Honesty - The best Policy?

[Andy05]

This happened at the AE2011, XD finals. The shuttle landed in and the Thai guy was in full view of it and he walked over to the next while the line judge was calling out and he was shocked when he was being told he won a point.
I'm sure it happened...

[kwun]

This happened at the AE2011, XD finals. The shuttle landed in and the Thai guy was in full view of it and he walked over to the next while the line judge was calling out and he was shocked when he was being told he won a point.
I'm sure it happened...

hats off to Sudket. humanity still have hope.

[flite]

This is the video I was talking about. The incident happened around 2:48.

In addition, Han Jian even pointed at the umpire for corrections of score before resume play.

http://youtu.be/K81aVR8SPm4

Honesty is always the best policy regardless of time and event especially in the professional level. If Matthias Boe were to say it as he sees it, I believed Gillian Clark would have had full of praises and respect for this guy not to mention a possible standing ovation from the crowd when the match ends.

Less excuses will make matters less complicated. Its as simple as that.

[Tomsk]

Would the umpire not take the players' integrity into consideration even though the player is essentially penalising himself?

There is always the possibility the player has a bet on their opponent to win the match.....

[2wheels04]

I went one stage further and wondered if Boe had deliberately unsighted the line judge...

Deliberately unsighting a line judge by blocking the line of sight is one of the advanced techniques, used by a few players, not most.

Such incident happened at the WC05 once in MSF, where the player back-pedalled to base-line and stepped on the line blocking the view of shuttle falling on the line. The LJ became unsighted and signalled so, the umpire had a clear view. Fellow scoops the shuttle up quickly and went to serve from his court. Umpire smiles, says score, signals to pass shuttle to the other side.

The umpire was vigilant enough and nipped the tomfoolery in the bud. With adequate preparation(s) by the officiating team, such unfair player-practices can be easily avoided.

As the stakes become higher, a few players will use all available tactics to gain even the slightest advantage. This happens in all sports, badminton cannot remain an exception for ever.

[Mark A]

Deliberately unsighting a line judge by blocking the line of sight is one of the advanced techniques

Hehe - love this. I can see the DVD now: "Advanced Badminton Cheating". "For those who have mastered the basics..."

I hate to sound like a broken record, but is there no possibility of a challenge system in badminton? It's the work of less than 30 seconds to call up a super slo-mo replay of a contentious call and settle the matter once and for all. Somebody in power should propose this poste-haste!

[2wheels04]

.... The shot does in fact land in, albeit very close BUT is called 'out' by the lines person. According to the offical rule-book only the umpire can overrule such a decision, but only if a clear error has been made. The umpire does not see the error and the point thus stands. However, what would happen if the opposing player, whom was just awarded the point, thus goes up to the umpire and disputes the point having clearly seen the shuttlecock land in? Bare in mind that the player would be potentially penalising themself. Has such a thing ever happened in professional badminton before? Perhaps more to the point, could it happen and what course of action would / could the umpire take?

In the [hypothetical] situation described here, the course of action the umpire is clearly specified in the Recommendations to Technical Officials.

All line calls for a given line is the sole responsibility of the line judge assigned for that line. If no line judge assigned, then that line call is usually made by the umpire, sometimes with assistance of the player. Such a situation is rare in BWF and other elite tourneys (including GP events), but at a regional and national level, where there is generally a paucity of technical officials, players are generally asked to assist the umpire with the line call.

Be that as it may, when in an umpire's opinion, the call made by the line judge (or player) is beyond a reasonable doubt, then, the umpire may over-rule that call. When there is a line judge, and the umpire made the decision of going with the line judge's call, play must continue. When the opposing player approaches the umpire disputing the call, which is his/her belief that the shuttle landed in, now the umpire will need to become an adjudicator and make a ruling.

Most good umpires will inform that honest player something on these lines:

Danny, the line judge clearly saw the shuttle out. I really appreciate your honesty. I did not have a better angle to over-rule and must therefore trust his/her call. Let us continue play.

Such a ruling sends a message to the player(s) that this umpire is not going to be influenced by protestations of the players. Just imagine, the same scenario that you described continues for each point. Where will be game go?

