MD Final - it should NOT have been a let

Discussion in 'All England 2004' started by Neil Nicholls, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. Neil Nicholls

    Neil Nicholls Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Cannock, UK
    But I don't think the umpire followed all the Laws correctly either.

    I have watched the match on tape twice, and the incident in question several times.
    As with many disputes of this nature, in this and other sports, it is far easier to point and blame after the event when you have TV replays and the like.

    The course of events
    Lee Wan Wah was the only player holding his hand up to delay serve
    He only did it when receiving serve from Jens Erikson

    in game 1 he delayed serve twice:
    once by holding up the hand
    once by just standing there being not ready

    in game 2
    with the score at 4-2 to the Malaysians
    he delayed serve by holding up the hand. At this point, the umpire gave Lee Wan Wah a verbal warning, telling him to be ready.

    The malaysians then took their lead to 12-5
    In one service hand the Danes came back to 12-10
    The malaysians took another point, 13-10
    The Danes came back to 13-11
    and then Jens Erikson had to serve to Lee Wan Wah

    it is hard to see what happened at normal speed. The first time I saw it, I thought it should be a let. The slow-motion replay makes it clearer.
    Lee Wan Wah was standing with raquet down and hand half-up (almost horizontal) without looking at Erikson

    the next bits happened very quickly and only by using slow motion and pause could I see the order in which they happened.

    1 He brought his racquet up and hand down.
    2 Lee Wan Wah looked up
    3 Erikson served (backswing and serve were when Lee was looking at Erikson)
    4 Lee Wan Wah put his hand up again


    The umpire did not call a let, and so awarded the Danes the point.


    I think that was correct.
    Lee Wan Wah had previously had a warning from the umpire to be ready
    In this point he indicated readiness


    After this, regarding Lee Wan Wah's call for the referee, if that is what he did.
    I saw he held his right arm up, which is the indication the umpire should use to call the referee. I don't know if the same applies to players.

    Anyway,

    Lee Wan Wah appealed to the umpire against the decision to not give a let

    Law 17.6.2 says
    An umpire shall give a decision on any appeal regarding a point of dispute, if made before the next service is delivered.

    Lee Wan Wah was not satisfied with the umpires decision

    Law 17.6.8 says
    An umpire shall take to the Referee all unsatisfied appeals on questions of law only.


    The umpire showed a yellow card and said "Lee Wan Wah, warning for misconduct"

    If Lee Wan Wah was asking for the referee, I see no reason for the yellow card.

    I also do not think that the referee, if he had been called, would have changed the umpires decision.
     
  2. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    21,081
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    I hadn't noticed he received a verbal warning beforehand. That would lend more weight to the umpire's decision.

    However, the yellow card is another issue. Basically, asking for the tournament referee for clarification and receiving a yellow card in return does not seem a reasonable response (whatever subsequent decision the tournament referee comes to make).
     
  3. fhchiang

    fhchiang Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    neils.///

    i think lee WW is really not ready....



    well... when he was trying to move his racquet up... jens already served...!!

    his racquet was not in position..... but rather 3/4 ......

    ..

    jens serve too fast
     
  4. dlp

    dlp Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Accountant / Coach
    Location:
    uk
    I've discussed this at length here and at badders but we all love a bit of controversy!

    I think this boils down to how do you judge if someone is ready. Whether or not they put their hand up is not actually relevant, a player could be distracted, or go to receive and then be confused as to the score and again be unready.
    I have seen many players consistently hold the server for much longer than in the final. Jens has a long service action in which he does not look at the receiver.

    The expectation and precedant would be for a let in that situation, by awarding a point at that crucial stage of the match the umpire grossly affected the outcome, the card only compounded that. Having been given the card possibly the Malaysian should have refused to play until the referee came, he was clearly in no state of mind to play.

    I think the benefit should be given to the receiver, if you award a let the point is played fairly, if the server has to slow down slightly this should not greatly disadvantage him.


    The umpire in the All England final has the choice between:

    awarding a let, the players, the crowd, everyone would expect this, the point would be replayed fairly and decided by the players

    awarding a point, thereby possibly affecting the whole course of the match and leaving herself open to critiscism.

    Its seems a strange choice
     
    #4 dlp, Mar 19, 2004
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2004
  5. Neil Nicholls

    Neil Nicholls Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Cannock, UK
    Jens Erikson is not a fast server like Candra Wijaya. He takes his time getting into position and serving. He does not rush the receiver.

    Doesn't matter where Lee Wan Wah's racquet was, he was looking at Jens and he dropped the hand that had been up to indicate not-ready.

