In the match between Matsumoto/Takahashia vs Polii/Rahayu in the Badminton Asia Team Championship 2018 on 10 Feb 2018, the umpire called a service fault herself against the Indonesians--a foot fault. (The service judge was silent throughout.) The Indonesians appealled to the referee and complained that the umpire cannot call a service fault herself independently--only the service judge can. The referee agreed with the umpire. Are the umpire and referee right? Can the umpire call a service fault if the service judge say nothing? Postscript edit: 1. I read ITTO s 5.4.3, which says The Umpire shall, during the service, if a Service Judge is appointed, especially watch the receiver. The Umpire may also call a service fault. 2. But the Laws of Badminton s 17.3 says The service judge shall call service faults made by the server should they occur (Law 9.1.2 to 9.1.9). 3. A foot fault is, I believe, either 9.1.3 or 9.1.4. 4. Do Laws of Badminton take precedence over ITTO? 5. Can an umpire call a foot fault when such a fault was expressly reserved for the service judge to call by the Laws of Badminton?
Was it a foot fault? Due to a high seating, umpire is only in position to call that and not any service height faults.
Technically umpire can call any faults, service judge there is kind of just helping. If there is no service judge, umpire calls all the service faults from the high chair. The only thing he can't do is overrule the service judge, but he can ask referee to replace him if the umpire thinks service judge is not fit for duty... .
Sorry, I should clarify... the above is assuming that a service judge is present. And as stradrider mentioned, if there's no service judge, then the chair umpire can call everything. I just watched the match, occurred at 17-14 game 3. Polli definitely faulted there on 2 counts even... not only was she obviously stepping on the service line but she also moved her right foot as she delivered the serve. An unfortunate amateur error if you ask me. I don't know why she was so upset... she could clearly see it on the overhead big screen replay.
Which also reminds me, there was also this one time a few years ago when LD was faulted similarly by the chair umpire for stepping on the centre line while serving. The service judge didn't call it as he was unsighted due to being on the wrong side of LD.
Where in the laws does it say that the umpire cannot call faults? §17.3 reads This just defines the role of the service judge and says nothing about who else can call service faults. One could also draw an analogue to §17.4, which says that line judges call In or Out. But if a line judge is taking a nap, the umpire can call the line as well.
Yes, I agree with what you and others have said. But umpire can overrule the line judges, not service judge. So if the service judge says nothing and the umpire faults a service, that's effectively a overruling of the service judge, isn't it? just asking.. thanks.
Taking over the service judge's job is different from overturning the service judge's call. From what I've observed in international tournaments, I don't think I've ever seen a tournament referee overturn a chair umpire or service judge decision, nor a chair umpire overturn a service judge decision. Eg. Net kill fault of hitting shuttle before crossing over the net, even when on instant replay it's obvious it's not a fault, and even if the player complains to the tournament referee, there's no overturning the umpire's fault judgement.
This is a simplified statement. Indeed, the umpire can overrule all of the line judges' decisions. The umpire can not overrule a fault call of the service judge. Unless you assume that service faults are the exclusive purview of the service judge, it does not say anything about the umpire calling a service fault. But maybe you are right and §17.5 of the laws should be amended with the gist of ITTO §5.4.3. On a meta-level, I think it's definitely correct that the umpire can call service faults regarding the line - there's simply no way for the service judge to see it.
This is funny misconception - I heard it before and if you think about it that doesn't make any sense... The service judge is not approving the serves. It's not like line judging where it's ether in or out. If he didn't fault it might be the service was correct or it might be that service judge wan't hundred percent sure it was a fault. It could be he was not in a position to see a fault as in the OP. Since service judge's job is to "call the faults" not to approve them, umpire is not overruling when there was no call made...
