2016 Rio Olympic Games : Day-8 (18th August) - WD Gold Medal, WD &MD Bronze Medal, WS Semifinals

They never disagree? I find that very hard to believe that that´s how it works, but ok. So the umpire only count the scores and that´s it?

Fine, then we can conclude that table tennis players are angels while badminton players are born bad.

 

She was seen and "treated" by her own medic and by your reasoning, she loses the match. Why did she continue? I am confused about the rules.

 

You think the umpire played along because Pedersen did? Well then it´s bad umpiring, isn´t it?

 

The issue here was, that JAP coaches shouted "OUT" to the player in the middle of the rally, and she then stopped her stroke.

This is illegal.

It's not that nobody heard it, because it was heard by the umpire, by the Danish players, for certain by the service judge, and maybe even by the Danish coaches (even though I don't know it they just picked it up from the players).
Danish players wanted the umpire to rule according to the rules, but the umpire was apparently under the impression that the player had seen the ball as out herself, and decided to let it go (which could easily have been the case, as it was far out).
Nevertheless, the situation was that the coach interfered while play was on, and he admitted it (said he was sorry, clearly gestured that it was a mistake and he wouldn't do it again).

Now, Danish players insisted that the umpire ruled no point for the Japanese, so they called for the referee (which I think is the correct procedure by the way). Referee talked to everybody, and also decided to let it slip.
Here's when I think the Danish players made a mistake. At that point, it makes no sense to keep insisting and debating, because they know that both umpire and referee agree with them about the incident, but both decide to just warn (and not punish). Danish players should let it slide and focus on the match, instead of keep insisting here. They broke concentration and easily lost the next point. (in contrast the Japanese players handled the double hit incident more experienced, and didn't let it affect their state of mind).

I think some players keep complaining to the umpire (and referee) to "put one in the bank" - so that next time an incident happens, the umpire will tend towards evening out things. This is the norm, for all players, when looking at overhand serves. You never see an overhand serve ruling pass by without some sort of complaint, because the player want's to make sure, that the service judge will then hand out a "borderline" penalty point to the opponent, OR perhaps let the next overhand server from the same player slip by. Like it or not, that's how 95% of the pro players act. I don't agree that it pays of - most of the umpires and service judges doesn't care, and often it bring the player out of their mental focus to debate...

 

That's not how it works.

If the service judge see a double hit (or any other rule violation), he/she should notify the umpire.

Taken from the official BWF directions to service judges in TV matches:
Tips for Service Judges
Discreetly assist the umpire for line calls, double hits, keeping score, etc.
You should work as a team with the umpire.

Clearly the umpire, nor the service judge was certain that a double hit had occurred. In fact, for me, I didn't see it until the 3rd angle slow motion replay! Same goes for Danish commentators (one saying I think there was a double hit, the other saying, no that was just a frame hit, that is not an error - until the low angle slo-mo replay).

It's so clear to us viewers - difficult to tell if Pedersen was 100% sure of the double hit - she could have been in doubt if it was just a frame mishit. I doubt it though, often the player can feel it better than anyone else. But Juhl don't have a chance to know, standing behind her.

 

BTW: I'm with @vixter on this one. There's a difference between these matches and the ones we play ourselves. It simply cannot be compared. If a player is honest and hands the point over, my full respect (I wish all players did that, and showed perfect sportsmanship in all situations). But they don't, and it's not the norm in pro badminton.
This incident came 10 seconds after the Danes felt unfairly treated for being forced to play with a slow shuttle (was that fair sportsmanship by the Japanese?) And they also felt unfairly treated at the incident with the coach calling the lines earlier. So they let it go and take the point (or rather, Pedersen let it go, Juhl couldn't know).
That's how it works.
I've seen other Danish players take the other route, I prefer that, but I can't feel bring myself to start calling names here.

I admire the Japanese players to keep their heads cool at the end of the match, through all the ups and downs. They showed terrific play and extremely good focus, they did deserve the win at the end. It was by far one of the most entertaining WD matches I've seen.

 

Well of course the rules must be enforced by the umpire. I don't know why he let the CHN team medic come on court. Perhaps he did not want to spoil the party.

 

You dared me to find an example before about player shows courtesy about being honest on court regarding double hit, or kind of, and i gave you one,
But hey yeah, just like AlanY pointed out before, at least you admitted that Pedersen is dishonest.

Good night.

 

As for all delays of a match, it is up to the umpire to decide. The umpire can for any reason he see necessary, delay the game as he sees fit. So as long as the umpire says "this was not caused by deliberate action from the player, and the player is not seeking to regain wind or strength or receive coaching", then he can give the player x minutes to get examined.

It's rule 16 in the part 2 of the Laws of Badminton.

It doesn't mention anything about the doctor/therapist being from the player's staff or not, nor does it mention injuries specifically, so I think it's correct that this goes under the general rule of the umpire mandating a break.

 

Renbo, can you link to the rule stating that no such medical check is allowed, even if the umpire calls for it?

 

No, it is what the broadcast commentators say during matches

 

I had a quick check on the rules, and it is under section 2 (recommendation to technical officials), articles 3.5.8 (from 8.1 to 8.4). It is said that the medical official should attend the injured player, but the referee (not umpire) might advise to get somebody else.
It does not mention anything else.
But it does stipulates that no treatment "causing undue delay" should be given. It seems that the role of the medical officier is to determine is there is danger for the player (and not to treat the wound).
I don't know if other rules exists.
If we think about it, the sensible thing to do for BWF is to forbid treatment on court. Health might be at risk, correct assessment of the player's condition should be made at a clinic, not during a match. There is no way a correct diagnostic for an injured player can be made in 20 seconds at a court side, be it by the official medic or by the player's personal medic.
Link : http://system.bwf.website/documents...II Section 2 - RTTO - June 2016 Revised 4.pdf

 

Thanks FeatherBlaster and renbo on the medics.

 

Well said, FeatherBlaster and vixter. Thank you.

Some people are intent on calling Pedersen dishonest and nothing can convince them otherwise so I just let them have their say and the last word.

 

Yeah, thanks for pointing this out, of course it's the umpire who determines if play must be stopped, and then it's the ref, not the umpire, who determines the need for treatment and time for the same.

Well, there's a specific rule that mention bleeding players. They MUST be treated right away, before play can continue.

 

In the WS semis, when LXR was laid on the floor, the Chinese medic came to court but the umpire tried to stop her. The commentator then said "it's illegal for her to treat LXR", but nevertheless the umpire at last let the Chinese doctor examine her.
So the rules are not clear at all

 

If I remember correctly, the CHN doctor was very persistent and determined to examine and treat LXR and the umpire didn't apply, let alone enforce the rules and relented, thus setting a bad precedence. He (umpire) should be reprimanded.