    I think that the yellow card was either a mistake, or maybe Lee said something that the umpire did not like.

    I am not in a position to accuse Lee of saying something offensive, so I prefer to think the card was a mistake.

    Incidents of misconduct are supposed to be recorded and reported to the Referee.
    Someone somewhere should know what caused the yellow card.
     
  6. dlp

    dlp Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Accountant / Coach
    Location:
    uk
    Yes I hope there is a statement explaining the rulings
     
  7. hcyong

    hcyong Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    104
    Occupation:
    Software Engineer
    Location:
    KL & Sg
    Neils, if you had needed repeated slow motion analysis to come to your conclusion on something as subjective as being ready to receive serve, shouldn't a let just be allowed? Even Larsen agreed that it should have been a let.

    That said, I am not very proud of Wan Wah's tactics in disrupting the opponent's serve. But I see this tactic being used more and more nowadays. As the game becomes more competitive, every tiny trick is played.

    Although I don't see how we can curb this using black-and-white rules, I suggest an easy solution. The server should just stand there and wait for the opponent to be ready. Once the receiver is visibly ready, the server will commence his serving sequence.
     
  8. Neil Nicholls

    Neil Nicholls Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Cannock, UK
    Well, slow motion replay was required to determine if Lee Wan Wah had dropped his hand and was looking at Erikson before Erikson served - which he did.

    This is relevant if the umpire was considering Law 9.6
    The server shall not serve before the receiver is ready...

    but as the umpire had already warned Lee Wan Wah to be ready, she was more likely concerned with Law 9.1.1
    neither side shall cause undue delay to the delivery of service once server and receiver have taken their respective postions

    a breach of 9.1.1 is a fault, according to Law 9.2
    If a service is not correct by virtue of any of Laws 9.1.1 to 9.1.8 it shall be a fault by the offending side.

    I don't think the umpire called "fault" so I guess we have to wait for an official statement (if there is one)


    It is also a fault (13.7) if a player is guilty of repeated offences under Law 16.
    e.g. Delay of play
    and the Laws state that the umpire is the sole judge of any delay in play.


    So in my opinion, all the other umpires who let players get away with this sort of thing are not applying the Laws correctly. All the players are supposed to know the rules, so if they don't want to be penalised, they shouldn't break them.

    The question that then comes up, and not only in badminton, is that of consitency of umpiring. If the Laws leave things open to interpretation, people will interpret them differently. Ruling bodies make mistakes. Look at the fiasco in football when FIFA brought in the law about the tackle from behind, and introduced it at a World Cup. And told referees to apply it strictly. Players were sent off left right and centre and the football suffered. Referees need to be able to use their judgement. And referees need to have their performances checked and reviewed.



    <<<I suggest an easy solution. The server should just stand there and wait for the opponent to be ready. Once the receiver is visibly ready, the server will commence his serving sequence.>>>

    How long will the receiver be allowed to take to get ready?
    Who will make the decision as to whether he is deliberately delaying play or not?
     
  9. hcyong

    hcyong Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,558
    Likes Received:
    104
    Occupation:
    Software Engineer
    Location:
    KL & Sg
    You cannot expect to be ready immediately after you just got to your receiving position. I know the last statement sounds a bit contradictory, but don't we all need a split-second time (perhaps half a second?) in the position before we are fully ready. As amateur players, when we serve, we give our opponents some time before we start serving. We don't just serve right at the moment they look us in the eye. We all know that's not fair.

    I agree with you that the subject of time-wasting is very subjective. It is sometimes obvious to viewers, sometimes not. But if time-wasting were to be pusnished frequently, then players would frequently use the option of alleging time-wasting on their opponents. This would disrupt the spirit and fluidity of the game. Punishment on any judgement that has a considerable grey area, therefore, should be kept to the minimum.

    I would not support any action that punishes time-wasting consistently unless a clear guideline is provided. Worse, the problem is compounded by other methods of time-wasting, like floor-mopping for instance. One can just easily fall down in a futile attempt to retrieve a shot to gain some valuable resting time. And even if a clear guideline is there, how about during a boisterous situation where the crowd is making a lot of noise. Surely, in that situation, it is understandable for the players to wait for the crowd to quiet down.

    Since I cannot offer any advice for the problem, all I can suggest is for the server to relax and start going through the motions only when the receiver is clearly ready. If the receiver knows that his disruptive tactics will not work, then perhaps he will not do it again.
     
  10. Neil Nicholls

    Neil Nicholls Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Cannock, UK
    I'm not trying to start the debate again, but I am wondering if anyone heard of any statement from the IBF on the reason for the Yellow card.
     

Share This Page