I wonder if Nakanishi got an agreement with the referee about the points, because based on the rules, he's going to lose all of his hard work this week. I really hope they can make an exception for him like what Gill mentioned about Matsutomo's case. The rule should not be designed to punish an honest athlete.
the referee has no authority in the decision making process regarding points. what was matsutomo's case?
I know the rule. But Momota wouldn't have left the stadium with a smile on his face had he thought all his hard work was for nothing. At the end of the second game, he specifically asked Nakanishi about the points, and was informed that, as he played the match, there would be no problem. Hence, there are two possibilities here: 1. Nakanishi is misinformed and, in turn, misinformed Momota. 2. There is additional small-print regarding (exceptions made for) clause 4.4 that neither you nor I are aware about. I hope it is the latter.
i'm not against waivers to 'rules' at all, but, the waivers/exceptions and who makes the decision need to be published. when and what constitutes a waiver/exception? who decides when a waiver/exception is granted? bwf has not been transparent in this regard.
Sensational Attacking Shuttler Kento Momota OUT OF WORLD TOUR FINALS French Open Qualification points binned by grave miscalculation BWF commentator , Steen Pedersen, confirms via Official Twitter Account
The more I see of NBA coordination and decision making…the more hapless they seem to be about long term strategy. The utter implosion at the Olympics is starting to make a lot more sense…
Nakanishi better knows what he is doing. If KM cannot compete in the WTF, it can be considered a professional fault. Rio, some tournaments in 2020/2021, now this. How many times will KM be penalized by his federation/club's choices, decisions or advices? It has taken a toll on his career to the extent one might wonder if he would have had the same career if he were from another country.
Well, he is currently still #4 for the world tour finals (pre french open), not gaining 6000pts here (should fall to rank 12 now ?). As far as I know there are still 3 tournaments to go (1x500, 1x750,1x1000). If he is seriously injured, the finals could be gone both way, if he is only slightly injured and dropped the super 500 tournament (to recover), he still should be able to get enough points with the super 750 and/or super 1000 event. Continue to play with an injury could trigger a domino effect resulting in injuring more parts of your body (there are so many small muscles and tendons which could be easily injured ) . Maybe retiring was not the best ego-trip, maybe it was just missinformation of the coach hopefully Momota himself will tell us. But I see no real issue for Momota to get into the final when he continue with his performance of the last two weeks and if he is not seriously injured.
Actually, we cant blame coach for everything. Momota is not a child. He knows what could be the consequences if he retires against his compatriot. If he would have thought if his body cant withstand further , why cant he withdraw in the previous round. He knows the rule clearly and that's why he continued even when referee asked whether he wants to continue or pull out. He should have lost the opening game , that would have eliminate all the confusion . Anyhow, blaming others is child's game. He is already 27. So, he should take responsibility.
The conversation between KM and Nakanishi indicates KM knew the rules (everyone on the Tour do I imagine) and did not want to retire knowing the current rule in effect (also indicating he wanted to earn his points) but if the coach said otherwise, it seems to me that the coach influenced KM and therefore hold the full responsibility of the possible consequences of this withdrawal. Unless Nakanishi already asked beforehand what would happen if KM were to withdraw during the match because of an injury (may be an injury was already showing for KM before the semi-final and KM wasn't actually fully fit to play?) and then, Nakanishi actually perfectly knew what he was doing (which is to be expected from a coach at this level). We'll know soon enough.
Gill mentioned during the match that Matsutomo was forced to retired with a twisted ankle in some match against a compatriot and an exception was made in her case because it was obvious that she wasn't able to play on. She said that common sense prevailed that time.
Excellent performance by Tsuenyama; he stuck with Chou all the way. What a milestone for him. BUT... that SF tournament ranking point issue continues to niggle away at the back of my mind. I have been scanning for updates, ... but nothing. There is just silence. As a final resort, I tried JSports again, and listened to the commentary on the French Open MS Final, just to see if any further explanation was to be had. And, there was a further explanation, given by Yano Yoshiko, commentator and sports analyst. As we all know, the relevant clause goes as follows: "4.4 In the World Championships, Grade 2 – Levels 2-4 tournaments, and Continental Confederation Individual Championships/Continental Multi Sports Games Individual Championships, if a Player/pair withdraws or retires from a match played against a Player/pair from the same Member they will not receive World Ranking points for that tournament." Yano explained that, 1. As a rule, where there is a retirement in a same-nationality match, tournament points in all matches up to and including that match are deleted from both players as a penalty. 2. At the same time, the Referee has the discretion to make an exception to this rule, if he/she deems the retirement to have been unavoidable. According to this interpretation, it all depends on how the Referee evaluated the SF. Now, Momota was concerned about this very issue, and slugged on until he was reassured by Nakanishi. I am just wondering whether Nakanishi got the nod from the Referee before he advised Momota to call it quits? I suppose we will find out tomorrow when the ranking points are renewed. Tsuneyama, apparently, is out of the woods. According to Yano, the penalty of having one's points deleted only applies to matches up to and including the retirement, and not to any matches won that follow this. ... Despite the wording of the clause.
The last part is confusing. So Tsuneyama earns the full set of points as if there was no retirement incident? And that is because he won another match after the incident? This is a bit hard to follow…
True. But let's imagine that a player retires on purpose just to prevent his fellow national from accruing any points. If the victim had no recourse to remedy, that would be disconcerting, too. There is just so much that is not adequately explained or provided for. The Rules really need to be fleshed out more. I am also concerned that, if the Referee has the power to make exceptions in the absence of clear guidelines, the final outcome may be arbitrary. Some Referees could reasonably be expected to use this discretion more than others. What is clear though, is that Referees do have powers to make recommendations regarding the application of regulations. I looked at the 15-page BWF Referee Report that Tournament Referees are obliged to submit, and the following page was included.