User Tag List

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 69 to 85 of 207
  1. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    537
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LD rules! View Post
    Although the shuttle was out in this PG vs JOJ match, it was very difficult to tell, and especially at the speed and heat of the moment, sure replay and slow motion can help, but the line judge can't really be expected to make the right decision all the time, especially on a call like that...

    Anyway, guess its karma for the PG vs TH match @ AE2010 where the shuttle was called in on TH side when it was out at like 20-19 to TH and PG went on to win 20-22 in the 3rd. What goes around comes around
    +1.

    Hope this new rule will be in place soon.

  2. #70
    Regular Member Maklike Tier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,257
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Badminton has needed this for a very, very long time. I'd hate to be a player looking at a replay of something only to find out that the shuttle was out when it was called in. What a horrible feeling, and what a stupid Catch22, because the Umpire has seen a mistake and has no power to change a decision based on what actually happened! Such a bizarre denial scenario.

    Part of player's training is to stay focussed and play point-for-point and accept the 'human-ness' of the umpires and line judges, but that is only a stopgap measure. Real progress will be made when human error does not have the ability to dictate the outcome of matches - not to mention it will make Badminton look more professional.

    It doesn't really matter what it takes to make it happen. The 'Hawkeye' system essentially already exists in the form of the high speed cameras many broadcasters already use, so we're not talking about a monumental step in technology.

    It simply just has to happen.

  3. #71
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,905
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are two separate and distinct issues that may pose a problem.

    1. Economics. ROI.
    2. The nature of the game being not naturally suited to adopting some of the technologies available.

  4. #72
    Regular Member Maklike Tier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,257
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    There are two separate and distinct issues that may pose a problem.

    1. Economics. ROI.
    2. The nature of the game being not naturally suited to adopting some of the technologies available.
    It's going to be tough to be able to illustrate a ROI. You'd have to somehow get some statistics from other sports on how it's had a positive impact on the game, and I think this would be a big factor in getting it implemented. You'd have things such as -

    1. Added perceived professionalism of the sport that the accuracy of enforcement of the rules brings
    2. The added spectacle of line calls being an added 'novelty' to the spectating experience.
    3. Knowledge base from Cricket and Tennis on how implementation has added positively to the game

    None of these things may solely bring about increased revenue, but if you based every decision solely on that, you'd have a pretty dull experience. It would have to be thought of as simply something that raises the bar and adds to the total marketing experience, along with other things such the smash speed camera etc.

  5. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [0,0,0]
    Posts
    497
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hope they go with some sort of replay system as opposed to a sort of 'hawk eye' setup. Critical calls in a game of badminton encompass more than just line calls. Serving is problematic with service faults being called on what at times, to me, have seemed to be a random basis. Also some of the play around the net is in need of a review mechanism. I remember one instance of a judge taking away a match point in a doubles game claiming the player struck the bird before is crossed the net. Replay showed the shuttle was well over the net when the player contacted it.

  6. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,263
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think if they adopt some sort of hawk eye system during QF, SF and F, it shouldn't be too expensive to implement...

  7. #75
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,905
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    My point is that there will be more implications than just correction of the point. The act of implementation of any review system takes a finite amount of time; 15 seconds, 20, 30 seconds may elapse before a decision is made and awarded. This increases the cool-off period between points. Badminton is an anaerobic game but the intervals are ideally not supposed to be more than 10 seconds. Otherwise it affects different players (based on age and physical condition) in different ways, but mostly it affects the continuity of the game. The delay itself can be used as a weapon by the players, but that is not how the game is designed to be played. (just as walkovers are nowadays, sometimes used as a questionable weapon...)

    One way to satisfy the requirements (albeit constricted) is to limit the number of appeals per side to say, 3 per game or something. But sooner or later people will be up in arms against the injustice of that limit!

    And then, as I said, some of the technologies in their present state like Hotspot or such, are not really suitable for badminton. Even Hawkeye or the path-prediction technology would have to be extensively re-scripted to fit the requirements of badminton. Shuttlecocks don't behave the same way as cricket balls or tennis balls...
    Last edited by cobalt; 01-01-2012 at 02:06 PM.

