BWF only allows two challenges per match right now. But most people seems to think there should be more. Hopefully, they will change it after Rio along with the possible changes to the scoring system. What do you think the number of challenges per match should be? 1. One challenge per game 2. Two challenges per game 3. Two challenges per match as it is now is fine 4. Three challenges per match 5. Four challenges per match 6. Five challenges per match
One challenge per game would suck if there are multiple close calls in a single game and you miss one. On the other hand, with the current IRS every challenge impedes the flow of the match, so we should be wary of increasing the number of challenges per match lest it allows players to get a break and recompose. Therefore, I do think two challenges per match is perfectly fine - there is limited (but existing) potential for abuse, but a player can still request review of incorrect calls. COCTales 4 contains statistics about challenges. According to these statistics, only 40% of challenges are successful. That seems worrisome already.
Since a challenge takes up a lot of time at the moment I don't think it should be like two challenges per game. I think starting with two challenges is good but maybe adding another challenge (only if you lost one) once it gets to a third game sounds like a good idea to me. In the future when the system gets a lot faster more challenges can be added but there is definitely no need in having as many challenges as they have in tennis. In badminton there is only one line call per rally whereas in tennis there is basically a line call per shot.
40% is huge, I think 3 challenges is fine + if a challenge is correct, nothing is deducted from the remaining challenges.
Mentioned above, but I think the greatest problem is when the match goes to a third set or it's been a particular bad day in terms of line calls. I do like the idea of gaining a challenge per game, but you're only allowed to carry a maximum of 2 challenges, which would prevent a scenerio where someone could use more than 2 challenges in a short time in a attempt to recover/time waste.
But if a challenge is correct, the time spent is not a waste isn't it? I'd think a correct challenge shouldn't be deducted.
Unlimited challenge but if it's unsuccessful then you lose another point on top of the one you just lost.
I should've added at the start that I would keep the current system, but include an extra challenge per game. This would help players who lose a challenge early on in the match and won't challenge any line calls unless it's at a critical point in the match, which I think is wrong because no match should be decided by bad line calls. But lets be honest here, challenges do take time, but there's other ways players waste time and it's up to the umpire to manage this.
This is wrong on so many levels. But the main one is we don't want to give more opportunities for people who want to lose a match on purpose.
BWF doesn't allow only 2 challenges per match it allows as many challenges as you want as long as you keep getting them correct. I don't see the point in raising the amount of challenges you can get wrong, what's the purpose in that?
And promptly reject it. If both sides are content with the call, a challenge would only delay the game. If a side is sure a call is incorrect, they should challenge it. And in any case, you'd basically semi-overrule your line judge. That's strongly discouraged as it is. If the challenge system ever gets automatic and thereby much faster (as in the umpire sees the result within a second on her screen), we can think of letting the umpire use that information. In fact, if such an automatic system would work consistently with extremely high quality, we wouldn't need line judges any more.
Actually I was watching the pvs v lxr today and heard them say that and was surprised as in this match was a prime example of why no more challenges should be given. pvs wanted to keep challenging the opponents back line when the shuttle was coming down vertically which is a pretty easy call for the line person and also an easy sight for the chaired umpire, not only that it is incredibly difficult for pvs to see. She was just wasting everyones time with frustration call and was trying to continue when none were left.
just watching the video now... at around 31:30... [video]https://youtu.be/eGWDvvf-2uo?list=PL0qOoxVup5gwtP70nRboRAJpRgVlZZLsG[/video]
this is very logical. i cant say i've ever seen a game where a player/team has no more challenges left and badly needed one for an obviously incorrect line call. in most cases, they don't even use the 2 challenges. 1 is always kept for the last few points which they often never end up using.
we rarely see player/pairs needing more challenges is due to the fact that if he or she is not sure if it's in or out, he or she will probably let it pass and save the challenges for later (eg, towards the end of a game) when the challenge would be worth making for example when the game is really neck-and-neck tight like 17-17 and a challenge is obviously worth making. the correct questions to ask are these: (1) before the introduction of hawk-eye, how many incorrect line calls were there on average per match or per game? In Korea, I think it's definitely more than 2 per match. In All England, the numbers would be lower of course. Let's say there were on average 5 incorrect line calls per match. (2) Amongst the 5, how many were obviously incorrect? (3) Amongst the 5, how many were overruled by umpire? Since the umpire now will not overrule the line judges, it's all up to the players now. after the introduction of hawk-eye, (4) how many incorrect line calls were there on average per match or per game? (5) how many did the players themselves miss but should have made a challenge? At the end of the day, fairness of the game should prevail over everything else. This is especially so since having a few more challenges per match (or per game) would not cost BWF any or much money!!
i should have made it clear that i was referring to incorrect challenges. for example a match could have had 5 challenges and if all of them are correct, at the end both teams still have 2 incorrect challenges each which they have not used. its not about money, i think reducing the allowable incorrect challenges is a safeguard to abusing the system.
According to the update. Experimental law to be implemented 1st January 2016 3.1 A player/pair has two rights to challenge line calls during the duration of each game of the match.
