Bitburger Badminton Open GP Gold 2014 (28th October-2nd November 2014)

tbgoh288 said:
Yes, he is as much a Chinese as KIm Jong Un is a Korean. So are LCW, ZBW (this one born in China), ML, Eric Pang, Derek Wong and some INA players. Only difference is they are not competing for PRC.
Click to expand...

It is inevitable that the Chinese and Indians will be represented all over the world simply because of their vast population and the ambition to do better overseas. Migration is the trend for the able and the risk-takers who seek a better life.

Politics does divide people of the same ethnicity as they did in Vietnam, Korea, India and China and once-upon-a-time, Germany. Hongkong was so politically different under the British but is now absorbed within China, just the reverse. Similarly with Macau but not Chinese Taipei or Taiwan, which seems to want to remain what they are presently, independent of mainland China.

However, with migration comes inter-marriages and the dilution of one's ethnicity. I think Eric Pang is one example. In a way, inter-marriages help to minimize cultural bias and promotes understanding of those who are not of the same ethnicity.
 
Just wondering whether HBJ needs to be PFR again before she can compete in a tier-3 tournament. I remember that some one once proposed that WJ champions should automatically qualify for such tournaments. I support the proposal. In fact it should include YOG champions as well. Let them go automatically into the qualification rounds at least. I honestly think that we fans are lucky that HBJ got PFR this time around. Otherwise the ladies singles competition would not have been as exciting.
 
+100 from my side...
She will never get enough exposure if the current rule continues to prevail..
SS tourneys are way diff from GPG you have to be very much focused and should have great fighting spirit..
As well SS tourneys will give them ample of points to jump higher in rankings..
This is why AY still not in top30
 
Occasional child prodigies not withstanding, there is a big gap between junior and senior players. There are enough IC, GP and GPG tournaments around for the juniors to test themselves. There is no need to pre-qualify them for senior tournaments.
 
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this may be of interest.

CTC was quoted saying that he asked the umpire to ask the service judge whether THW had paused on his second service. (http://m.ltn.com.tw/news/sports/paper/826828) And that led to the let call.

If true, this is total BS. Whether THW did pause, if the service judge did not call a fault at the time of service, he can't change his mind later. If it was a fault, it would be a point to CTC, not a let.
 
Nothing against THW. I think THW lost to himself for doing these BS in the last 2 points. Totally unnecessary. His emotion has led to his defeat.
 
I do agree that we should fast-track those with exceptional talents and He Bingjiao is certainly one of them. Look at those non-CHN child prodigies, namely Intanon R, Tai TY, Akane Y, just to name three, all of whom are regularly fielded in SS tournaments around HBJ's age. The problem for HBJ is CBA already have at any time three to five seniors who are among the top of world badminton, so there is neither the need nor the urgency for their outstanding juniors to challenge and fight for supremacy and the same laurels but to keep her for future continuity.

Unfortunately that's the price CHN child prodigies have to pay, the disadvantages they have to endure and opportunities forgone through no fault of their own unless and if unforeseen or quite unusual circumstances develop to create an opening for them to rise according to their natural, prodigious abilities. I do hope Sun Yu and He Bingjiao might be the one or two lucky ones to benefit from it in the positive sense,i.e. by being given more opportunities to realize their true potential sooner rather than later.
 
RedShuttle said:
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this may be of interest.

CTC was quoted saying that he asked the umpire to ask the service judge whether THW had paused on his second service. (http://m.ltn.com.tw/news/sports/paper/826828) And that led to the let call.

If true, this is total BS. Whether THW did pause, if the service judge did not call a fault at the time of service, he can't change his mind later. If it was a fault, it would be a point to CTC, not a let.
Click to expand...

Apparently this must be something that occurs from time to time, as this is one Scenario for Discussion in the BWF Umpire Training Manual:

15. A receiver is losing his/her balance when the server is just about to serve. Seeing this the server quickly serves while the receiver falls down not trying to hit the shuttle. What is your decision?

Hmmm. wonder what the general consensus would be among the umpiring trainees?

CTC didn't fall down, but noticeably wobbled/lost balance in the second service attempt. Thisscenario might be added to the training manual for future training discussion.
 
badrad said:
Apparently this must be something that occurs from time to time, as this is one Scenario for Discussion in the BWF Umpire Training Manual:

15. A receiver is losing his/her balance when the server is just about to serve. Seeing this the server quickly serves while the receiver falls down not trying to hit the shuttle. What is your decision?

...
Click to expand...
Interesting link. What's the official answer?

I'd say that if the receiver is losing balance as observed by the server, the receiver is not ready and it should be a let. But that's not quite the THW/CTC situation. THW served when CTC was seemingly ready.

Also note that in the link I posted, CTC wasn't arguing about his readiness but that THW committed a fault on his service.

Again, this is not arguing whether CTC was the worthy victor. I would say that he was for his fighting spirit and strong will. This is just a technical discussion. I found the intervention of the service judge rather questionable.
 
RedShuttle said:
Occasional child prodigies not withstanding, there is a big gap between junior and senior players. There are enough IC, GP and GPG tournaments around for the juniors to test themselves. There is no need to pre-qualify them for senior tournaments.
Click to expand...

Haste makes....

If one looks at the general trend of girls/ladies and when they tend to peak, it seems that their best period begins around the age of 21-22 and extends to around 26, maybe even further in some instances.

The early “prodigies” risk burnout if they are pushed at a rate that is not in sync with their physical development. Girls/ladies have show that their peak physical development (in badminton) tends to occur around the age of 22-24 years. Piling on the expectation and pressure on the shoulders of teenagers can come back to bite them. Any sound bites of confidence and desire are par for the course- we wouldn’t expect anything else!
 