  8. #76
    Regular Member george@chongwei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    29,966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually there's no need for a hawkeyes system tbh.. TV camera replay at the line can do justice.. Wonder why BWF don't wanna use this When are they gonna wake uP??

  9. #77
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO, BWF is probably heading towards video replay to assist in line calls and net play, since they've allowed the installation of net cams and line cams in the past 2 years. Otherwise, the video reviews that can be seen by all can be a source of embarrassment to the line judges and umpires if the wrong call is made and not corrected.

    In this modern age, I refuse to believe that BWF should allow important international badminton matches to still be at the mercy of human judgment and error that can inevitably arise when umpires and linesmen and service judges make a wrong call. This would only serve to foster a sense of invincinbility of themselves and a sense of unfairness and injustice for the players and viewers. The last time I checked, it's the year 2012... this is not the middle ages anymore.

  10. #78
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,847
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    However care has to be taken about where the cameras are located.

    I have seen shuttlecock being viewed as hitting the line (when the camera is located outside the court pointing into the court), when the shuttlecock actually missed hitting the line (when viewed from a location facing outwards from the court).
    .

  11. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    573
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunder.tw View Post
    I hope they go with some sort of replay system as opposed to a sort of 'hawk eye' setup. Critical calls in a game of badminton encompass more than just line calls. Serving is problematic with service faults being called on what at times, to me, have seemed to be a random basis. Also some of the play around the net is in need of a review mechanism. I remember one instance of a judge taking away a match point in a doubles game claiming the player struck the bird before is crossed the net. Replay showed the shuttle was well over the net when the player contacted it.
    Are you thinking of the LiNing Masters? Ko and Yoo from Korea vs Cai and Fu. Yoo struck a net kill on game point and the umpire called a foul but Yoo was incensed and insisted that the shuttle had crossed over. TV replays showed the shuttle was about 6 inches past the net when Yoo hit it.

    From sports which already have reviews, the time taken to review a line call is rarely more than 5-10 seconds. Players spend more time than that showing dissent when they don't like a call.

    It's certainly made a big difference in tennis with players not being distracted by bad calls and having piece of mind when they get calls they don't like. The crowd actually like challenges, and they cheer the Hawkeye replays.

  12. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,263
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by extremenanopowe View Post
    I think the expectation of this implementation cost is just too 'high'.

    The aim is to see if it is in, out or let. Does it have to be so expensive? Kidding me.

    This is for the benefit of umpire. Not the audience.

    Normally disputed calls are quite obvious due to bias or sleepy linesman. If it is not, then call a 'let'.
    I agree.. But I rarely hear a 'let' call after a linesman had called in or out.... extremely rare...

    the only times i heard 'let' are when the receiving player wasn't ready to receive a service
    Last edited by pcll99; 01-03-2012 at 10:13 PM.

  13. #81
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cal Central
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    However care has to be taken about where the cameras are located.

    I have seen shuttlecock being viewed as hitting the line (when the camera is located outside the court pointing into the court), when the shuttlecock actually missed hitting the line (when viewed from a location facing outwards from the court).
    .
    What we see on a two dimensional screen is very different on the court. Discussing "perspective" is beyond the scope of this forum.

    Be that as it may, your surmise about the location of camera is correct.

    People have passionately discussed the Virtual-Eye, Hawk-Eye, EagleEye, DRS technology here. Today, I read the CEO of the company that makes this technology available. It is quite an eye opener, have a read here http://es.pn/wqSQBU.

    The gist of the interview given by the CEO is: "The technology has a part to play, but it really needs to be mandated and controlled by the ICC, right down to the people who operate it. You can change the results. Everybody says you can't do it, but you can. Just move it [the camera]. It's possible."
    (ICC is to cricket, as BWF is to badminton)

    To be very frank, from the video-feed that BWF makes available, I would not want those clowns to operate these cameras. Enough to give vertigo to even the seasoned yachtsman.

