Next AGM Brings Possible New Scoring System & More

For me, by far the most surprising quote is (emphasis mine):

To have different rules at the national than at the international level, maybe even different selections (e.g. Denmark playing 5x11 with dynamic service laws and inter-point coaching, and Australia 3x21 with fixed service laws and new coaching rules), seems quite unusual to me.

Personally, I feel that the current laws (3x21 / coaching allowed / dynamic service height) are better for lower-level players (in short: less time switching courts, coaching is very helpful for improvement and team building, service height is much easier to measure and sensible for youth players), but at the same time I wholeheartedly agree that the proposed changes are better for high-level competitions.

 

I notice a item called "Semi-professional referees".

May I ask what that is?

 

Selected referees (and later umpires) will be paid by BWF as part-time employees. Presumably, the referees in question would need to take on an extremely flexible day job (for instance freelancer), or live in a country where half of a developed-world salary is sufficient to live.

The semi-professionals will probably referee/umpire more tournaments, especially Super 1000 and above. BWF could also ask them to assess other TOs and develop rule changes and clarifications with a larger time budget than right now. The recent COCTales always mentioned this without many details. The BWF Strategic Plan also mentions it on page 42.

 

I love the strategy part that covers "2020 and beyond":

Just to make sure - there will still be real players chasing real shuttles then, right?

E-sports? 4D TV production(will they be broadcasting smell or what?!)? That's management buzzword-bingo at its finest!

 

While there is at the moment absolutely no indication of any badminton-related game that is being played competitively, introducing or supporting badminton-related electronic games (à la FIFA or Madden NFL) doesn't seem totally out of the question to me. And once you have a good game, an e-sports scene is certainly possible - why not?

They probably mean 4K and 3D - that would also fit into the timeframe of 2020; that's about when both 4K and 3D are likely to be available and usable to the average consumer.

 

Hmm... has there ever been any sort of badminton computer game on any platform?
Tennis? Loads. Badminton? Never ever seen such thing. But if there will be enough potential customers and the game is good, then bring it on!

4k UHD, fully agreed. But in case they haven't noticed - the latest generation of 3D TV is dead (like any other 3D TV technology before). Is anyone seriously planning another revival of it?

 

Games, interactive media, teleconferencing, and/or pornography could become killer apps for 3D.

Not necessarily in the form of 3D TVs, but devices like Samsung Gear VR, Google Glass, or Oculus Rift, all of which can be bought right now. Products like these may become significantly better and widespread until 2020.

 

Oh right, I forgot about all that VR stuff that's been coming up in the past years. Although it will have to stand the test of time if these will become a suitable way to simply watch sports or movies. It has been widely proven that people sitting in front of the TV to casually watch "normal" program don't want to wear anything on their heads. That was the main reason why all the attempts regarding 3D TV over the past decades have flopped like that. And since this will be even worse with VR glasses that basically lock you out from the rest of the world, I have my doubts about that.

Apart from that, I already have to give a thumbs up for BWF to offer the latest big tournaments via Youtube Livestream for free also in Germany. I hope this will go on like this for the rest of the year.

 

BWF should try to make an official games for PC, Android, iOS, game consoles, etc...
FIFA with their games, NBA as well, PGA have it. BWF need it too

 

I believe in all of these cases, the game are created and managed by electronic gaming companies. These companies buy licensing rights for the game title, team stadiums&names&jerseys, player names&faces etc. from the sports federation, but otherwise the federation is not really involved (although I imagine they may facilitate communication with the players and other involved parties, for instance for 3D scanning).

I believe that's how it should be in badminton as well: BWF should not bear the large financial risks of developing a game. BWF should support any game developer interested in a badminton project - for instance, with publicity on social media channels and at tournament venues, and by providing or relaying resources to facilitate 3D modelling. The incentive to make a good and best-selling game should be with a gaming studio, with people who are experienced game designers.

 

Before creating a game, how if BWF invest in creating an app for tournament software, badminton unlimited series, and more news on badminton?

 

I read many interest item magazine, same like mention about create game interest.
How many money to make, how many event to play.
You also read interest here - http://bit.ly/2Ckp2RG

 

i hope there will be a print hard-copy badminton magazine in English in the future.

 

I'm really hoping that the 5x11 scoring system doesn't follow through. Personally, I enjoy watching the current scoring system as it is and playing is definitely better to 21. It's so difficult to thoroughly get into a game at the start and on a recreational level, cycling on a d off games to 11 would be way too short and way too unenjoyable to play

 

my initial reaction to these changes was not a good one, but upon further thought i don't think it's bad at all. i'm not one to hesitate pointing out how retarded bwf can be and has been in the past.

at first i thought it was stupid. then i asked myself the ?'n i always start with: what is bwf's role in this decision? once i answered that ?'n it makes sense. how/why does it make sense to me?

to understand, and remind myself, the purpose of bwf's existence i made a list:

• bwf does not own the sport of badminton, which means
• bwf does not rule on all things badminton for the entire world.
• bwf owns some tournaments (wc, thomas/uber/sudirman), and the next thing is a major point..
• bwf governs a professional tournament circuit (bwf world tour, etc.) which is recognized by member associations as the premier tournament circuit, of which they choose to participate in.
• bwf is not in the business of telling member associations how they should train.

now back to phil's point of contention... at first i thought bwf should be standardizing the sport. then it hit me... that's not bwf's reason for existence. member associations that want to play on bwf's circuit would be wise to design their training around the rules bwf put forth for bwf's circuit, in order to maximize success. or not. it's up to them.

beyond that, the world is free to play/train by whatever rules they want. it's the same for all sports... you/me/people/leagues/schools/clubs choose which rules they play by, and variations/modifications of those rules they play buy.

