This is based on a misunderstanding of how the HawkEye system works. In this case, the delay between challenge and graphic indicates that the old system (camera + IRS umpire + HawkEye technician) is in play, and not the new fully automatic one (which has questionable results as well, but that's another discussion). With the old system, the IRS umpire makes a decision, and a technician positions the shuttle on the graphics and enters the result. A discrepancy has happened before. Therefore, it is not possible to infer the quality of the decision from the quality of the graphics. The decision may be incorrect still, but the pretty pictures we see are unrelated to it. This is incorrect. While there are referee instructions for every tournament, when it comes to such a general aspect of the laws, the only instruction a referee will ever give to the umpires is follow the existing regulations. Referees, sometimes themselves being asked to improve certain aspects (e.g. reduce time wasting), sometimes do ask the umpires to be a little bit stricter or more lenient towards some aspects of the laws. However, I have never experienced, and cannot imagine, referee instructions going outright against the official regulations (RTTO). And those official regulations do include your first claim, but flatly contradict the second one:
I agree that most of the situations are still confusing or too close where you can still give benefit of doubt to the umpire's call after instant review, But players should be allowed to challenge if they think a call is wrong because after all they are the ones who'll suffer psychological pressure on spot, especially if set/match is close to the end. One point sometimes makes huge difference. In this clip, Lin Dan is super pissed caz umpire believes he is standing on the line, second time, though he does stand very close to the line but come on...! probably just exercising his power, king in the forest I'd say if umpire calls are just 1% wrong, still that might ruin someone's moment of victory. Mostly Danish players are very emotional and they take such faults to their heads and even stop the game sometimes requesting tournament referee And I do agree that in doubles, most of the players serve above the waist most of the times but they will always argue that they were right but sooner or later things will start to get more transparent as technology progresses.
The umpire, as an arbitrator and adjudicator, cannot be wrong, ever. But as s/he is human, there is some consideration, otherwise we would never have much to discuss or argue. In this match, the umpire clearly saw the player's left left leg encroaching the court. This is not a belief. This is a violation of the law. Ergo, fault. Could the umpire have been clear why the fault was called? Yes? the signal for foot fault is clearly defined in the law. Should he have mentioned this to the player. Looks like he did. Did the player adjust. Apparently, not. Is that the umpire's fault? No. Will the referee take any decision if s/he appears on court, with/without the player's beckoning. In this case, not. It was a matter of fact situation that the umpire ruled on, not an interpretation of law. Most everyone [will] agree, the umpire must make correct decision in key match incidents. These are the ones to get correct. Why? Then, the umpire not only has the respect from the players, but also improves his/her credibility. The other, and very important, aspect of being an arbitrator/adjudicator, is to clearly communicate the decision. This is clearly proscribed in law. [The commentator mucked up but citing something that is not valid.] Even now, as a spectator, I fail to understand what is the point in shutting the microphone, as this umpire clearly does fiddling with the right side of his waist. As an umpire, I would not turn the microphone off. Why? I prefer to have the instruction clearly heard by all, including the opponent player(s). I reckon this match was played in 2015; the latter COC-Tales have clarification to umpires to not turn the mic off. Referees, who may be occupied with other matters, need to hear while watching other courts, that way, they are prepared.
This was addressed by BWF some time ago, see this public summary. It was most definitely a mistake to let an umpire from one of the players' countries umpire, especially such a critical game. Not because I believe this umpire is/was biased, but because of the impression it created. This should not have happened in the first place, and referees have been instructed to be extra careful once again and given more detailed guidelines what to do if foreign umpires are tight. The umpire should have allowed the challenge. Since he did not, the referee should have stepped on court and clarified. Probably, the software could also be improved to show how many challenges are left for each team so the umpire cannot make such a mistake. Note the comments shown in the video are wildly inappropriate. They all seem to assume that just because an umpire is Chinese, they would favor the home team. That would be a gross breach of umpiring ethics. Also, virtually none of the comments mention the extraordinary confluence of 4 independent problems (referee team assigning the wrong umpire, software not showing remaining challenges, umpire miscounting challenges, deputy referee not intervening).