    And then there is this other critical question - who will review the decision? Upstairs, okay, but who exactly? Someone who is a techie but not an umpire, or an umpire who knows and understands this technology. Looks to me there are many steps to climb, and technologies to monitor, prior to taking any decision to experiment.
    Last edited by 2wheels04; 01-05-2012 at 02:49 AM. Reason: icc

  14. #82
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,847
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs down Australia wanted to use the DRS technology, but India said 'No"

    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheels04 View Post
    What we see on a two dimensional screen is very different on the court. Discussing "perspective" is beyond the scope of this forum.

    Be that as it may, your surmise about the location of camera is correct.

    People have passionately discussed the Virtual-Eye, Hawk-Eye, EagleEye, DRS technology here. Today, I read the CEO of the company that makes this technology available. It is quite an eye opener, have a read here http://es.pn/wqSQBU.

    The gist of the interview given by the CEO is: "The technology has a part to play, but it really needs to be mandated and controlled by the ICC, right down to the people who operate it. You can change the results. Everybody says you can't do it, but you can. Just move it [the camera]. It's possible."
    (ICC is to cricket, as BWF is to badminton)

    To be very frank, from the video-feed that BWF makes available, I would not want those clowns to operate these cameras. Enough to give vertigo to even the seasoned yachtsman.

    And then there is this other critical question - who will review the decision? Upstairs, okay, but who exactly? Someone who is a techie but not an umpire, or an umpire who knows and understands this technology. Looks to me there are many steps to climb, and technologies to monitor, prior to taking any decision to experiment.
    .
    I see your point.

    Currently (from December 2011 to January 2012), Australia and India are having our Cricket (Tests) matches.

    Australia wanted to use the DRS technology, but India said 'No".

    The final decision by the ICC was not to use this DRS technology when playing this series of matches.
    .

  15. #83
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    816
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    actually whether to have cam replay or whatever aid system is dependent on the following:

    a more exciting and conversational game...... not to have aid....let the errors be debate or the discussing point by all ...

    a more factual, accurate and fair game to all.. to have electronic aid..

    so see what point u want it be...

    btw electronic aid can oso fail at times.. n since it is man made... there is a chance that it may artificially altered by some1 who wants one side to win more than the others..

    so far...those without electronic aid..are more....soccer.....n etc...

    only tennis have cam replay......as players have a few chances to contest.... the calls...

    which 1 is beta..? your call.......
    Last edited by a|extan; 01-05-2012 at 03:41 AM.

  16. #84
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,263
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheels04 View Post
    Whoa Fellow!

    Looks like you are very passionate about umpires who are wrong. This is good.

    But try and remember this - there are many officials in the world who take decisions as they see it. All of them consider themselves to be fair to both sets of players. Look at it this way - to the umpire, it is immaterial who wins or loses.
    If the umpire is from a third neutral country, there is rarely any unfairness or biases.. just some minor error of judgment..

  17. #85
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cal Central
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    If the umpire is from a third neutral country, there is rarely any unfairness or biases.. just some minor error of judgment..
    All tournaments have this practice. This is not official policy, just a common-sense approach to what may be perceived as conflict of interest. As to your minor error of judgement angle, well, not all umpires have judgements that may satisfy rigourous standards that posters on this forum have. Perhaps people who are so much more passionate may want to take up officiating, what?

    The entire premise of this thread is based on the OP's article reference, not on any forward-looking statement from BWF. That article is probably in bit heaven now, you know the place where all dead electrons go.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. BaD Line Calls and Living With It
    By Pakito in forum General Forum
    Replies: 6
    : 09-22-2011, 03:43 AM
  2. Challenging line calls in Badminton
    By Sampat in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 11
    : 01-27-2011, 07:33 AM
  3. Bad Line Calls
    By Michael Jensen in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 38
    : 11-30-2008, 05:45 AM
  4. Line calls in tournaments
    By Brett in forum General Forum
    Replies: 4
    : 06-14-2001, 12:19 AM
  5. Line disputes when there are no umpires
    By Brett in forum General Forum
    Replies: 6
    : 12-12-2000, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •