Thanks. After a short visit to Guangzhou I was in Lantau Island recently. Sat in the same cable car as a Batak- Chinese couple. Their teenage son who is a badminton fan told me that like him Johnathan is of mixed Batak-Chinese parentage. Just wonder if it is true.
the challenge is 2 per match so the japanese pair did not have challenge anymore why did they challenge? jill clark says the challenge is 2 per game or 6 per match (or 4 if it is 2 sets) did they change the rule? or is that the rule from the beginning?
Well, maybe he has Batak blood in him. As we know Batak people have specific fam surname e.g Ginting, Sinaga, Simanjuntak, etc. His parents : Andreas Adi Siswa and Marlanti Djaja.
All matches in 2006 have 2 chals per game. Here it is EXPERIMENTAL LAW To be implemented 1 January 2016: 3.1 A player/pair has two rights to challenge line calls during the duration of each game of the match. 3.3 If the player/pair is deemed to have incorrectly challenged twice then they lose any further right to challenge during the match game.
the japanese pair has 2 incorrect challenge, why did they challenge again? that's what i mean. 2 incorrect challenge per match. not per game or per set maybe they just wanted the umpire to overrule the call. they didn't have challenge anymore
Well, he certainly didn't. And the Japanese players spend the entire break waving their arms in the air to call the referee in. No luck. Did you notice the service judge, clearly gesturing to the umpire, that a challenge should be made, within the first few seconds. Then he gave up, walked over, and stood by the umpire's chair. So many people involved here didn't do their jobs properly...
Yes. At Denmark Open I saw Danish umpires in matches involving Danish players. I was surprised that 1st they allow it, but 2nd that the organizers plan it anyway... They risk a lot and gain nothing. Perhaps they do rosters and planning before they know which players advance, but it shouldn't be that difficult to rotate a couple of games, to avoid this conflict of interest. It's a shame, especially for the truly impartial umpire, who may simply get a call wrong for the right reasons. They will look completely stupid in the situation, and speculation will arise. However, in the given situation in China, I cannot for the love of god understand, why the umpire doesn't call for the referee, CONSIDERING THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I mean, perhaps he should recognize that this might look wrong, and make absolutely sure, that things are according to the regulations, and call in the referee!? By not doing so, he really puts himself in questionable lighting. Also the referee cannot have missed this going on for a couple of minutes. I don't believe it. And the service judge at first signalling to the umpire, then backing him up afterwards, really looks odd.
if you read it, it's still 2 unsuccesful/incorrect challenge per match maybe i understand it wrongly show me please a match that allows more than 2 unsuccesful challenge
You're misunderstanding the statement. It says the players have the right to 2 challenges per GAME, not per match. So let's say Player A made two unsuccessful challenges in G1, he/she will not have any challenges for the remaining of the first game. But when G2 starts, Player A will once again have two more challenges at his/her disposal.
As a non-professional party your ignorance is understandable. http://system.bwf.website/documents...s of Badminton Appendix 7 - November 2016.pdf The same cannot be said for the BWF approved umpire in that match.
The link sent is official BWF regulation. Feel free to browse the many official BWF YouTube matches which demonstrate the new rule.
Man, you did not watch any single match this year? We have seen this rule applied at every tourney! you are very stubborn