That "play", "play please" was at times said to both players, not just Wang Shixian. 39:08 The fact is both player didn't get ready. Okuhara was still jumping up and down. Yet, the umpire gave a warning to Wang Shixian for not ready to serve (and she protested of course). Check this one out for the whole picture, not from BWF channel and no commentators. It's at 2nd game, 0-3 to Wang Shixian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT92dG-Hkr8 My point here is about how the umpire at times treated both players unequally and nothing else. In my opinion, Wang Shixian has herself to blame for the red card. She could avoid it. Still, we shouldn't conclude that she lost because of it. Okuhara was great and deserved the victory. But Wang Shixian was equally great too, no doubt.
Another armchair critic. What if it were NO who was red-carded and went on to lose? The fact that WSX still managed to equalize to 19-all does not prove the red card incident had little or no effect on WSX, that's pure speculation, rather it was to her credit that she could win another point despite it. But it's also a fact that she still lost the last two points and the match, right ? And why don't you say, NO was so stunned by the unexpected good fortune that she lost some focus for a while and allowed WSX to 'steal' a point before NO found her footing again whereas WSX was still reeling from the impact? In other words, WSX was purely lucky that NO let her win a point , not because WSX immediately recovered from the red-card impact but in spite of it, for after that, NO pressed home the advantage as WSX crumbled. As you pointed out, tennis has the 25-sec rule between serves, what has badminton got? Five seconds, 10, or up to the discretion of the umpire, whoever happens to be on duty? Be honest with yourself, put yourself in WSX's shoes, and NO's as well, to get a good feel of the entire episode. Supposed we replaced WSX with LCW and NO with LD in the exact same scenario as the WSX - NO case? How would you present your argument? I say this because I know where you, ssj100 and your ilk are coming from.
That's a good point, morpheus. The umpire's many and repeated warnings were directed at both ladies, not WSX alone. most of the time.
30 warnings? Holy cow! I think the referee is definitely at fault here then. He's too lenient. The players think he won't do anything so they push and push. He should've given red cards much earlier!
Just because it's directed at both players don't matter. If for example Lin Dan throw his racket out of frustration to the court while cursing and get a very stern warning from the umpire. Then his opponent do the exact same thing on the VERY next play, surely a yellow or red card or even disqualification is warranted. You cannot say, "but but but Lin Dan only gets a warning"
Sorry, I beg to differ. It does matter because it proves that not all the warnings were caused by WSX's behaviour alone, both ladies were more or less equally guilty of stalling or delaying tactics whether intentionally or not. As for the example you gave, if LD only got away with a stern warning, that already set a precedent, the umpire should not then decide to punish the opponent for doing the same with a red card, as that is equivalent to double standard, unfair practice, favouritism, bias, or what have you. Ideally, the BWF rule ought to be clear about what constitutes a violation and the punishment it merits, and the umpire is expected to implement it accordingly in a fair and just manner without fear or favour. Where the rule is unclear, the umpire may exercise his discretion, act to the best of his ability,make his judgement and decision in a consistent manner, not arbitrarily or, worse, show bias and favouritism towards anybody.
It did set a precedent. It sets a precedent that that kind of behavior will not be tolerated from BOTH players. It's not bias. Nor double standard. ANYONE who does it after that stern warning is risking a deservedly harsh punishment.
No, this is not a warning to the players. You can notice it by two things: 1. it comes after an interruption (tablet malfunction) that neither player caused. 2. it is immediately preceded by the score. Although the umpire did not formally suspend the match, this is exemplary umpiring and in the spirit of RTTO §3.6. Can you reference a timecode? At 25:22 in dT92dG-Hkr8, Nozomi Okuhara is already standing in her court, whereas Wang Shixian is only going towards her service court. At 25:28 Okuhara is ready for the first time. At 25:31 both players are ready, and the serve follows immediately afterwards. The umpire does not say anything. I do not think either of the timecodes you quoted support that theory. In any case, 2 would hardly make a pattern, even if any of them showed Okuhara wasting time. The umpire mentions Wang Shixian by name 10+ times. Apart from the shoelaces, I think Nozomi is called one time. In any case, Wang Shixian was consistently nowhere near ready when Okuhara was always ready, or at least standing in the receiving/serving position and able to get to ready within a second.
