There was a situation during one of the earlier round matches, when umpire faulted a player before the start of the second game. Could someone explain why when there was no instruction to start play, player shown a red card for delay? What became was there was additional delay, with total dead-time of more than 3.5 minutes when game 1 ended and game 2 began. I found it strange that all this time, the umpire does not appear to have instructed play. Also quite strange was that umpire attention was at scorepad instead of on court. the original video of match is
That umpire was actually a woman The umpire announced for player to enter the court within 20 seconds. Marcus entered the court past that 20 seconds. That's all it was.
Okay, your video is very patchy and freezes. The situation is from 25:41 onward in the youtube video.
That was my first thought as well (and I had written a decently long post quoting all the relevant rules), but in the vimeo video, the 20 seconds call is at 2:39. At 2:59, all players are on court, as evinced by the umpire calling Second game. The umpire wouldn't do that if some players were not present, and would show the red card first (the following announcements in this situation are a nightmare though). Also, we see Marcus Fernaldi Gideon a couple of seconds later (certainly at 3:03), being on court. At 3:04, the umpire calls Love all, but not Play. At 3:17, the umpire calls Play, please, and shows the red card immediately. My interpretation is that the umpire thought she had called Play around 3:05. Marcus Fernaldi Gideon and Kevin Sukamuljo faff around for bit, but as experienced players, they wait for Play. In addition, the umpire faults Marcus Fernaldi Gideon, the receiver's partner. He just needs to be on court. He does not need to be ready in the first place! So this is a rare case where I would say the umpire screwed up and thought she had called Play when she didn't, and faulted the wrong player.
I like Kevin's new name, Sukamojo It's Sukamuljo. Anyway, I am pretty much confused with this fault too. Because after all the players were on court, the umpire lingered by watching her monitor for a few seconds before she suddenly faulted Marcus and took out the card. She didn't say play and Marcus was already on the court waiting. She raised her hand to call the referee and when he showed up, she explained to him that they (not he) were not on the court when she said play. So she faulted Marcus alone but in her explanation she said they as in both of the players. I have seen many matches when the umpire always warned or cautioned the players to get into the court when the 20 seconds almost over and never got faulted or red cards. And some times, minions even got called out because they were on the court too soon and made to stand by the court by the umpire. This is kind of confusing.
I watched the youtube video and the umpire first called 20 seconds at 28:15. Kevin entered the court at around 28:37 while Marcus followed a few seconds later so both of them are technically late. And then her explanation was Marcus was not on court in 20 seconds. She didn't say "play please". She said "wait please".
Oh, you are totally correct, and my timeline was wrong. I watched the video in the Vimeo player, but looking at the raw video of both YouTube and Vimeo, the players are indeed late, if only by a couple of seconds. I retract everything and claim the opposite. Then it's a much clearer case: Not being on court on time is the only situation where the rules require the umpire to show a red card: The only thing I can nitpick is that the vocabulary §3.10.7 and ITTO §5.17.4, the correct call would have been Marcus Fernaldi Gideon, Fault for misconduct; Delay, but at 3:19(Vimeo) and 28:59 (YouTube) I only hear Fault; Marucs Fernaldi Gideon; Delay.
Here is the partial timeline of the situation given in video-clip with timeline updated from the match-video: ... 00:26:30 Rally 40 ends 00:26:33 Game, called | official end of first game 00:26:36 First game won by ... 00:26:51 CAs on court 00:27:02 S approaches to place interval board on court 00:27:04 S places interval board on court ... 00:27:51 CA off-court ... 00:28:15 Court 1, 20" 00:28:18 Court 1, 20" 00:28:19 U turns left-behind (China-side) 00:28:21 U turns right-behind (Indonesia-side) 00:28:22 Players on court please | instructing Indonesia players 00:28:25 Coach return to your chair; China players appear to be on court 00:28:35 Suk takes racquet off kit-bag 00:28:39 Second game ... 00:28:43 Love-all ('play' was never announced) 00:28:46 Indonesia players appear to be on court 00:29:47 Indonesia players seen at start positions 00:28:51 Suk on evens court, Gid odds court with hanging face 00:28:56 Wait please instruction to LIU Cheng 00:28:59 Red card shown Fault, Marcus Fernaldi Gideon, delay 00:29:04 switches card to left hand, raised rt again looks toward R-station 00:29:08 [Yap?] with head-nod, right-hand raised 00:29:10 you haf to be on court ... when I call play ... 00:29:16 No ... 00:29:18 R appears to arrive on court 00:29:10 ... they were not ... they were not on court ... when I called 20" you know ... 00:29:25 R nods head 00:29:34 you were not on court ... ready to play ... at the end of the interval 2 minutes 00:29:40 you haf to be on court ... when I say play [on] 2 minutes 00:29:42 [Gid] I am going in ... 00:29:44 no ... on court please ... 00:29:57 1-all (once again, play was never announced) 00:30:01 your service ... yes 00:30:01 U mucking about with device while play is about to begin ... 00:30:12 ...continued... 00:30:13 ...continued... 00:30:14 Player to set-position 00:30:15 Rally started; U attn on device (without 'play') ... 00:30:18 shuttle hit twice, U attn on device while shuttle in play around net area; missed calling fault by ZHANG; players decided who won rally ... -- For situations where misconduct was penalised with a red card (fault) prior to start of game, it would be Second game, 1-love (or Service over, 1-love); play. But always on court, a game is started with play. Incidentally, Rally 41 was never played. This could be a question on written examination for people who are keen on officiating, and also a problem to solve for those who code match-events.