It is not entirely true. There is certain chain of command that must be followed and it is very clearly defined by the rules. Umpire is responsible for everything happening on the court. technically he can call any kind of faults or overrule other judges. The only exception is the service judge calls that cannot be overruled. Regarding the referee, I see that even top players have no idea when to call referee. He simply cannot overrule an umpire's decision if it is done according to the rules. However players should ask referee so he will overrule umpire's decision that does not follow to the rules. Like what was discussed not long ago when umpire called "receiver's fault" on receiver's partner...
Yes, I did assume service faults are the exclusive purview of the service judge. I assumed so because: (1) the laws of badminton confer on the umpire a general right to uphold and enforce the laws. (2) however, the laws of badminton confer on the service judge a specific duty to call service fault, (like a foot fault among other things). "17.3 The service judge shall call service faults made by the server should they occur (Law 9.1.2 to 9.1.9)." A specific duty should override a general duty. (3) the laws provide that an umpire can only overrule a line judge, only service judge. (4) the umpire should be observing the receiver during service, not the server. Practically speaking, it is extremely difficult for an umpire to observe both the server and receiver at the same time. For the above reasons, I would have thought the umpire should not call the service faults by the server. But I always respect your opinions. So I will defer to you.
1. It's not a "general right" but in fact in simple words umpire is "the boss" of the match... 2. Technically, umpire as "a boss" is the one giving jobs to other officials in the game. In instance of service judge it's written in the rules but he is just helping the umpire. An umpire tells the service judge to give the shuttles to the players for example.. 3. Exactly, umpire have to make all the decisions on the court, the only thing he cannot do is overrule the decision of the service judge. 4. Incorrect, he is recommended to pay more attention to the receiver when the service judge is present...
Oh, and it is difficult but not "extremely difficult to watch both the server and the receiver. There is a technique where you look just in front of the server, that way you still can see clearly the server and at the same time with a peripheral vision you see the receiver enough to determine if he start moving early. That's what you do when there is no service judge. Our vision is 115 degrees or something so no problem...
I agree with everything you said. I would add the following: 1. The service judge is observing the server only during service. The server has the undivided attention of the service judge. 2. ITTO recommends the umpire to "especially watch the receiver". The umpire's primary duty is to observe the receiver during service, as there is no one else there who could observe the receiver at that time. A human being is not good at multi-tasking. We cannot expect the umpire be able to perform both tasks well at the same time. 3. Why recommend the umpire to do something difficult? Yes, I agree that service judge can make mistake (or miss something) even though the server has the service judge's undivided attention. But can the umpire's divided attention be better than the service judge's undivided attention?
Umpiring requires a lot of multitasking, watching both server and receiver is not the hardest of them, really. In fact even when you are watching the receiver only, you must watch the server also, as the receiver's fault is only a fault from the moment the service starts which is the first forward movement of the server's racket... The reason there is the service judge is not because he will have an "undivided attention" to the server but because the lower chair has a better angle to determine the height of the service and angle of the shaft of the racket. So the service judge can call these faults with more precision. If you judge the service from the high chair, you have to take into the account that the high angle you are looking from can distort the perspective and so you must have higher margin when calling these faults.
She was so blatantly standing on the line! Her foot also drags back as she delivers the serve. I do not understand how she can argue anything no matter the situation when it's so obvious.
It's not the most recent thread, but it's basically the same issue, just the other way around, so I'll leave it here. Yesterday during the All England Mixed Doubles final, Wang stood on the center line at least 3 times during the second game, which was decided by 2 points. None of that was called as a fault, although even the commentary picked it up. 3 times in the second game were Wang serving at 5:2, 17:16, and 19:19. From what I understand, it would be either the service judge's or the umpire's responsibility to call that fault. The service judge is focused on the height of the server and has no way of telling for sure if the player is standing on the center line (not service line). The umpire is not in an ideal position either, especially when paying more attention to the receiver. What could be the solution for this? There is a line judge sitting in the perfect position (not always, but in this case). It's a line that only needs attention during serves. Why not give the line judge the authority to call that fault? It's his/her line to pay attention to anyway. Just imagine that this match would have gone the other way, the Chinese win the second game 21:19 (due to these mistakes) and win in 3 games...
