Results 35 to 51 of 207
06-25-2011, 12:26 PM #35
06-25-2011, 01:42 PM #36
A player, when challenging a call, may also be seeking for it to be called a "let"
Don't forget that we do not have only 2 options (of a call), namely; "in" or "out", but also the 3rd option, which allows the shot to be called a "let".
For a marginal call, when players, umpires, linespersons, coaches, etc, ...... are all unsure, we have Law 14.2.6 which states that;
It shall be a "let”, if a line judge is unsighted and the umpire is unable to make a decision.
So, with the video replay to be implemented, Law 14.2.6 would need to be amended to: It shall be a "let”, if a line judge is unsighted or the video replay does not show with conclusive evidence, and the umpire is unable to make a decision.
Often we find player asking linesperson/umpire with this question; "I was very close to the line, and the shuttlecock hit the ground at a very high speed. If I couldn't tell if it was "in" or "out", so how could you?".
Therefore, a player, when challenging a call, may also be seeking for a shot to be called a "let".
Last edited by chris-ccc; 06-25-2011 at 01:45 PM.
06-25-2011, 03:25 PM #37
A call of Let will always however leave one of the players aggrieved. I can imagine seeing a video, one players thinks it is in, the other thinks it is out. there are three options as you say in, out or let two decisions mean one side is aggrieved (In or out) and the other leaves them both feeling aggrieved.
This is why it is better (IMHO) to either have nothing and leave it as the current system, or have a clear system which gives a decision one way or the other. I have said in the previous thread on this subject that I think the money is better spent on the players prize money rather than costly systems such as this.
06-26-2011, 12:15 AM #38
06-26-2011, 01:33 AM #39
How much time can it waste if it's qtrfinals onwards?
Never try never know. Too much worry is not going to help. If it fails, then ditch it.
06-27-2011, 03:12 AM #40
06-27-2011, 08:30 AM #41
Can also use Iphone. lol. The only critical point is 3/4 court area.
06-27-2011, 10:02 AM #42
06-27-2011, 10:06 AM #43
will this be implemented at all levels ? I.e. international Challenge and Grand Prix ? Or only SUper Series ?
06-27-2011, 10:28 AM #44
Yes, but AlanY's point was that it would slow the game. I partially agree, since a typical game is 20 mins, it may add 3 mins for example or 15% to the total match time. However it is likely that the challenges would be also used as a towel break so it may not be as severe as this
06-27-2011, 10:29 AM #45
06-27-2011, 10:47 AM #46
ICC: DRS made mandatory with Hot Spot
Agreement on DRS after Hot Spot is made mandatory
Full story: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/c...ry/520913.html
Sharda Ugra in Hong Kong
June 27, 2011
The ICC's chief executives' committee has unanimously agreed to make a modified version of the Decision Review System (DRS) mandatory in all Tests and one-day internationals. The mandatory terms and conditions for the DRS that have now been recommended to the Executive Board for approval on Tuesday will now consist of infra-red cameras and audio-tracking devices with the "ball-tracker" having been removed from the ICC's original compulsory list of DRS technologies.
BCCI vice-president Niranjan Shah had said that the cost of using the DRS was as high as $60,000 per match. According to the ICC, however, that figure is close to $5000 per day, with a maximum of $25,000 being spent on DRS per Test.
====== =============== ===============
A Test match lasts 5 days.
06-27-2011, 12:37 PM #47
If those costs are correct the implementation of Hotspot would cost approximately 10% of the prize money just for QF onwards.
A high price indeed & no wonder BWF aren't seriously looking into it!
06-27-2011, 01:45 PM #48
Has BWF done the math???
OK, I'm going to repeat this in slow-mo : real slow-mo HD broadcast-quality camera systems are NOT CHEAP.
If the camera is recording at 3x speed, then it is actually doing full-resolution 1920x1080 HD images at three times the normal frame rate: 180i (59.94i), 150i (50i) and 1280x720 HD images at three times the normal frame rate: 180p (59.94p) and 150p (50p). This ensures the required quality of slow-motion playback at all the HD frame-rate standards. The head needs to be capable of sustained 10Gbps transmission to the CCU.
The camera head must also be mated to a CCU (camera control unit) via SMPTE optical fibre. There must not be any signal degradation up to the production control room or to the OB van/truck. The CCU then formats the high-speed data via 3 separate HD SDI streams to the server. The line editor or producer can then recall clips for review by the umpire on demand, from the server.
The camera also provides a concurrent stream of normal-speed, normal-quality HD video. This allows broadcasters to use the same equipment for regular coverage as well as reviews.
You need at least 2 cameras for triangulation. I count a minimum of 4 cameras per court.
These cameras can easily cost in excess of $100,000 each. That's not factoring in the CCUs, redundant servers with appropriate bandwidth and other stuff. The broadcaster will need to factor costs and ROI when bidding for the broadcasting rights.
If BWF really hopes to compete with other sports for the big advertising money they have to not only implement these systems, but do it professionally.
Will they discriminate between camera courts and non-camera courts from the quarter-finals on?
Will the technology be available for all SS or only PSS events?
Can BWF ramp up financial interest to make it worthwhile? Only then can they hope to implement a really professional, reliable camera review system. Anything else is just amateurish twaddle IMO.
06-27-2011, 02:03 PM #49
Wow, so proper camera only option would be even more expensive?
Surely you would need 6 cameras - one for each line on each side of the court, or even 8 to cover the short service line?
On another note, I wonder if reluctance on the part of BWF could also be due to the knock on effect of introducing a camera option. For example if introduce for line calls would you then have calls to introduce for service faults, double hits, no shots, receiver faults etc..etc..
06-27-2011, 02:29 PM #50
Well yes, 6 cameras would be ideal (or 7, if you include the overhead camera )
But I suppose you could get away with using 4 (non-static) cameras if you have good operators. I've seen some outstanding camerawork in some of the 2009 and 2010 events, especially in France and a couple of other venues (can't remember which though! ) In that case, you could mount 2 on either side of the net, and 2 on the baselines.
06-27-2011, 02:44 PM #51
I suppose that BWF is implementing one thing at a time. Currently, they are only dealing with the checking of disputed line calls.
I believe that only SS and higher level tournaments will be using this replay system. Just imagine the speed in which BWF need to disassemble, transport and assemble their equipment from one tournament to another overseas (in less than 48 hours).
Cost of hiring expert staff to handle and to operate these equipment will also need to be budgeted for.
By Pakito in forum General ForumReplies: 6: 09-22-2011, 02:43 AM
By Sampat in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 11: 01-27-2011, 06:33 AM
By Michael Jensen in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 38: 11-30-2008, 04:45 AM
By Brett in forum General ForumReplies: 4: 06-13-2001, 11:19 PM
By Brett in forum General ForumReplies: 6: 12-12-2000, 12:55 PM