The BWF is also aware of the recent increase in online gaming proliferation and internet betting/gambling. Other sports also have spot-fixing situations to deal with. So yes, the scenario you hypothesise as strange can be expected to happen in baddy.

[2wheels04]

Case in point, HKV vs CL. It's hard to tell wheter it is in or out, but no matter how much you complain, nothing will happen.

www.YouTube.com/watch?v=qMuRB82j6AI

From 4:45 on.....

The shuttle was dead from 4:49 to 6:25, a stoppage of 1:36.

Both the umpire and the assigned line judge had clear view of the shuttle, so yes, the ruling was not going to change. Long also looked at it, then he goes to the sideline and pumped his fist. However, he left his racquet beyond the baseline, then walked slowly to the umpire, rested with both his arms on the net and the umpire chair, then kept the discussion going for almost a minute.

Looks to me he was not intending just to protest the call, he already had made up his mind to waste time by leaving the racquet and the shuttle beyond his court. Then after he appeared to accept the umpire's ruling, walked slowly beyond the court and then retrieved his racquet, then asked for the shuttle change. Instead of taking the receiver court, he went straight toward the umpire and requested a towelling off. Then he pulled out of his receiving stance at 6:13 and wasted another 13 seconds.

All of this has been a loss of precious playing time, and might be good for telly and his coach, but this is not badminton - it is gamesmanship, and an attempt to challenge the officials' authority, nothing more. All the eight (8) officials kept their focus during this unscheduled interval is commendable.

Lots of things happened.

[2wheels04]

@allyjack110

I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect because there's always going to be mistakes from line judges, but there has to be as much objectivity as possible (something which is sometimes lacking depending on where the tournament is). The solution to this would be to have an electronic call system much similar to .. ...

With badminton becoming more of a spectator sport on the broadcast networks, the technological advances in slow-motion and multiple camera angles can only be good for the game. For baddy to have meaningful relationship, it will need to keep up with the telly.

A line judge, or an umpire (or service judge) may not be entirely right at all times, however methinks they collectively have a better ratio of correct decisions than the players (or teams) on the court.

Everyone, players and officials believe they are making the correct calls. The camera will slow down the action enough so that the viewer will have a better idea of the action that took place. When this is replayed on the large screens in the arena, it always excites the spectators. Many times, the players will point out this reply to the umpire. The viewing experience is most definitely better, that is what the telly people want.

My question to all proponents of video-replay to make correct decisions is this:

Would you want to make your decision(s) based on what that monitor is showing you?

If affirmative, then we should just sit in our closed circuit tv room, just like what some city's finest blue-bottles do. The sport of badminton will resemble the security industry, and that will be not be enjoyable to anyone.

And umpires, line and service judges, and referees are also concerned about advances in technology. No one worth their clip-board and pencil would want to have their decision over-turned by video evidence. When an umpire finds a situation where his/her ruling is wrong, s/he quickly corrects it per the letter of the law, apologises to the offended party, and moves on with the game.

Now if a player, any player can consistently put the shuttle directly on the line, every time they open that line up during play, then perhaps they can start expecting to have the officials to also call correctly every time. That would be some day, wouldn't it?

[Tactim]

I appreciate your point because it is a valid one. I look back on my post and I didn't clarify how exactly the line-calling system works in tennis in coordination with the HawkEye system. The universal way it works in tennis matches is that the player is allowed 3 INCORRECT challenges per set (in this case, per game in badminton if it were to be that way). That would mean that if the player challenges a call and gets it incorrect, he/she loses a challenge and can do that up to three times before not being able to challenge at all. However if he/she gets it right, the number of incorrect challenges stays at 3 and they keep the challenge.

This way players aren't able to challenge every single call they believe is close and that there is a penalty for frivolous challenging. As you said, if there wasn't a limit on the challenges, the game would indeed be boring to watch because it would constantly be interrupted and the flow of the game would be extremely choppy.

In fact the challenge system is now part of the drama of tennis matches when it comes down to big points and the shots are ever so close to the line. The crowd becomes very involved with these review systems and I think it has worked for the better in terms of overturning bad calls (but has also been known to have errors in rare occasions as no system is perfect yet) as well as adding drama to tennis matches and increasing spectator enjoyment.