Blibli INDONESIA Open 2019 : Round of 32 - FINAL (16-21 July)

Discussion in '2019 Tournaments' started by CLELY, Jul 15, 2019.

  1. tepokbulu

    tepokbulu Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2019
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    lapangan
    half a meter? it landed on line
    not challenge immediately. that's their fault
    don't blame anyone except themselves

    let players challenge after 5 minutes?
    hahaha
     
    phihag likes this.
  2. Martynas

    Martynas Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    250
    Location:
    court
    it was so wide that normal umpire would have corrected the call right away, and this was hapenning right in front of the umpire, but it is not the first time when bwf chosen ones make lots and lots of mistakes, and yet they are still there, may be on purpose to stir some **** and contraversy, oh and usually bwf and other associations do care way more about how one or another appear on tv but not about right decisions.
     
  3. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    716
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, and with the new rules (ITTO §7.8), that is a bad mark on this service judge as well. The changes to the ITTO were made for a situation like this.

    As an umpire, the problem is that the players are always protesting. I've had multiple situations like this where I faulted the player with the racket over the net and obstructing their opponent, and they still protested.

    If as an umpire you are unsure of the law, you can request a referee. But this is not a matter of the umpire being unsure about the law, it's about the umpire having mis-perceived/confused the situation.

    You could extend the rules to add a way for the umpire to request the service judge's consultation. But what if the service judge is unsure? Plus, although the service judge has a good position, they cannot really follow both sides of the net (maybe we need to hire Chameleons, who would be able to follow on both sides of the net). Also, this would open up the umpire to a lot of discussions.

    Imagine that the umpire asks the service judge, but the service judge is unsure themselves / has not clearly seen the situation. What then? What if the service judge also makes a mistake (as he arguably does here?)?
    The coaches, players and audience will try to influence the service judge, who is suddenly shown into the spotlight. You'd be in a much worse situation as an umpire: You've conceded that you're unsure, but you haven't gained a decision, and everybody is discussing. This is not a good image for the sport. Much better to let an anonymous video reviewer somewhere in the bowels of the stadium decide.

    A let is not possible by current rules, and the opponent would still protest. But more importantly, this would open up the door for players to call for a let all the time. As a human, you are basically never 100% sure. Inevitably, some umpires would play more lets than others, and that would lead to discussions. That way madness lies, and it's great that lets are basically impossible in high-level games.

    In other words, you want the umpires to be able to overrule the law. That is extremely dangerous, because it makes the umpires much more powerful. Line judge called late and seems unsure? Just announce a let. Overrule the service judge. And so on.

    Different umpires with different styles would mean the umpire selection could influence the result of the match; you'd want an umpire whose preferences and personal style would match your play.

    Allegations of partisanship would abound even more than now. Umpires would become prime targets of match fixing, so some may even be justified.

    No, if you let the umpires or referees overrule the law, then you'd have much, much more discussions than at the moment.

    The BWF has already been planning this, formally since 2016. But it's not easy, and costs a lot of money. One way or the other, fans would eventually to have to pay for such a system.
     
    oldtaby and visor like this.
  4. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    716
    Location:
    Germany
    I disagree.

    If you are a sponsor willing to fund the video equipment, additional technical staff, and additional umpires, then your complaint should certainly mean something as well.
     
    visor and stanleyfm like this.
  5. super-g

    super-g Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    Japan
    It landed clearly out as anyone can see from replays. It was Chinese players' fault that they assumed line judge to be fair, there had been so many line calls favouring home players all week that Li/Liu should have checked after each rally what line judges are showing and react immediately when needed.
     
  6. samkool

    samkool Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Occupation:
    too pre-occupied to work
    Location:
    the next world tour tournament
    in theory, yes. however, sponsor contracts that allow a sponsor to specifically fund an aspect of a sport which is tied to and/or governed by the rules of a sport are avoided. the perception of a possible conflict of interest arises.
     
    phihag likes this.
  7. kurako

    kurako Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Location:
    Japan
    There could be a simpler and less costly solution. For example, why not attach a simple monitor to the umpire's chair, give the umpire the opportunity to review the point of contention on the spot, and to reverse his/her initial decision, if necessary. After, all, it is not only the players who lose out in the event of a misjudgment; as a replay of each point is available for the entire badminton world to watch on the screen of their computers or smartphones, a wrong call will have adverse effects on the umpire's credibility. Whilst in the good old days, it would have been possible for umpires to get away with these "human errors" with little damage to their reputations, this is no longer the case.

    I disagree. There is nothing predetermined about the fact that an additional 15 rallies were going to be played in G2. Had CTC been less mentally-focused, this 'miniscule' one point could have cost him the championship, especially in light of his stamina deficit. Following that point in G2, the score should rightfully have been 19-17, and not 18-18. At a time painfully close to the end of the game, Antonsen was falsely gifted a point, and will have felt that he was right back in contention for the title.

    I agree here, although I don't think that the number of permitted challenges need to be increased. This would just give players additional time to grab a break, or maybe try to change the flow of the game.
     
    Justin L and LenaicM like this.
  8. LenaicM

    LenaicM Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    958
    Location:
    Europe
    There are definitely "cheap" solutions. It doesn't have to be extravagant in terms of costs and logistics.
     
