Idea for Solution to Service Faults

Hello all,

I have been playing and watching badminton for a number of years and have grown very frustrated with inconsistent calls by service judges. I believe I come up with a possible solution.

Get the tallest badminton player out there and measure the height of his waist. Voila! That is now the maximum height that ALL badminton players can serve at.

Get an apparatus for the service judge that consists of 2 parallel bars at a distance from each other, perpendicular to the service judge's line of sight. The bars are calibrated to the aforementioned maximum height. Then make the service judge sit at or adjust himself so that his eye level allows the 2 parallel bars to line up with each other. That way, the service judge can clearly see whether the shuttle is struck above or below this line that ALL badminton players must adhere to. Tall guys don't get an advantage and short guys aren't at a disadvantage. Lastly, have a high speed camera calibrated at the same height so service calls can be challenged.

There are too many bad calls, missed calls etc. that really ruin the game. That one service judge, Fritz whatever, is particularly bad for this.

I hope the BWF does something about this problem soon.

 

Please reread what I wrote. I did not say there are, "many bad calls". Rather, I said that the calls are inconsistent. Sometimes they are faulted, and sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are strict, and other times not.

Curiously, you affirm the accuracy of service judges, yet you concede that service judges, "err on the liberal side of not calling faults one can easily identify in a video replay". I'm puzzled as to why you believe that not calling an obvious fault is NOT a bad call? Certainly not calling a fault serve is just as bad as calling a non-fault serve, no? If not a bad call, certainly it would be an inconsistent application of the service rules, yes?

Yes, his name is Freek Cox. We will simply have to agree to disagree on the accuracy of his service calls as there is no way to prove it one way or another.

You say that calibrating for the tallest player is arbitrary, but I do not see that as a valid point since, "below the waist", in general, is just as arbitrary. I do not want new rules for every tournament and I do not quite understand how you deduced that that would be necessary using a fixed height approach. If anything, it standardizes the rules more than they currently are. I'm not suggesting that a different height be set for each tournament depending on who enters. I'm suggesting that a single height be determined that will be standard for all tournaments and all players.

Yes, this will mean that shorter players are allowed to serve higher up on their body, while taller players serve lower, relative to what part of their body lines up with the standardized fixed height. However, children cannot, as you suggest, serve overhead since the other service rules still apply, (racket pointed in downward direction, for example). I do not see why different players having varying service strike points along their body relative to the proposed fixed height is necessary considered a downside. Please explain.

Let's take table tennis as an example. The service height is effectively fixed. You can serve as high above the table as you like, but you cannot serve below it. It would be the same in badminton but in reverse. You can serve as low as you like, but you cannot serve above a certain height. I do not think your comment regarding how young players having to relearn their serve with every growth spurt holds, since they will have to relearn it anyway even under the current service rules. As you grow, your, "waist", becomes higher, and your serve can be effectively flatter. The more you grow, the flatter your serve can be. You have to relearn your serve as you grow either way.

So to sum it up, I do not see what you listed as downsides to be actual disadvantages. On the flip side, there are certainly some benefits. Firstly, the calls can be objectively determined and therefore, consistently applied, AND challenged if a player feels an incorrect call, or non-call, has been made. Secondly, there is no advantage that taller players have over shorter players, because everyone is allowed to serve at the same height, whereas under current service rules, a short player is at a disadvantage since their serve must travel in more of an upward direction, whereas a taller player can play a flatter, faster, serve.

Two parallel bars are at the same height with one is in front of the other by a short distance. When you bring your eye-level down the correct height, the two bars will line up with each other. Then you can see exactly whether the shuttle is above or below the bars. The parallel bars can be on both right and left sides of the net so the service judge can determine the correct service height for both players/pairs. I don't think a line on the net will work because the service judge is sitting inline with the net and will not be able to see the line across the players while they are serving.

I haven't read the BWF's plans for automated review of service calls, so maybe it doesn't differ. But as long as the height is not standardized, any automated review is going to be subjective at best.

 

Yes, and this is the very problem that I mentioned, that the rules are applied inconsistently. I suggest that the main reason for the inconsistency is a lack of objectivity. If the height were standardized then fault calls or non-calls can be objectively determined and service judges can feel more confident that they made the right call and thus, make calls more consistently. I agree that virtually all service fault calls are "correct" given the definition of "waist height", but that is not the problem. The problem is that a lot of the time, many serves that are even higher up on the body are not called, and suddenly the service judge decides to call a lower, (albeit, still too high), serve.

1) Either the serve is fault or not. If you are suggesting that service judges should let some faults slide because they do not want to disrupt the flow of game or the enjoyment of the fans, then that is what contributes to the inconsistency and distrust of officials. The distrust doesn't just come from nowhere, and in badminton, the problem is systemic.
2) There have already been cases under current rules where dozens of fault calls were suddenly enforced, in a recent men's doubles match for example. The exact match escapes me, but I believe it was between korea and china where suddenly every other serve was being faulted and the crowd was audibly agitated. It is under current rules that you are more likely to see inconsistencies in service calls.
3) I still do not agree that non-calls are less damaging. It really depends on who's perspective you are taking. From the players' perspectives, if your fault serve didn't get called, then it's good. But if you were on the receiving end up a, "drive serve", and lost the point as a result, then it is certainly very damaging to your match. Even for the fans, non-calls are very damaging if you were supporting the player(s) who were victimized as a result of a non-call. Everybody ultimately wants fairness above all else.

