Heart attack during a game ruling

SSSSNT

SSSSNT

Regular Member
The score is Axelsen 20, Ginting 18 in the third set of the men's singles final. It was an intense battle. Ginting made a good attacking clear, Axelsen struggled to get it and made a desperate super high clear that could easily be killed. But as Axelsen hit the shuttle, he held his chest and collapsed in pain. Everyone gasped. Ginting, realizing Axelsen is having a cardiac arrest, then instinctively rushed to his opponent's court to perform CPR. Meanwhile, the shuttle is still in the air and it landed in.

Who would've won the game in this scenario?
 
Axelsen.

The heart attack is irrelevant. Ginting's live saving heriocs would be irrelevant to the outcome of the match. He should have returned the shuttle, taken the point, then perform CPR, and then win the match due to Axelsen's retirement.
 
SnowWhite said:
Axelsen.

The heart attack is irrelevant. Ginting's live saving heriocs would be irrelevant to the outcome of the match. He should have returned the shuttle, taken the point, then perform CPR, and then win the match due to Axelsen's retirement.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a situation when a player shouted let when seeing two shuttles on his court. The umpire told him that he is not allowed to shout let.
 
Last edited:
Could it be argued that Axelsen forfeits the match when he was having cardiac arrest? Because every second is valuable in that case, it therefore would be highly unethical for Ginting to wait to return the shuttle.
 
SSSSNT said:
Could it be argued that Axelsen forfeits the match when he was having cardiac arrest? Because every second is valuable in that case, it therefore would be highly unethical for Ginting to wait to return the shuttle.
Click to expand...

Badminton isn't a competition of morality. It is decided by the players ability to play better badminton than the opponent. If Axelsen manages to win the match despite getting a heart attack in the last point, then he was the better player and deserves to win. If Ginting returned the shuttle and Axelsen cannot continue to play, then Ginting is the better player by virtue of being the only one on court that can still play and deserves to win.
 
SnowWhite said:
Badminton isn't a competition of morality. It is decided by the players ability to play better badminton than the opponent. If Axelsen manages to win the match despite getting a heart attack in the last point, then he was the better player and deserves to win. If Ginting returned the shuttle and Axelsen cannot continue to play, then Ginting is the better player by virtue of being the only one on court that can still play and deserves to win.
Click to expand...
Sure everyone knows that. But there are rules about disruptive behavior and being put in a compromised position. I know if I'm playing a match and my opponent suddenly fell down while holding his chest, I would be disturbed/very concerned and might lose focus on the match.
 
SSSSNT said:
The score is Axelsen 20, Ginting 18 in the third set of the men's singles final. It was an intense battle. Ginting made a good attacking clear, Axelsen struggled to get it and made a desperate super high clear that could easily be killed. But as Axelsen hit the shuttle, he held his chest and collapsed in pain. Everyone gasped. Ginting, realizing Axelsen is having a cardiac arrest, then instinctively rushed to his opponent's court to perform CPR. Meanwhile, the shuttle is still in the air and it landed in.

Who would've won the game in this scenario?
Click to expand...
Just for clarification: Who served?
 
SSSSNT said:
The score is Axelsen 20, Ginting 18 in the third set of the men's singles final. It was an intense battle. Ginting made a good attacking clear, Axelsen struggled to get it and made a desperate super high clear that could easily be killed. But as Axelsen hit the shuttle, he held his chest and collapsed in pain. Everyone gasped. Ginting, realizing Axelsen is having a cardiac arrest, then instinctively rushed to his opponent's court to perform CPR. Meanwhile, the shuttle is still in the air and it landed in.

Who would've won the game in this scenario?
Click to expand...

First off, this is morbid. Both players are alive and well.

There are various situation of the hypothetical inquiry.
Read with following change in nomenclature: A20 and G18

Situations: A20 served
(i) Umpire ignores A20's holding c and collapsing in p, and penalises G18 for distraction when rushng to A20 court. Outcome ≡ Fault ≡ Game.
(ii) Umpire ignores A20's holding c and collapsing in p and G18's rushng to A20 court. Outcome ≡ Game.
(iii) Umpire ignores A20's holding c and collapsing in p, and does not penalise G18 for distraction after rush to A20 court. Outcome ≡ Let.
(iv) Umpire rules A20 for collapsing in p as distraction. Outcome ≡ Service Over.
(v) Umpire plays Let as soon as A20 collapses in p. Signals to call Referee + Medic. Outcome ≡ Game suspended.

Situations: G18 served
(i) Umpire ignores A20's holding c and collapsing in p, and penalises G18 for distraction when rushng to A20 court. Outcome ≡ Play Let.
(ii) Umpire ignores A20's holding c and collapsing in p and G18's rushng to A20 court Outcome ≡ Service Over.
(iii) Umpire ignores A20's holding c and collapsing in p, and does not penalise G18's rush to A20 court by distraction, Outcome ≡ Let.
(iii) Umpire rules A20 for collapsing in p as distraction. Outcome ≡ Fault A20 ≡ G19.
(iv) Umpire plays Let as soon as G18 rushed toward A20 collapsing in p.Signals to call Referee + Medic. Outcome ≡ Game suspended.

Any umpire worth their clipboards will call a let immediately as soon as a player collapses.

That said, I mean written, next time make better names, Lexasen and Tinging come to mind. So do any of the mods on the mod names on this forum - Wunk, HeungC, etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top