Is two hawk-eye challenges per game too much? How many challenges per game or match should there be? I think BWF should allow only one challenge per game. Some players are simply using the challenges for tactical purposes (eg, breather). If there is only one challenge per game, players will only ask for challenge if he or she thinks the line call was really wrong. What do you think?
There should be 2 challenges allowed for straight sets games, but an extra challenge is allowed in the 3rd set. Also, max number of challenges in any game is 2. So u only hv 2 challenges even if u hvn't used any by the 3rd set Also, the linesman's pay is to be deducted if the challenge is succesful.. Ha..ha..ha... just kidding....
Isn't this a technical problem? Once HawkEye is fully automated, there's no reason why it should take more than a second. If for some strange reason it takes longer, more and/or better hardware could solve the problem. I'm not sure how the user interface for the umpire looks at the moment; is the review started by a button press or by a human seeing the raised left hand? I think 2 failed challenges per game of 21 is fine; for the audience it's much more important that a computer confirms the line judges than a small unnecessary pause in between.
2 per game is the right amount. with 1 you leave it up to the line judges too much, especially when the shuttle in md & xd can be very fast. if there were 3 or more it would start to feel like humans are a waste of space.
Over a three set match, it works out to be 6 challenges per match for each player and so then potentially twelve overall. That is quite an interruption over a long match. And is one of the reasons we have been seeing longer televised matches on show courts. I think maximum four challenges by one player over a whole match whether it is two or three games (maximum two failed challenges per game) will be very very interesting.
That rule would be quite the bookkeeping challenge and hard to explain to players though, wouldn't it? "No, you have one challenge left, but not in this game, only in the next one".
Another vote for 3 challenges per match. (not limited to one per game). Make it a valuable commodity to be used carefully. And to counter the strategy of using a challenge to break an opponent's momentum or just to get a towel-down, the players should have to stay on court. --- ---- ---- ---- ---- I must say I don't have the same tolerance to watch matches anymore because of all the delays. The "long walks" between points; conferring with coaches; barely seeking permission from the ump while walking off the court to get a drink.....
In Asia they do get paid, either full time or free-lance when they r being used for tournaments. I hv a friend who does that as a free-lancer, his father is an official @ PBSI, Indonesia's Badminton Association. He gets paid abt US $30-50 per day for international tournaments, here in Surabaya.
I think the linesman get around usd30 per day in Hong Kong Open. That really is a lot of love and good will for these big tournaments.
2 per game is just fine players can check their eyes out once and the second one should be taken very thoughtfully correct line calls/decisions make the game fairer which is great, also it takes away frustration if players/fans feel betrayed, very important for me I agree with Fidget, I start noticing that i lose patience watching a game because of all the delays. BUT Hawkeye has nothing to do with it!
That's an interesting idea. After 2 failed challenges, i think it's a good idea to still allow challenges. But if your challenge is unsuccessful, you would lose a point (or two).
In an entertainment league like the Indian PBL or Purple League, sure, go ahead (although you probably want to add an additional point to the opponent, lest you end up with negative scores). In a serious sport, as long as the number of incorrect line calls is non-negligible, you'd punish players who are honestly challenging because they thought the result was in. Isn't that the majority of challenges?
I wish there was a way to make IRS so that every suspicious line call would be checked quickly and perhaps even without the player's intervention. I think the technology is already there, is it not? That way we could avoid it been used for delay tactics and also prevent the situation like with Lin Dan in the... Olympic (I think?) when at the crucial point of the match he was out of challenges as a result of high quality game with so many tight line decisions...
during this malaysia s500 the time it took from hand raised by umpire to irs video was 12 seconds or less. the avg. time from end of point to the next serve is 25 seconds.
they could set up an audible system like tennis does for serving... It beeps if the serve is out. Badminton could do it for every rally.
by losing 2 point, I meant opponents gain 2 points instead of the usual 1 point. Thought that was clear. We give players unlimited opportunity to challenge, with risk. If they don't want to take the risk, no one's forcing them to. The risk itself can be adjusted. We can make it half a point so opponent only gain 2 points after two unsuccessful challenges.
