Can an umpire call service fault?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by pcll99, Feb 9, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    I think it is important to remember that umpire should make a fault call only if he is absolutely sure there is a fault. We don't know if it was in line of sight of the umpire / service judge and it could be that it did not look as clear from the chair as in the photo. We can feel really smart looking at perfect angle and close ups on the tv screen but that is not how you see it in reality.

    Surely you cannot give the line judge to make these calls because it should be consistent. It would also be a bit like if at the court would let the guard at the door to decide if the suspect is guilty??... Very few line judges are qualified umpires and often there could be someone who barely knows the game. Saying in or out is the best some of them can do and biggest reason for IRS as they often do it poorly. You can't hope that line judges can call faults precise and consistent. Anyways, most of the time umpire and service judge should be able to pick these.

    Anyways, it's not a kind of fault that would give any advantage. Are you sure we should get frustrated over these being missed?
     
    #21 stradrider, Mar 21, 2022
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2022
  2. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
  3. s_mair

    s_mair Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    3,532
    Location:
    Germany
    I think it is fully reasonable to ask who is responsible for keeping an eye on this part of the service rules. I mean, the rule does exist and should be enforced as any other rule.

    And I see the same issues as @speCulatius here. The eyes of the service judge are obviously busy with the actual service and they have a really bad viewing angle to the area in question. Which makes them pretty much the worst possible option.
     
  4. speCulatius

    speCulatius Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Location:
    'round here....
    Surely a line judge that is trusted to see if a small moving object hits the line or is barely out can be trusted to see if a stationary foot is on the line or not. S*He doesn't have to watch the shutte in that rally anyway.

    This is important. Making a rule that you cannot enforce on a regular basis should either not be a rule or we need to work on the way it's enforced/monitored.

    Three out of 40 rallies played is not insignificant anymore. And that's just the ones even the commentators cought (normally looking at the court from some distance).

    If you want to say they have a better angle, sure. Why is there no one to be trusted who can see it properly then?
     
  5. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    I think you guys are doing too much out of it. I have seen this particular fault called many times. There was a famous game with Lin Dan where he was faulted three times in a raw for standing on the line. This is job for both umpire and service judge and there is no reason to give this to anyone else. Most of the time it gets faulted, but yes it is a bit of a weakness with the fixed height system that service judges can be too focused on the device and miss some time the foot on the line as it is quite far.. Still fixed height system was totally worth it.

    I can't see how anyone can think it is reasonable to ask line judges to be supposed to give faults to players. Anyone who have any experience judging would see that delegating faults responsibility to line judges is so obviously bad idea. Just imaging the pressure from players like Mathias Boe after being faulted by service judges and now think that it is going towards line judge. It takes quite a lot to protect the line judges as it is from the players. Surely they don't need any more heat then what they have now...

    And again, the only person on court doing faults is umpire, service judge is also an umpire doing duty as service judge. I can guarantee you, seeing quite a few beginner umpires - faulting players is really tough psychologically thing to do, umpires are trained to overcome anxiety and force yourself to make a fault. Regular people that just call in or out will not be able to do it with any kind of consistency, surely not the kind of precision you hope to achieve.
     
  6. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    40,933
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    The umpire's eyes are focus on the receiver as there is receiver fault to be caught also. If anybody, it will not be the umpire's responsibility to call fault on the server.
     
  7. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    40,933
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    From the image, it is hard to say if the sole of the shoes actually touches the centerline. Certainly it invaded the "air space" of the line, but there is also a curvature at the corner of the sole which may or may not touch the line itself. With such fine detail and angle of view, neither the service judge nor the umpire are the person to make such a call.
     
    stradrider likes this.
  8. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    40,933
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    I would expect the service judge to call if the server steps on the service line, and similarly for the umpire to call if the receiver steps on the service line.

    They are both in a reasonable angle and since it is not possible for the sole to slide from the static ready position, they can easily pay attention to that.
     
    stradrider likes this.
  9. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    Yes, it's true umpire have to watch the receiver, but it is also responsibility of the umpire to call a foot fault if server stays on the line on the far side from the service judge. In fact during the serve, umpire must see both server and receiver at the same time as only that way you can judge if the receiver's fault was done after start of serving but before it was delivered.

    Most of the time, if server stays on the line on the umpire side, he would do it already in the preparation, so the umpire can usually already expect there is going to be a fault before serve.
     
    kwun likes this.
  10. speCulatius

    speCulatius Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Location:
    'round here....
    Well... the service judge didn't call the fault. Three times. (Everytime the serve came from the side closer to the umpire.)

    The service judge now has to focus on the device close to the eyes and the shuttle at the same time already. How can s*he be responsible for the foot as well? Let alone that the angle is less than ideal?

    Let's assume the Chinese pair had won that game 21:19 instead of the other way around. Then they win the third game against a (rightfully) frustrated Japanese pair. All of that after the commentators talked about the missed calls three times, both agreeing in all three cases.
    Now it's about money (directly and indirectly via sponsors), prestige, rankings, ....

    If you don't like the idea to give the responsibility to a line judge, please either say clearly that you don't see a problem when in almost 10% of the rallies calls are missed or tell me what your solution would be.