    Justin L likes this.
  9. Cunning Linguist

    Cunning Linguist Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Location:
    Ger
    I like your idea of a cost efficient solution. I still think it is really a minor issue because the situations occur so rarely and even more rarely in a decisive moment. Also, the recent World Cup has left me traumatized by countless totally bad VAR decisions.:D
    And to be honest, it would take a lot more for an amateur umpire to lose (part of) their reputation in my book, than to make a mistake every once in a while. Especially after @phihag 's account.

    There is also nothing predetermined about 19-17 being the win. It's the biggest moment of Antonsens career and I doubt he would have given any less at 19-17 than at 18-18. Maybe CTC would have even eased up a bit, lost some ounce of focus and lost the game anyway. We'll never know.

    I'd understand it if it was the third game and there was not enough game left to reverse it anymore, but that was simply not the case.
    What happened prior to that match in regards to CTC's and Antonsen's fitness and time and court has no bearing whatsoever on that call by the umpire. If you want to win the biggest title of your career, better get ready to play three games in the final. If CTC had run out of stamina, he could have done lots about avoiding three game matches against unseeded players in this very tournament, including the final. His own playing has much, much, much, much more impact on the outcome of this match than that one call. It is a miniscule factor. Compare it to a falsely awarded penalty in the 60th minute.

    And honestly, how many matches have you watched over the years and how many situations like that have you seen? Off the top of my head, I can't think of one instance where a really bad umpire call had such a potential impact on the outcome of a game because it was right at the end of game three. This call was the worst I've seen in several years of watching the sport.

    Well, the increased number of challenges is equivalent to more justice. I thought that was what this whole discussion was about.
    In my opinion it's much more likely that players have to play an extra game due to being out of challenges (or saving them) and on the end of bad line calls, than being wrongly faulted by the umpire.

    Ideally, we'd have both solutions. The one you mentioned and more hawk eye. If I could only choose one for budget reasons, it would certainly be more hawk eye.
     
  10. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,241
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Good discussion.

    If I remember correctly, this particular service judge is known for another particularly egregious brain fart, I think at the New Zealand open. I'll have to do some digging.

    If this had happened to LD, he would have raised the roof! The service judge should've helped out, but probably was thinking better that he let CTC suffer than to embarrass his colleague. Happens in professional fields more times than you think...kinda like an unstated agreement between professional colleagues... unfortunate but true.

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
    #1010 visor, Jul 22, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2019
  11. yuquall

    yuquall Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Location:
    AU
    At least in obvious cases like the CTC vs AA case, the umpires should be given a choice to correct their decision without undermining their authority.
    It was so visible and clear without a doubt that CTC wasn't even the slightest anywhere near the net unlike some fine line close net kills. In the replay too.
     
    Justin L and LenaicM like this.
  12. wahchai305

    wahchai305 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    southeast quardrant
    for obvious reasons, this match is not available readily in the usual suspect_channels. if someone has the full match(warts and all), pls give us a lead to that match/video.
     
  13. yuquall

    yuquall Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Location:
    AU
    Understandable from the service judge point of view. But since the match was broadcasted globally and digital evidence stayed online, he kinda embarrassed more than just his colleague.
    I understand it is easier for us the viewers to say and suggest things, but things are probably really much more complicated than they appear.
     
  14. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,241
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Well, more like in that critical moment, it is easier for him to choose inaction out of safety and fear. So he allowed his colleague the umpire to embarrass herself instead of getting involved.

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
    Justin L, phihag and yuquall like this.
  15. tepokbulu

    tepokbulu Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2019
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    lapangan
    not service judge's task to correct the umpire or line call
    he/she just judges the players' services

     
  16. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,241
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Yes, but the rules say that he can assist the umpire as needed in matters other than just service.

    I've watched some other matches where the umpire looks at the service judge for extra information as to whether a net fault has occurred, because after all the service judge has an excellent view of the net.

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
    Justin L and LenaicM like this.
  17. yuquall

    yuquall Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Location:
    AU
    See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
     
  18. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    716
    Location:
    Germany
    This has been the rule or a couple of years. In practice, it was inconsistent. Some teams worked really well, but a large portion of umpires basically ignored the service judges, and conversely a significant number of service judges did not assist the umpire.

    In these times, the role of the service judge after the serve has been struck was not known to the general public. Once, I was caught by the players showing my indication, and the umpire had to clarify that this is non-official communication, and their decision stands. You had (and still have to) be careful to not let the players or the audience see what you show the umpire.

    Since January 2019, the rule (§7.8 ITTO) has changed: The service judge now must help the umpire in situations like this. Of course, if the service judge is unsure or believes the umpire is correct, they won't do anything.

    COCTales and other instructions have clarified that this is absolutely expected from a good service judge.
     
    Justin L and visor like this.
  19. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,241
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Just be glad this umpire was not a police officer instead...she would have arrested the victim of a robbery instead of putting the robber in jail... "wait, what? this job is so confusing..."

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
  20. yuquall

    yuquall Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    11,119
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Location:
    AU
    Surely police officers are not volunteers :D:D
     

Share This Page