Yes, the division is quite clear: The referee can only be called in questions of law, injury, red cards, and extraordinary circumstances (light going out, mat opening at the seams etc.). Otherwise, the court is the domain of the umpire, supported by the service judge. Players don't get to call the referee, but referees used to indulge the players when they raised their hand. Current referees are becoming much more careful to walk onto court in these cases, because it undermines the umpire's authority and leads to additional delays. In any case, the referee cannot, and certainly would not even if they could, overrule the umpire in a case of different perception. For one, the referee likely didn't see it, or at least not as clearly. Video evidence is currently not admissible, just like in many other sports. Maybe it will be some day, similar to the current challenge system. Maybe in one instance, although with the current rules, this referee would certainly never be at any BWF tournament afterwards. Plus, the loser could contest the overruling, as it is against the rules. But what about the next match, and the next tournament? What happens when a referee steps in and overrules a correct decision? What if the referee and their deputy disagree? No, the proper way is not to involve the referee – even the service judge is problematic, as it takes a lot of courage for them and has similar problems regarding the perception of the umpire – but add a video challenge, performed by somebody off-court. But that's expensive – you need an additional umpire sitting off-court, ready at a moment's notice – and could delay matches. BWF is rightly careful in introducing additional challenging, not only because it is expensive, but also because it leads to longer matches. And one of the reasons that badminton doesn't have the budget that e.g. tennis has is that a finals day is too long already. Therefore, BWF hopes to gain more viewers by shortening the total length of a finals day, not lengthening them. Well, umpires and referees kind of are of known to be sticklers for rules. For good reason: Badminton is not a popularity or judging contest; umpires and referees should enact the rules. If different rules are needed, BWF should suggest and the BWF members should vote on them.
Thanks for taking the time to explain those situations from an umpire point of view. I slightly disagree on a few points but it doesn't mean I'm right so I'll leave it at that.
Yes, an extremely well-detailed explanation. But had Chou Tien Chen been unfortunate enough to have lost the game (and this was a genuine possibility), then that umpire's deeply flawed judgement would have resulted in more serious criticism than is currently being bandied around. The whole incident could have turned into something rather ugly, ... to the detriment of the BWF. Yes, everyone is human. But rather than excusing blatant misjudgments that cause potentially lasting damage to athletes, especially at this level of tournament, it is important to constructively consider options available to minimalise our human imperfections. Here, making comparisons with "pilots" who "always always make silly mistakes" is not particularly helpful. Expenses incurred by, for example, introducing video replays may be significant, ... but looking at the matter from a different perspective, the cost of bad umpiring to the reputation of the sport can be equally prohibitive. Video evidence, I think, would be a good way forward; I do not believe that many spectators would complain about the extra few minutes spent verifying a judgement, if the outcome is the players' acceptance of and satisfaction with the result.
Thank you very much for your careful, detailed explanation and clarification. However, whilst I can understand your points made and concerns if the service judge or referee were to intervene, my rejoinder as follows:- 1) there has been cases where the service judge actually stepped in to correct the umpire's mistakes, such as wrong score-keeping (and what else which I can't recall offhand); 2) the service judge most probably saw what happened (no reason not to unless he was sleeping on the job, just kidding) even without watching the TV replay but he chose to remain silent; 3) though TV or video replay is not admissible evidence , it is the one official broadcast to viewers all over the world; 4) the umpire is human and the mistake he made was unmistakably clear to everyone except himself, shouldn't he at least entertain some doubts about it and seeing how the player and his coach were protesting as well as what was shown on TV replay, then proceed to ask the service judge for his view or , as happened before, request the tournament referee to come over for his opinion before making his final decision? 5) suppose the umpire then decides to call a let instead of sticking to his original judgement, would it be half as bad? Possibly not as bad as the first optics, I should think so, though I wouldn't say it's the best solution; 6) for this occasion, considering the negative impact, I trust BWF would wish the umpire, service judge or even the tournament referee act with flexibility individually, bending the rules instead of erring on the side of caution by strictly following the law - to me, that takes courage and is commendable. Last but not least, I opine that BWF would do well to look into the matter and study into ways to improve the relevant rules or solve the problems accordingly as glaring mistakes such as this incident and others like net faults are not that rare anymore, especially as it may change the outcome of a match, the more so an important one like the finals of the world championships, Olympic Games and major team events. As it is, the introduction of Hawk-eye IRS was a step in the right direction to address the issue of wrong linecalls. Something similar could be considered for umpires making bad calls, such as net faults.