There should be some measures to be done in such cases like perhaps having game officials that are neutral nationalities from the players in the matches. Or maybe a rule where players are allowed in the game to slap hard in the face douchebag umpires and service judges making ridiculous calls and decisions
As I wrote in my post just above yours, such measures were already in place. It was just a mistake by the referee team to assign a Chinese umpire to a match with Chinese players. As a result of this incident, BWF has laid out more detailed guidelines and reinforced them. I think this level of disrespect towards technical officials is orders of magnitude more worrisome than this one missed point in one out of thousands of matches. I strongly suggest that if you think umpires are "douchebags" and are constantly making "ridiculous calls and decisions", you show them by doing better and becoming a top-level umpire yourself.
Slapping umpires is a great idea. I have a better one - lets make a rule to crusify an umpire if you don't like his call... That would make game most fair, right? I think what federation needs to do is to aducate people that umpire is not the enemy, he is there for the players. Mistakes happen but they are very rare and countless amounts of good calls should be an indication for you that umpires you seem to hate so much are in fact good umpires. Dont tell me you never make mistakes...
With all due respect, you seem to be so serious about my post that you fail to recognize it was just a tongue in cheek statement. Well let me tell you my story why I said something like that. That's just me expressing my frustrations and disappointments in such situations where you lose by a critical point because a game official failed in his duty. Last saturday we were in a semifinals match where the score in the 3rd set was 20-20 and the last smash of my partner was VERY CLEARLY IN and the line judge (who was always busy with his phone as we have observed the whole time and even by our teammates) called the shot out to our shock. My partner protested to the umpire and you know what he said? The line judge called it out so it was out. But when we asked him if he saw it as IN, he said yes. So WTF then??? He let the line judge be more right than he is, an UMPIRE? In short, we lost the game and failed to reach the FINALS because we feel that both the umpire and line judge failed in their duties. Now I never said in my post that I absolutely think umpires are "douchebags" and are constantly making "ridiculous calls and decisions", I was simply referring to the ones who are such and many people would agree that there are such officials. So in short, if i somehow hurt your feelings because I know you're doing umpire jobs in your place, my apologies. But i stand by what I said that there are douchebags umpires and other officials. So, to each his own opinions
The line judge has the much better view. Both are humans, and there is no secret that makes an umpires see shuttles better than line judges. Therefore, the umpire made the correct decision: In other words, overruling should only be used in cases where the line judge is obviously wrong, and the umpire is absolutely certain of the result. That being said, a line judge has absolutely no business bringing their smartphone to a match, or even worse, being distracted by it. Notify the umpire and/or referee if you think a line judge is unfit. Well, then why not start officiating? You can be a positive role model, caution distracted line judges, guide your fellow technical officials, and provide a better view of the TOs for everyone.
The line judge was obviously distracted and the fact that a lot of other people including ourselves and the umpire confirms the shot was IN ( and yet the umpire for some unexplainable reason made an official call of out because "that's what the line judge said") would prove otherwise. So, how can you say the umpire made the correct decision? What is "correct" here by the way then? I'm not interested in officiating, I want to play more than officiate a game.
This is your interpretation of the events. Quite obviously, the line judge was not so obviously distracted that he missed the call, or was totally unfit. Otherwise, the umpire or referee would have exchanged the line judge already. The players are inherently unreliable. Nevertheless, if your opponents saw it in the umpire will immediately accept that correction. Your opponents didn't see it in? Then maybe it wasn't as clear as you seem to think. Spectators or coaches are never ever asked, because they are typically not neutral. Again, the umpire is correct in ignoring any spectators' opinions, per RTTO §4.5. You make the mistake of assuming absolute probabilities. But that is not the case: Any observation humans make is always fraught with errors at a number of levels - visually, visual-processing, mentally etc. . Therefore, to make the right decision one must use relative probabilities. The official laws (including RTTO and other guidelines), created with the experience of millions of matches, guide the umpire in making the best possible decision. The umpire must follow the laws, RTTO, and guidelines. This is correct umpiring. It can sometimes lead to a decision that does not reflect what actually happened, but on average it has a high probability of leading to decisions that do reflect what actually happened. This is true for many line judges and umpires, especially in the beginning of their career. If you are unwilling to sacrifice your time to make the game better for other players and spectators, the very least you can do is be respectful and thankful to those who do.