RedShuttle said:
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this may be of interest.

CTC was quoted saying that he asked the umpire to ask the service judge whether THW had paused on his second service. (http://m.ltn.com.tw/news/sports/paper/826828) And that led to the let call.

If true, this is total BS. Whether THW did pause, if the service judge did not call a fault at the time of service, he can't change his mind later. If it was a fault, it would be a point to CTC, not a let.
Click to expand...

Not sure if anyone noticed, but in this referenced article, author named Scott Evans as a competitor from India (last sentence).:D
 
bigying said:
Not sure if anyone noticed, but in this referenced article, author named Scott Evans as a competitor from India (last sentence).:D
Click to expand...

Haha! ...and my “translator” got this from the previous paragraph-
"Little bear games lesson and stabilize a double homicide, taking victory.
 
bigying said:
Not sure if anyone noticed, but in this referenced article, author named Scott Evans as a competitor from India (last sentence).:D
Click to expand...
A young Indian at that. Scott Evans isn't old. But if the author actually watched the video or saw a picture from Bitburger Open, I don't know how he could use the word "young".
 
RedShuttle said:
Interesting link. What's the official answer?

I'd say that if the receiver is losing balance as observed by the server, the receiver is not ready and it should be a let. But that's not quite the THW/CTC situation. THW served when CTC was seemingly ready.

Also note that in the link I posted, CTC wasn't arguing about his readiness but that THW committed a fault on his service.

Again, this is not arguing whether CTC was the worthy victor. I would say that he was for his fighting spirit and strong will. This is just a technical discussion. I found the intervention of the service judge rather questionable.
Click to expand...

LOL... The answer is there is no answer - as it is a Scenario for Discussion in the manual. So it's a done deal. You can argue until the cows come home, but it's now history.

As for intervention by the service judge, the service judge may assist the umpire as felt needed, not solely for service calls. In the Umpiring tips it advises service judge and the umpire work as a team. As far as I know, a Service Judge requires the same accreditation as an Umpire. There is no accreditation for Line Judges, which as we often seen are local volunteers.
 
Last edited:
In the CTC ts THW match, at the 19-all mark. A let was the correct call. And I'll explain why.

Yes, CTC was originally ready, however, before the start of the service, he stumbles. As shown in the review, he stumbles before THW starts his serve. Therefore no fault has been committed. There cannot be a receiver fault unless the server starts his service.

9.1.3 some part of both feet of the server and the receiver must remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3).

It actually happened in the WD final I officiated in last week at an International tournament. I called a let. The player in question then complained whether the opponent did a double motion. (The opponent just took a little longer to start her serve than usual, the receiver then stumbled, and the service was delivered). Play just continued normally afterwards.
 
Well, the point of a training manual is to provide guidance on officiating, not just an intellectual diversion.

As described in the text, the server is clearly aware that the receiver is not ready, the server shouldn't serve. So it is a let.

However, if the receiver goes in and out of readiness more than once, I'd give the receiver a warning and on second occurrence, rule this a valid service if the receiver showed readiness before losing balance later.

From what I observed, umpires are usually rather generous on the first let. And few "hanky-panky" were attempted by the players after a let was already called. So this is not a prevalent problem.
 
CantSmashThis said:
In the CTC ts THW match, at the 19-all mark. A let was the correct call. And I'll explain why.

Yes, CTC was originally ready, however, before the start of the service, he stumbles. As shown in the review, he stumbles before THW starts his serve. Therefore no fault has been committed. There cannot be a receiver fault unless the server starts his service.

9.1.3 some part of both feet of the server and the receiver must remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3).

It actually happened in the WD final I officiated in last week at an International tournament. I called a let. The player in question then complained whether the opponent did a double motion. (The opponent just took a little longer to start her serve than usual, the receiver then stumbled, and the service was delivered). Play just continued normally afterwards.
Click to expand...

Good officiating! Play on!
 
CantSmashThis said:
In the CTC ts THW match, at the 19-all mark. A let was the correct call. And I'll explain why.

Yes, CTC was originally ready, however, before the start of the service, he stumbles. As shown in the review, he stumbles before THW starts his serve. Therefore no fault has been committed. There cannot be a receiver fault unless the server starts his service.
...
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input. But a receiver fault was never the issue. The original call was a no call, i.e. letting the failure to return stand.
 
RedShuttle said:
Thanks for your input. But a receiver fault was never the issue. The original call was a no call, i.e. letting the failure to return stand.
Click to expand...

No umpire would have let that call stand as is (and reward THW the point). At worse, the umpire would call over the receiver and have a word.

This is the same case as the old LYD match where the receiver put his hand up indicating he's not ready, then put it down, and right before service was delivered, put his hand back up, and when the serve was delivered, instead of letting it drop to the ground, the receiver hit it back to the server with his hand still up indicating he's not ready and the server caught the shuttle. The umpire then proceeded to fault the receiver for distraction (he put his hand up indicating he's not ready, but he returned the service technically [even though he was just trying to return it to the server] so the umpire counted the shuttle in play, and faulted the receiver).

As an official, we are there to keep the game fair, but we must remember that the game is for the players. A player trying to score a point like that should feel ashamed of themselves if they win a match like that. CTC was clearly not ready to receive the serve, yes the umpire made a mistake in not calling a let at first, but did the right thing to have called a let.

If you were sitting in that high chair, with the match on the line like that, you can't tell me that you wouldn't have called a let. The umpire made a mistake but was able to correct herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top