Yes, there is certainly more to gain than lose if measures are taken to resolve the issues concerned. In the case of that particular incident involving Chou Tien Chen's, the TV replay was already in place that showed clearly what happened without an iota of doubt - it's not like a net fault where one cannot be too sure if the offending player's racquet has crossed the net at point of contact with the shuttle or not. A fortiori when it occurred in the final of a prestigious Super 1000 event, not to mention the WC, OG, Sudirman Cup and TUC, as well as AG, if I may add. Cost considerations should not be paramount, imagine the consequences to the aggrieved party as the difference between winning a gold or a silver on an athlete's career and life is far-reaching.
the technology exists to eliminate line judges and umpires entirely. is that what everybody wants no matter the cost? it is. if you don't have the $, you don't have the $. people who agree w justin l's opinion should fund a tournament, so they can decide where the $ goes. i'd watch it to see how it all turns out. fans will accept human error for the most part, except when it happens at the wrong time. you can't pick the timing when an error will happen. unless someone has umpired in a situation they are now complaining about, their complaint means nothing. the athletes accept these errors will happen, much like they accept injuries will happen. 'i should have built up a large enough lead such that an error like this would have made no difference...'
The game evolved. It's faster, the intensity is stronger, players' level have been rising and the gap between the #1 and the top 20 closer. Competition is fierce. Badminton umpiring has to adapt and evolve too and I'm siding with umpires here. It has to become more profesionnal. It will never be without umpires having a profesionnal status meaning being paid for it, ranked in order to determine the best umpires, create competition between them which in return will raise their competencies too. It's up to the BWF to find solutions, balance their budget and be able to propose something else. Talk to the players and their federation I'm sure they are wanting a change too. Players can't just accept mistakes that easily, I doubt they do. There are many things to change. For instance how is it still possible to have some courts benefitting from the Hawkeye system during tournaments and some not. We see umpires mistakes happening more often too and again it's human to make mistake. But may be it's possible to minimize this possibility even more. In football a replay solution with a referee reviewing the video of the incident was possible. It didn't solve everything, far from it, but for net kills why not having an umpire reviewing the replay. Like the Hawkeye system it could be possible to call that "video umpire" (that could be an apprentice) only twice per match for example. May be the main umpire would be responsible for that and it would rarely happen I'm sure but it would change a lot of things. It's up to the BWF to make the changes, they have competent people there I'm sure they will work on something.
that won't start until 2021 at the earliest, on a small scale. ya know the new service height rule now being used? it cost $zero yet took 8 years to decide. they do because they have no choice. no, they don't. can you hold your breath for 8 years...?
Yes, AI will make umpires, service judges and linejudges redundant, a matter of time, won't be too long, not in the distant future. For the World Tour Series, aren't the prize money significantly more than the previous Super Series ? And since the advent of Hawk-Eye IRS, aren't more money spent on the manned equipment instead of relying solely on human linejudges ? Once we have it, we will no longer accept doing without it, unless, of course, if professional badminton goes out of popularity (do you see that happening?) As for errors, every athlete can accept their own but not those committed by others against them, such as by tournament officials (needless to say, opponent's errors are most welcome). Your argument that "fans will accept human (officiating) error for the most part, except when it happens at the wrong time" - precisely , it happens at the wrong time. Is there a right time for it, and how often can you allow it to happen at 'unimportant times' before you start getting nervous or agitated or blow your top ? Recall Zhang Beiwen, who only had one net fault she thought committed by He Bingjiao against her denied, and she made a big fuss over it, saying it made a difference to her paycheck, er, prize money, considering she's an independent player. I mean, if Hawk-Eye can take care of linejudging and service line faults (not referring to the 1.15m rule), I should think it's not far off for 'racquet crossed the net at point of contact with the shuttle" fault to be challengeable. I even believe the service height rule for which some progress has been made presently using makeshift devices as an aid would in the not too distant future be a thing of the past as more advanced technology entirely replaced human officiating. True, the implementation of new technology is relatively expensive for innovators in the introduction phase of the five stages of the consumer adoption process but it will get more affordable as time goes by. Again - 'you can't pick the timing when an (officiating) error will happen.' - true, but if you can minimise or eliminate its effects, why not? As in the case of that CTC incident, a simple recourse to viewing the TV replay will settle the matter amicably. Your last point - 'I should have built up a large enough lead such that an error like this would have made no difference...' - I fully concur and that's what every player should strive for except that it's not up to any player's control. It's precisely those tight, critical situations, not uncommon, that players don't wish for hard luck or accidents to decide their fates.
