Well actually we have something as follows in the Laws Of Badminton: Law 3.5 During the match, the following situations shall be watched for and dealt with as detailed. 3.5.1 A player throwing a racket into the opponent's court or sliding under the net (and who also thereby obstructs or distracts an opponent), shall be faulted under Law 13.4.2 or 13.4.3 respectively. 13 FAULTS It shall be a 'fault', if, in play, a player: 13.4.2 invades an opponent's court over the net with racket ... 13.4.3 invades an opponent's court under the net with racket ... But no mention about punishment for LD's type of racket throwing and shouting conduct which is more severe, I believe. In a sense, BWF has great leeway on how LD should be punished!
i think 13.4.2 and 13.4.3 are meant as a fault such as if a player tries to retrieve a shuttle and loses control of his racquet which then crosses over to the opponents court either under/over the net, then a fault is called and the opponent is awarded a point. in LD's case, the matter is quite different, and far more malicious.
i felt that the vote options are to many ie. suspension of 1 ss, suspension of 2 ss, fine of less US 1000. It was hard to decide between 1 ss and 2 ss. I believe if there is only 3 options (lump the above stated options together and categorize it as 'suspension to 2 ss and min fine' ) then the vote would be much more balance, we would have total of 97 instead of (27,28,42). for example the last option has been categorize as large fine and suspension which make voting much easier for those that felt LD should be penalized to max. Why not just categorize option 2,4 and 5 just as min fine and limited suspension? This would make options easier and fairer to those that felt LD should be fine and suspended but to a minimum. Now on the overal with so much options (suspension of 1 ss or 2 ss ) the last options seem to be on the winning end.
ah, the voting is just for fun and to let the forumers express their views (as well as vent their frustrations - i suspect). i don't see any real need to adjust the categories/options.
Sure, you can shout and you can argue and act like McEnroe. But remember, McEnroe never threw a racket at anyone.
I agree. Many CHN pro athlete enter the training centers when they were only 5, 6 yrs old. Everyday, the only person they need to deal with is teammates and coaches. Therefore, even though they are 20+ now days, many of them are quite childish. Partly because they are lacking of the social experience, and don't know (or don't care) how to properly behave. Partly because the good performers are spoiled, as many coaches rate the kids with only 1 standard - whether they are a good player, and totally ignore the human development process.
wow, that's harsh, i hope that's not true. i'd like to think that this incident is the rare exception rather than the rule.
You are wrong, again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmJi_oc7t10 Same situation as LD, bad call on match deciding point. john threw his racket at the Umpire's direction, plus swearing at umpire. Same situation as LD, John finishes the match but lost. LD threw his racket toward an empty area of korea's side, no swearing, no actions toward umpire or line judges.
Agree with you both. Thumbs up for your thoughts on the issue. In the forum, much needed are contributors with clear thinking, not just followers (already too many. No offence.)
I agree LD's behavior will not hurt badminton. I have argued similarly for TH walking out before. Personal behaviors, no matter how bad, cannot hurt a sport. What hurts a sport are "group behaviors", for example notorious line judges, frequent walkovers, massive match fixing. But this doesn't mean LD (or TH) should not be punished. Also you can view it this way: LD threw his racket -> badminton receives some attention; BWF punishes LD -> the punishment will make news again and badminton receives once more some attention. Just curious, if it was TH (or some less-sensitive example, let's say Shoji Sato) who threw the racket, what kind of punishment would you suggest?
i think some of u r dreaming up too many 'what if' scenarios' (ex. what if LD racket hit someone, what if LD racket killed someone, etc) when the current facts are still cloudy. Why do u wanna know my opinion on a 'what if TH or Sato' case when u prolly don't like my opinion of LD's case? (just a a guess) lol
If anyone "dreamed up", not me. I believe I happen to be the one talking about more facts than anyone else. And I never said things like "what if LD racket hit someone, what if LD racket killed someone". "The current facts" are not totally clear yet but definitely much better than "cloudy". I think except for "whether LM said anything before LD threw the racket" -- even for this one we already have a good estimate of the length of the time interval that can be used to say anything (and mind you LM himself in his online chat mentioned that too), we basically have all the facts to draw a reasonable conclusion. I wanna know because I believe you are biased on this issue. Your position is to "defend LD" instead of "finding out the facts and judge objectively". I want confirmation. Furthermore, although I don't like your opinion, I will respect your opinion if I am convinced that it is not biased. It's OK you refuse to answer. I will not ask again.
I did not said u r the one who said those extreme 'what if's', i said some of u. i think it's unfair to call me biased since i haven't disclosed my position. So far, all i have posted are balancing views on anti-LD postings which mines were base on known facts**. I can't help it if my vision is wide and your is tunnel vision. ** in case i've forgot the exact words on some of my past postings, I believed they were of neutral opinion ( i mean on this topic as i have given opinions before on other topics)
I somehow agree, but maybe not entertaining but attention to the sport. Perhaps some hockey fans will start to enjoy badminton now too.
I don't agree you judgement toward cooler. Once 2 opposite sides discuss about a person, surely 1 side is on the more "defend" side, while the other is more on the "attack" (maybe the word is too strong) side. To the 30%+ ppl who want harsh punishment, ppl who vote for "no penalty" is obviously "biased". However, to the other close to 30% ppl who are on the opposite side, don't think you they have the right to say ppl who ever saying "LD's action is bad for the sport", or "ban LD for OG" is totally biased as well? Like I posted earlier, this poll clearly showing a great number of ppl voting with their emotion, or simply "like vs. hate". There's no way I think we can reach the final agreement regardless. Let me bring up a "law story" again. Let's say you walk on the street, and see a group of kids are beating up another kid. What you 1st want to do? Try to run up, and save the kid before beating to death 1st? Or, try to ask around, gather evidence and determine whose fault 1st? To me, most ppl should "defend" the kid being beat up 1st. However, does that really mean, the kid who's down is totally innocent? Maybe he's the one start the fight, maybe he stole something got caught... So, do you regret to save the kid, and simply let the group beating him up?
That's the problem in online discussions. Ppl split into "sides" too quickly and then it becomes a "debate" (of which the purpose is to win) instead of a "discussion" (of which the purpose is to find out the truth).
You are trying to justify for a player who has commited an aggressive act towards another person. You are making it look like it is acceptable to threaten another person (LD wanting to bash LM was clearly seen by all who watched the game). You are condoning the action of LD because I, believe, you think you are can argue this case on his behalf (maybe because you feel patriotic to the chinese cause or you feel that it makes sense,in which case it shows your poor ethos). Whatever it maybe, let me say you have stooped too low and I have no further desire to answer any of your comments. To exchange further with a (OFFENSIVE WORD - DELETED) like you does not give me any pleasure.
A very interesting point you've brought out! Which leaves one to ponder whether the Chinese-type of recruitment and training from a tender age, without the attention and support of parents, can really produce a well-rounded type of champion. I wonder whether China has changed its system of physically uprooting the children from their parents and submitting them to intensive training, almost military-like, from young. What about the children's mental, social and academic development? I certainly hope the system has changed for the better.
There is a third side. The objective side. If I have the ability, I will save that kid first and ask questions later. Whether innocent or guilty, and no matter what crime the kid did, beating him up will only create more problems (and also not right).
Loh, you got it totally wrong. This 'fault' here is like service fault, a fault where you lose the rally, not where the umpire shows you the yellow card.
