Results 69 to 85 of 177
12-31-2011, 09:58 PM #69
12-31-2011, 10:20 PM #70
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.
01-01-2012, 01:12 AM #71
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.
01-01-2012, 02:13 AM #72
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.
01-01-2012, 07:59 AM #73
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.
01-01-2012, 08:57 AM #74
i think if they adopt some sort of hawk eye system during QF, SF and F, it shouldn't be too expensive to implement...
01-01-2012, 01:02 PM #75
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 01:06 PM.
01-01-2012, 11:30 PM #76
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??
01-02-2012, 12:16 AM #77
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.
01-02-2012, 12:36 AM #78
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).
01-03-2012, 05:06 PM #79
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.
01-03-2012, 09:09 PM #80
01-05-2012, 01:35 AM #81
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 01:49 AM. Reason: icc
01-05-2012, 02:22 AM #82
Australia wanted to use the DRS technology, but India said 'No"
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.
01-05-2012, 02:30 AM #83
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 02:41 AM.
01-05-2012, 03:35 AM #84
01-05-2012, 02:14 PM #85
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.
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