I don't have the time to comb through the internet for pictures that could pass for proof or evidence of Freek Cox's service call accuracy. If such photos/vidoes even exist, certainly 10 examples are way too many to ask for. I have, however, personally witnessed him as a service judge at a recent Canadian Open Grand Prix in Richmond (maybe 2012, 2013?) where in the final of men's doubles, he repeatedly called faults, more than any other match all tournament, so I started carefully observing the server. I went through a mental checklist of service rules and they all seemed to be being followed, and sure enough, he called another fault. The crowd got very upset as a result of the repeated fault calls, and to the best of my ability, it did seem as though the serve was legal. It's subjective of course, which is exactly the problem I am bringing up that I believe fixed height would solve.

I am suggesting, "fixed height", as you call it, not changing the height each tournament depending on who enters. It can be the average height of players with BWF ranking or the highest waist of any player, either is fine, as long as it's fixed height. 110cm? Sure, let's go with that. Just make it consistent.

Yes, the serve will change as the player grows. This is no different in Table Tennis, where younger players serve with a virtual overhead motion, and yet they all adapt just fine.

[
QUOTE="phihag, post: 2471775, member: 115949"]Who would evaluate such a challenge? If you think of an automated system, I'd like to see how accurate an automated system would be able to determine waist height (again, in the context of Badminton a technical term, unrelated to the medical definition of waist).[/QUOTE]

A camera, or automated review system, as you call it, would review the challenge. It would not need to determine, "waist height", because I am proposing a fixed height service rule change. If it sees the shuttle above the height line, then it's fault. It seems very simple to me. I am saying that it is only with an objective fixed height rule change can challenges to service calls even be possible.

 

This is exactly what happens in tennis as well. Just do what they already do in tennis. Of course no one would challenge a point that they won. I never said that. Of course challenges are for players who have lost a point as a result of a bad call or non-call. My point is that currently, there is no system for such a challenge to even take place, and there should be, because matches have been won and lost as the result of bad calls or non-calls.

Great, glad we agree on something.

I have used this technique for leveling in landscape construction. Mythbusters also used this technique for aiming their archimedes death ray. The principle is very simple. If the bars line up, then you are seeing a straight line between those 2 bars, and if both bars are at the same height, then you are effectively seeing a level line. I don't understand what you mean by the angle is different in mixed. Remember, I am proposing a fixed height for ALL players. I am against the subjective and variable, "waist height". The angle would never be different for what I am proposing. Ironically, it is under current rules that the angle of the service judges eyes are always changing depending on the height of the player who's serve is being assessed.

 

I would suggest that the receiving player can challenge the non-call if they stop play and request a challenge before they strike the shuttle a second time, since the first strike is oftentimes instinctual. If they strike a second time, then play continues. There is a rule in tennis that is very similar to this.

They cannot always challenge if they lose a point since they have a limited number of incorrect challenges. That wouldn't change.

Regarding the automated system, it would only be reviewed if a player challenges the call or non-call, exactly the same as line calls.

So far in this discussion, I have been referring to them as "non-calls", but technically speaking, they are also calls. By not calling fault, a service judge declares that s/he has deemed it a legal serve. I actually feel that non-calls should be able to be reviewed as well since games have been won and lost because of them. At 9:35 of this video for example:

If the service judge was correct, then no one would complain, but if the judge was wrong, then one player(s) would have been robbed of the match. I think that's pretty important. It's multiple incidents like those shown in the video that rightly or wrongly, make players and fans question the officials' decisions. All that can be solved with fixed height coupled with a service call review system. I do think it's a bit naive to believe that service judges never make mistakes. Humans make mistakes and I would say the above video does indeed show some questionable calls and non-calls, but without an objective measure, like fixed height, everything becomes subjective, or, "academic", as Gill Clark is so fond of saying.

 

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Who knows? My point is that it's subjective. Camera angles can severely affect how heights are perceived as well. Where is his lowest rib? I dunno. Do you? If there was a calibrated review system with fixed height, then the question of whether it was too high could be definitively answered. Currently, service judges have to guess/assume where a player's lowest rib is, hardly an objective way to tell if it was a fault serve or not.

Ok, I wasn't sure what u meant by automated system. I mean to use cameras mounted at the fixed service height that can clearly show whether the shuttle is or is not above the fixed height line for the purposes of review in the event of a challenge.

 

Regarding my earlier comment about challenging non-calls, I believe I adequately addressed your concern already. I said that a receiving player can challenge a non-call if he stops play before he or his partner strikes the shuttle a second time. I acknowledged that the first shot is instinctive, so a player can still challenge a non-call after the first receive, but not after s/he has struck the shuttle a second time.

As I mentioned before, there is already a rule in Tennis that is very similar to this so my point is that we wouldn't be inventing anything new. It is something that is already implemented in a similar sport and we would merely be adopting it for ours, so the resistance to it should be reduced.

 

This is good news Please post updates of the experiments as you come to know them.