 

While I understand and agree with what youre trying to say here, I feel that the decisions made by governing bodies of sports are critical to all levels of players. The reason being that players who play a particular sport will want to be able to watch the same sport on TV played by professionals and be able to connect through their own playing experiences. If the rules are different between club levels and professional levels, there would be a disconnect, so while bwf only governs the professional scene and nothing else, their rules do cascade down all the way to the bottom. Also, I feel that for a sport to be able to market itself as a "brand", standardization across the board is important.

 

yes, but the 'governing bodies of all professional levels of sports' aren't really thinking about the lower levels. they're trying to do what's best for the professional level. regardless of what the governing bodies do, the lower levels will still do as they please.

a quick examination of the major sports (nfl/nba/etc.) reveal all kinds of non-standard activity between their pro levels & the levels immediately below it.
nfl & nba games are longer than college games & clock stopping (possession) rules are very different. also in football the college goal posts are wider than the pros. in basketball the 3 point shot is closer for college & high school. those should be major standardized scoring parts of the game if you ask me, especially for those on a career path into the pros. the nfl/nba/mlb/nhl do not govern the lower levels. they don't have the authority. it's the lower levels whom have chosen to continue playing by modified professional rules.

same goes for tennis. in 1970 tennis introduced the tie breaker, to prevent all-day matches. naturally, most people and other lower level tennis organizations hated it. did the int'l tennis federation care what lower levels thought? nope. in fact, tennis grew exponentially afterwards because tv would cover it due to it's more predictable length. http://livehealthy.chron.com/decade-were-tie-breakers-introduced-professional-tennis-3522.html

...and that presents the dichotomy: in order to standardize something all non-governing parties need to voluntarily comply, thereby creating a de facto standard. ironic, eh?

new badminton scoring... oy. i'm trying to shorten my explanation on why i think it's the right move (separate post). at first i hated it(!), because as passionate players don't we want to be playing longer? getting a better workout? having more court time is more fun! and watching the pro's play longer is more exciting!

as a fan it's hard to be objective about change. however, i'm willing to make sacrifices towards a more popular & profitable future for badminton.

 

I hope BWF doesn't kill the art and beauty of badminton in chasing profits! It's good they are looking at making badminton lucrative but shorter matches may not be the best way forward.

Tennis is the best example of long matches and lots of prize money. That also includes a lot of boring matches with unknown players.

The old 15*3 scoring system with points only on serve was the most difficult system and made it tough for players to get back in a match.
The current 21*3 is a level playing field and gives equal chances for both players to play attacking, slow or fast. This system is loved by the players and fans of badminton. Shorter matches will benefit power players and won't give a chance for a player to come back into the match.
Slow starters will be punished. The old saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it!"

I am sure there are many ways to make badminton lucrative without changing the scoring system and shorter matches!

 

the reality is it's the only way forward. it has everything to do with fitting within a certain time frame to appeal to media broadcasting.

actually it's a poor example. you're only watching 1 tennis match on tv of the main court, whereas we get 5 on semi's & 5 on finals day. in that sense we are lucky. tennis began to get lots of money once they were able to fit a match within 3-3.5 hours for tv.

not necl'y... here's how i look at it:

the avg. semi & finals day needed to make a 5 hour broadcast fit into 3.5 hours. 300 minutes down to 210 minutes. that's a 30% reduction.
obviously that means you have to shorten the games. a 30% reduction in a game means 21 pts to win (30 cap) becomes 15 points to win (21 cap).

the 21*3 rule requires the winner to score 42 points minimum, in 11*5 it would be 33. only a 21.5% reduction in points. not as many in reality than as it sounds in our minds... saying '11 to win' instead of '21 to win' sounds like it's cut in half.
instead of looking at it as 5 quick 11 point games i see it as two-and-a-half 21 point games, with changing sides half way through each game.

in my head i thought about the following scenarios:
in a blowout 21-5 21-5 you'd be losing 11-3 11-3 11-4 at best. face it, you weren't going to win in any format.
in a close 21-19 21-19 you'd be losing 11-9 11-9 11-9. close, yes, but bwf wanted you to catch up sooner. there's incentive to keep it close, being 100% ready to play from the beginning of a match. no more coasting, letting your foot off the gas, when you have a big lead.

a split (ie. 21-anything, anything-21) translates to winning 2 games each to 11. doesn't matter what order. win game 1 & 2, lose 3 & 4; win 1 lose 2 win 3 lose 4; win 1 lose 2 lose 3 win 4... in the end you both won 22 points at some point, which is equal to splitting 21-whatever to whatever-21 under current rules. as i said before all you did was switch sides @ 11. what remains is an 11 point tie breaker to decide the winner (game 5 under 5*11 rule). there are indeed more, as bwf says, tense moments... like gaining the lead before changing sides.

i think this would make watching women's doubles more interesting as well.

that's my short version. i have no idea how bwf arrived at their decision.

anyone else have scenarios about how they see things playing out, for better or worse?