So.. the players were not late? The umpire called 20 secs twice 28:15 and 28:18 and the last call was made at 28:18 so 20 secs after that was 28:38 shouldn't it? Other wise the umpire shouldn't have called "Court 1 20 seconds" the second time at 28:18, she should have said "Court 1, 17 secs" to be exact. And who actually count to 20 seconds after the 20 secs call, really. Maybe next time they should put the clock or countdown on the big screen for the players to actually know when exactly is 20 seconds after the last call. And not to just give fault or red card without any actual evidence and confuse everyone. Especially when the umpire called a fault seconds after the players were all waiting on court being ready.
Imho it was totally unnecessary for this umpire to stamp her authority on this match like that. The INA players never did once delay in the whole match nor were they shown the yellow card as a warning for such prior to that. Sure, Marcus may look dejected with head hanging down in the rear at that time but the CHN players were not even close to being ready to serve yet. If the umpire had wanted to keep the match to a strict time schedule, she should have just shown the yellow card first as a warning... instead of wasting an additional 2 more minutes like that as she did. Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Umpires are not free in what they say. They have to follow the vocabulary, which requires the announcement 20 seconds, 20 seconds. This is not about the umpire wanting to keep the match to a strict schedule, but about the umpire following the rules. And as I wrote above, rules §16.7.1.3 and §16.7.2 require the umpire to show a red card. Now, you can argue that rule should be different, but it is certainly not up to an umpire to change the rules during a match.
The vocabulary is not exhaustive, nor exclusive, so yes, the umpire has much latitude in communication. As for the handling of the perceived delay by player, umpires follow the instructions from the referee, in this instance, handling delay. Knowing and implementing the laws of the game and knowing the game are two entirely different things.
If the umpire follows the instructions to the letter of the law, the 20 second announcement is made from the end of last rally. However, there is usually a few moments before that announcment is made, such as interval or game. That announcement of 20 seconds is made twice, one followed by another, with a brief pause between the two. For the challenge courts, the interval or game is said after the decision is announced. In such cases, there will be more time that will elapse. Communicating match progress is one of the duties of the umpire. Sometimes, the communication is confusing. If it was not there would be no discussions and forums such as these would not survive long. Right Kwun? As for the actual evidence, the cameras show us the view they want to show us; it is slightly different when in the arena. However, if what is seen from the different cameras is taken as evidence, then, and this is to me, a player management situation. There is also the dreadful C-word and the players and coaches pet peeve - consistency. Application of law must be uniform, across all courts, by all officials. In today's world of presenting a spectacle, an event, is more critical, so not only is knowing the laws and implementing critical, but also helping to put on an event. Event, where player behaviour modification is sometimes necessary, so that they showcase their athletic abilities skills tactics. Time and player management also becomes part of umpiring.
To make things uniform, as I said before, all clocks and times should be visible to those who are concerned. Players can't possibly know exactly how long 20 seconds are. Especially in this minions case, I am not happy with how the umpire handle the situation. She was the one delaying the game. Should have called the fault the instant 20 seconds was over. Not many many seconds after if she really wanted to call the fault. I have re watched the game a few times, and I could confirm that when she said "Second game, love all" both Kevin and Marcus were already on court and be ready before she said "play". She didn't even say "play" at all. And not even after called "one-love", busy with her device all the time.
I think the umpire's other mistakes have nothing to do with the fault. It was the correct call, even if handled poorly. IMO the responsibility of knowing how long 20 seconds are falls to the players. For reference, almost all players have made it on the court in time. Kevin/Marcus themselves made it to the court in time the vast majority of times. It's not like players have a problem estimating 20 seconds.