Commentators said that Chinese pair saw shuttle going out so much that they were certain it's called out and did not bother checking line judge. The reason they went to racket bag is to get a new racket. Not sure if that was the case here but if a shot is in/out by half a meter it is very possible players just assume they are called correctly without checking line judge's opinion. In those cases umpire should certainly let players challenge.
With professional tournament officials, there will be competition for their services, and tournament organizers get to choose who they want to engage for their tournaments based on quality and price. For sure, the standard of umpires, service judges and linejudges will go up significantly as only the better and reputable ones stay in business.
Hehe it can be long for any federation to make a change it's true. But I wouldn't call the BWF incompetent. It's more that it takes time to make those decisions and implement it in real life situation. Be it 8 years as long as the change is on its way.
The question is if the benefits of implementing such a system really outweigh the costs. Video evidence is not a guaranteed way of excluding errors. If you take the recent Women's World Cup were video replay technology was implemented fully, a good point can be made that VAR has made the game noticably worse. Granted, badminton is less complicated, as the judgements to be made are less difficult to verify. But in situations that aren't blatantly obvious, it will once again come down to the judgement of a human being. The questions is: is it worth it? A system like this would cost a lot of money and the BWF is not the Fifa. The WC, for example is played on 5 courts simultaneously. What happens if you have contentious decisions on courts 4 and 5, were you don't have VR and on court one, nothing of note happens? You'd have wasted money and not improved justice one bit. Do you really want to monitor 5 courts full time? In the end you might end up accumulating quite substantial costs for virtually nothing. You might have days, even entire tournaments without situations that really require a VR to step in. Most importantly, this is not football. In football, single bad decisions have much bigger impact on the game. A goal given or not given, a penalty, a red card, even a wrongly awarded free kick - all of these things can totally change a game. One or two bad umpire calls do not have nearly as much of an impact on a game of badminton. There is no causality between CTC being at the end of a bad decision at 17-17 and him losing that game, let alone potentially losing the entire match. There were still 15 rallies played in that second game afterwards and 36 in the third. Plenty of time for him to reverse something rather miniscule. We're talking about 1 rally out of 125. All in all, I don't think it is worth at all to invest in additional system and personal in this sport. The impact of bad net decisions is negligable compared to other sports, both because they rarely occur and because they, honestly, do not matter much in the overall context of the game. If we'd really wanted to improve the justice aspect of the sport, we should invest in the system that we already know is working. Hawkeye. Put hawk eye on all courts and maybe increase the number of challenges. I'd reckon there are a lot more close line calls in a game than there are questionable net challenges that need to be overruled. Thus, increasing the use of hawk eye would have a significantly greater impact than implementing a VR for close net calls.
If only shuttlecocks can be used and reused many times, like table-tennis balls, that will be a technological breakthrough for the sport's popularity as feather shuttlecocks constitute a considerable cost limiting badminton's adoption for amateurs (more so) and professionals alike. Now, BWF is trying to popularise Air Badminton played outdoors using plastic shuttlecocks. I think it won't be long before a new type of shuttlecock is developed that closely resembles the traditional feather shuttlecock in product specifications and performance. In fact, BWF is testing and undertaking experiments to substitute conventional feather shuttlecocks with synthetic shuttlecocks, read https://www.sportzbusiness.com/bwf-undertakes-experiments-to-replace-synthetic-shuttlecock/
exactly. if people/fans never see video evidence of a bad call on the other 2/3/4 courts during a tournament does that mean it didn't happen? does it mean nobody cares about it? easy to say 'put hawkeye' on all the courts... but it's $$$$$... and i believe if any of the fans posting here were the ones putting up the $ they would instantly learn why it's not on every court at the moment. everything comes down to a cost/benefit analysis at every level of every sport. bingo! at this time it's not worth the $ based on their current budget.
true, however life goes on. she didn't quit the tour. she got over it. no choice if she wants to continue to play professionally.
The more popular the sport,especially at the professional level, the more money will be available for everything, prize money, sport equipment, TV and Internet broadcast, high-tech system and the use of most advanced technology such as Hawk-Eye computer system or any needed devices to raise the standard of the sport. Also, as the demand for the high-tech system grows,becoming widespread, the more affordable it becomes.
Exactly, ZBW got no choice, she can't afford to quit. But if there is a choice not made worse by the lack of something affecting your income, I'm sure more people will consider turning professional. Bear in mind, all our conversations are about professional badminton mainly, not amateur.
