators (if positioned well away).

Worser still, the shutles would need to be electronically tagged. Microchipping the shuttles or using very very light RFID tags would've been the easy monitoring solution... except for the awful fact that a great many shuttles are (rather unnecessarily) used for each game.

Of course, the cheapest option is to have fair line-judges.
But that's also, er, the most unreliable option

What would be a blessing is a relatively inexpensive system.
As to whether we need such a system, the answer is an emphatic YES.
That's perhaps the only defense against judging scandals like the China Open

it is definitely doable but i am not sure with the present BWF disorganization (remember they are hardly capable of getting the draws correct) it will be feasible.
hawkeye will even be more technically complicated.

Did such a thing happen?