. But we need to limit the number of challenges; and hope that players would only challenge when they are very sure that the line-judges have got their calls wrong. .
will this be implemented at all levels ? I.e. international Challenge and Grand Prix ? Or only SUper Series ?
I would say that the build up of tension during the review can be a good thing. I agree that a let serves no purpose in this situation.
ICC: DRS made mandatory with Hot Spot Agreement on DRS after Hot Spot is made mandatory Full story: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/520913.html Cricinfo 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.
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!
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.
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..
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.
. 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. .
Not such a big deal. These crew do it all the time. In fact, it will probably be up to the broadcasting channel who has won the rights for the specific event, to arrange for the equipment. Sometimes, (or often, depending on the country) the channel does not own the equipment. They hire it out from local equipment rental companies. If the equipment is not available at the specific country, they will arrange to fly it in from the neighbouring country. It's a fairly regular practise. Most crew and camera operators who are hired for live broadcast today, can handle the slow-mo equipment as well. At most it takes maybe an hour of familiarization. The producer may often want to get a top-notch online editor who understands badminton, the unique angles, indoor lighting etc; that's where the money and difference in quality really counts. On a side note: IMO, the local/national association/host should work closely with the broadcaster/producer to select the right foreground/background colours and ambient lighting to provide maximum dramatic effect and interest. This can be crucial to keep up the interest of television viewers who pay to watch live on TV. All of this matters. More quality presentations->more viewership->more ratings->more sponsor interest->more revenue->more quality presentations->more viewership...
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'.
The cost issue does seem to be quite an issue if it were implemented in most tournaments. Granted I can't see anyone other than the premier super series tournaments making use of this system because they have more funds. Just for reference in the most recent premier super series which was in Indonesia, I recall the champions getting somewhere around $47,000 dollars and the runner up gets ~$22,000. The projected cost of $60,000 per match in an article posted earlier in this thread is massive. Granted those figures are for cricket and not badminton, though I suspect it will be still quite costly to use the equipment. I am an avid supporter of having the camera tracking system put in place for badminton because it will make the sport more "dramatic" for viewers and fans as well as having the ability for players to challenge line calls though not frivolously.
Sorry... couldn't resist... Satish Acharya is the cartoonist from the cricinfo site: http://www.espncricinfo.com/page2/content/story/520860.html?selected=1
ICC moots sponsors to fund revamped DRS Full report: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/521363.html Excerpts: The ICC will look for sponsors for the DRS to overcome the financial hurdles that less wealthy cricket boards will face in implementing the cost-intensive referral system now mandatory in international cricket. "There is the possibility that we could raise a sponsor to cover the cost of the DRS," ICC CEO, Haroon Lorgat, told ESPNcricinfo. The chief executives' committee agreed on Monday to make a modified version of DRS mandatory in all internationals, with the use of the ball-tracking technology made optional, and Lorgat said he could see a situation "where we may well cover all costs of the technology." The cost of the DRS is currently estimated at $5000 per day, with broadcasters, technology providers and home boards in a constant debate about who should bear the cost.
. Yes, this I agree - More quality presentations->more viewership->more ratings->more sponsor interest->more revenue->more quality presentations->more viewership... .
Lin Dan is asking for Hawk-Eye . And now, Lin Dan is asking for Hawk-Eye. Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sports/2011-12/14/c_131306778.htm ====== * ====== start article ====== * ====== LIUZHOU, South China, Dec. 14 (Xinhua) -- Chinese badminton star Lin Dan has called for the use of Hawk-Eye replay technology in the game to reduce disputed line calls. Lin's petition came after last week's South Korea Golden Grand Prix were overshadowed by a series of disputed line calls. Chinese top seed Chen Jin, who was stopped by South Korean Lee Hyun-II in the men's singles semifinals, blamed his defeat on unfair ruling by South Korean umpires. Chinese head coach Li Yongbo echoed Chen's words, saying some line calls were obviously wrong. "We should look over the videos of all matches, or call on the BWF to adopt the Hawk-Eye technology. Disputed line calls will not exist if Hawk-Eye is used in all competitions," Lin said after his 21-15, 19-21, 21-17 victory against teammate Chen Long in the BWF Superseries Finals which is ongoing in Liuzhou, a city in south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Over the past few years, there had been calls for introducing Hawk-Eye to badminton, but the BWF, badminton's world governing body, didn't give the green light. "We must ensure badminton a truly fair game, so we need to remedy this defect," added Lin. The Hawk-Eye technology is now used in tennis and cricket. ====== * ====== end article ====== * ====== .
Think again on the last Li Ning China Open this year where Cai Yun/Fu Haifeng vs Ko Sung Hyun/Yoo Yeon Seong. Cai Yun/Fu Haifeng almost loose against the korean pairs but before the koreans were about to end the match in straight set, the CHINESE umpire make a call that the koreans are touching the shuttle over the net. The replay proof it all wrongggggggg... And then the koreans loose their focused and eventually loose the game. But they doesn't complained. Doesn't it fair now? Both countries play unfair.