It's not my interpretation of events, it's the fact, what really happened and as corroborated by the other spectators and the umpire himself. Haven't you been reading carefully on what I said? You were not there to see what really happened so it's you who are making interpretations of the events. We're not talking of assumed scenarios here but actual circumstances that many people have witnessed and can confirm that something went wrong with that call. But why the umpire made a different call is simply unbelievable. Mind you, this is not a big budgeted tournament so there was only one line judge per opposite side of the court. Yea, the referee would have or should have exchanged the line judge but again he didn't make that or any other decisions. Opponents would usually just keep quiet and if it p[lays to their advantage why not? And in our case, they didn't speak up. Why would they? I don't know except maybe they would benefit from the wrong call? Players are inherently unreliable? Do you even know the meaning of the word inherent? Have you even played the sport i wonder? What absolute probabilities are you even talking about here? You're the one making the mistake of doing that in an event that you haven't witnessed, were not physically there and only relies on your theories based on your close minded thinking. True, human observations are always fraught with errors, and that's exactly what the officials committed. I rest my case here because I don't see the point anymore of having any further discussions with someone who assumes probabilities and offers theories that are simply far off what really happened.
This is the problem with the people that are so vocal to condemn the umpires but don't bother to learn the rules and umpire guidelines. You don't know why the umpire did certain things but that does not stop you from calling him a douchebag. There is a reason why umpire does not overrule line calls on far lines so easily - there should be a margin below which the overruling is avoided so that you won't "correct" a correct call. This would be a much bigger problem than letting an incorrect call stay as long as you have a tiniest chance of being wrong...
Players are unreliable in line calls - that is fact. Did you see how many times even Lin Dan and Lee Chong Wei get their challenges wrong?
That's my whole point: You assume the decision of an umpire (which must come within seconds) should be one of what the umpire perceives what the umpire physically sees or even what actually happened First of all, 2 and 3 are impossible - the umpire can only go by what they perceive. Until we have built-in IRS (or at least video replay) at every chair (or advanced smart glasses), the umpire must go by what they perceive in the moment. But that may be wrong - light detection, visual processing, pattern recognition, and higher-level brain processes ("it was a smash, so they're supposed to win the rally") can introduce significant errors between what happened and what is being perceived (exhibit A: If processing would be perfect, all line calls would be right). The line judge does not formally indicate the probability that the shuttle was out, they just show what they perceive. Even if the umpire could accurately gauge their own statistical precision level, they can't compare it to the line judge's. However, the umpire knows that the line judge has a much better view. Good umpires can partially make up for that with better feeling, i.e. knowing how likely the shuttle was out from other factors, or better perception, i.e. by focusing on the receiving side of a smash. But at the opposite sideline the line judge will have a much better precision just due to physics. As @stradrider aptly pointed out, there are also other considerations at play: an overruling is much more likely to induce protest by the players, and the umpire has to be able to rely on the line judge - that only works if the line judge isn't regularly ignored. These are fundamental considerations - no umpire will actually calculate relative probabilities, especially those keeping in mind the shortcomings of the human mind in statistics. For all of these reasons, the recommendation to umpires is to only overrule if they are very certain of their decision, and otherwise let the line judge's stand.
Hmm so the umpire made one mistake during the game(according to you), but how many mistakes did you and your partner make in the same game ??