How would you like it when someone who commits an offence is let off with a fine whereas you who the commits the same offence is sent to jail? A case of the judge setting a precedent which he didn't follow and set a new but bad precedent using you as an example, poor thing. But if your case is a good precedent,the right one, then the earlier one is undoubtedly wrong, a miscarriage of justice, don't you think so ? You won't feel unjustly treated? Even if you want to change the rule, it must not be done arbitrarily,as and when you like, there should be proper procedures and a time frame set for the new ruling to take effect. To use your example again, the umpire cannot apply different standards to different players in the same match. And he has to give advanced notice that he is going to impose the harsher punishment in future matches/tournaments, say. But,as I've said, BWF has its constitution,guidelines and by-laws to follow.
No one's talking about future matches. I thought that was clear. Your example doesn't apply because it's not relevant. It would be more relevant if for example, you and a friend was walking around. He decides to smoke in a non smoking zone. A cop catch him and give him a stern warning for it while you're beside him. Your friend stops smoking and then you stupidly decide to smoke while the cop is still there. The cop then gives you a fine. How is that...unfair? The umpire is not setting different standards to different players. The umpire is setting a standard for both players.
OMG it's almost Thursday, and the thread is still live full fledge! How can u peepz stay fixated on a thing, which has happened even b4!!
Hehe, people are passionate about sports! It's odd I know, as it shouldn't ultimately affect us. Some people also seem to want to avoid bringing up the fact that Okuhara had made a comeback to 17-17 after trailing the entire third set. That was without any red cards too. That would have affected WSX more than anything else. And that's why one thing led to another. She handled the situation very poorly, and people should be disappointed in her rather than the umpire (as I said before, the umpire was clearly just trying to be a good umpire in a tough situation). I think WSX made a couple of unforced errors from 17-15 up, clearly fatigue contributing to it. Both players were playing at an even level overall (and we should be grateful to be able to witness such a strong era in WS badminton), but I suspect Okuhara's stamina and mental strength was a little better. At 19-19, WSX tried to claim that Okuhara hit the shuttle before it went over the net, but as the commentator said, "not a chance". And WSX would have known this for sure deep down - but perhaps she was so mentally and physically fatigued that she was grasping at anything to stall the match or turn the momentum back her way. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of WSX (although I'm a bigger fan of Okuhara), but I always try to perceive things objectively, unlike some hehe. Badminton is a game and no one is perfect. WSX being given a red card doesn't label her as a criminal. Some analogies are very poor (like most of mine hehe).
But the thing is, even WSX has moved on and she'll learn from this incident and get even stronger for future tourneys, judging by her post somebody posted here! Whatever that is done can't be reversed also its a matter of fact that the umpire was quite just and apt in his action! Plus NO was there already I am not saying the act didn't had any adverse impact on WSX but then some lessons are learnt the hard way!
Wasnt that the case last year? People were so happy when Marin got the red cards saying that she deserved it and what not. To be very honest here, yes the umpire MAY have been harsh to WSX, but no one can deny that WSX herself could've prevented that by not acting so unruly towards the umpire. We saw the same umpire issuing the same warnings to NO, but at least she reacted positively towards him which certainly did not agitate him as much as WSX did.
Marin's behaviour in that match was totally unfathomable and can't be measured with WSX here - it is pretty deceitful of you to try to compare the 2. Marin was at her 'ugliest' form of her career at that time - behaving like a bad loser after time she concedes a point. She would also scream loudly at her opponent (which is her trademark but worse); turn her back and walk to the back of the court instead of returning the shuttle properly within a reasonable timeframe. She would argue profusely with the umpire many times; displaying considerable disrespect. On top of that, she would make rude and angry faces/body language at her opponent which was quite shocking to see on TV - quite sure the umpire caught that too. Never seen anything quite like that for a while I remembered saying to myself. That match did changed her somewhat and she has improved seemingly; much to her credit.
Huh? I thought he was the only one who didn't follow my line of reasoning and repeated the same flawed argument using a different example, so much so I couldn't be bothered to reply. I trust there are many sensible, discerning posters here.