    That specific line judge only has any responsibility during a serve from the opposite side. Adding the responsibility for the foot on his line as well, would still only give the responsibility for one shot of each rally. A lot less than any other line judge. Brief them to only call it when they're sure. Make it reviewable to protect them. Replace them with officials rather than volunteers. I think anything would be better than potentially changing the outcome of a match with missed calls that even the commentators seem to be fairly certain about.
    Or at least automate the fixed height rule enforcement (Hawkeye should be capable of that in [what they would call] realtime), this would free up the service judge's vision and focus. The position is still not ideal, but it would be better than it is now.

    We have seen that in a significant amount of rallies, calls were missed. Why do you not see that as a problem?
     
    s_mair likes this.
  11. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    Sorry, I don't really see it as a problem in the system. Laws should be applied fairly for the benefit of the game and fairness. To say the truth, I can't even see ANY advantage for the player for touching the line and loosing the point for barely touching it is a very harsh penalty. I understand you really wanted the faulty side to loose but that's not a good enough argument for faulting ether, sorry :).

    I highly respect the commentators in badminton but they were great players and coaches and not professional umpires and I have seen they gave an incorrect information a few times. I would not use their critique as a final word.

    Again, line judges will not be able to give faults to the players it just not worth even discussing. You would see how funny is the idea if you ever had to umpire with line judges but just to say - on most international tournaments there is only one team of professional line judges that are invited mainly to have good judging for the finals. Rest of line judges (and you need lots of them for the whole tournament) are random people - usually just some players from the local club but often even not players at all.

    What I do agree that it is not ok for the service judge not to pay attention on the other faults when using the height device. It is not that difficult in my opinion and surely not more difficult then giving receiver faults as an umpire. I did see that happen too and can agree that other faults should be called properly even when using the height device.
     
    khoai likes this.
  12. speCulatius

    speCulatius Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Location:
    'round here....
    Losing the point for barely hitting out (maybe even within the tolerances of Hawkeye) is a harsh penalty. That's the same argument.

    Why would there be this rule? A rule with a very clear line. Pun intended. It's not a judgement call.
    That's you being passive aggressive. I watched the game knowing the outcome, because I was told it was worth it. No bias/rooting for anybody.
    Neither do I. But in these circumstances, if the Chinese had won, it would (and should!) be a scandal questioning the neutrality of officiating.
    Your view doesn't help to take away fuel from that argument.
    The line judge is in the best position. to see it. It's an easier call than saying if the shuttle was in or out. So what is your argument?
    I made suggestions on how to handle all the other problems you mentioned.
    Do you have experience in both? I have a hard time seeing how a device that you need to pay attention to in front of your face doesn't (literally) tale focus away from the player.
    I cannot really blame the service judge here, that's why I'm suggesting other solutions.

    So you're saying it's only the service judges fault?
    Or do you really not see a problem with matches potentially going the other way solely due to missed calls?

    I don't get any clear reply from you other that all my arguments are "clearly" wrong without laying out yours. Your only contribution is adding passive aggressive vibes. That's not helpful.
     
  13. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    Yes, the same argument. And when it is so close that there is almost no difference even IRS system cannot be absolutely perfect and there can be very close calls that might completely change the result of the match. Can you except that may be another player should have won the rally and it wasn't absolutely perfect call by IRS?
    I was kind of teasing you in a friendly way. If you feel it wasn't friendly I take it back.
    I don't see any scandal there. The touching was very minimal on the border of not being a fault / difference of a viewing angle. And since the player was not getting any advantage by touching the line, there is no reason to complain. If you read the rules carefully they never talk about "super perfect" judging. What the rules say that judging should be impartial, fair and equal for both players. The correct call is the one where the umpire "absolutely sure", not the one that is a "absolutely perfectl". There is always going to be some difference because of the human factor / viewing angle / reaction time but as long the umpire judges fairly and equally both sides it is in accordance with the definition of fairness.
    My argument that an umpire and service judge should be able to perfectly handle the situation. Delegating faults to line judges is not a solution at all and will bring so many problems you cannot imagine. In my opinion, you trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
    Yes I did - it is harder to see the feet but not impossible..
    I am trying to bring out an idea that the perfect judging is not when it is perfect from all the angles and from the tv screen. Perfect judging is when it is impartial, consistent no mater who are the players and follows the spirit of the game.
     
    khoai likes this.
  14. speCulatius

    speCulatius Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Location:
    'round here....
    I never said there must be perfect calls all the time. That's not realistic. What I do not understand it's why umpire and service judge are put in a position where it's basically impossible to enforce this rule. Why they're put in a position where people could accuse them of "fixing" a match? That's not good for them. That's not good for the sport.
    That's right. In this case, I honestly cannot imagine problems that are added to the existing problems. It's an easier call. There is no other responsibility during that rally. S*He's in the best position. It's called line judge, not in-ot-out-judge, so even the title allows it.
    Also, I did make suggestions how that problem could be addressed if there's issues.
    In that case it's easy. If there's no advantage to be gained, get rid of the rule. Of course there's an advantage of standing as close as possible in that corner. How can you be sure that there was no advantage? Is there no advantage in serving just a few cm higher?

    That's why you're not interested in a solution. Let's see how it goes when a result goes the other way, players lose money, lose a spot for the olympics, people who bet lose money, the umpire and service judge are accused of fixing the match, .... I agree that it was not a problem in this match, I implied that at the very beginning. I disagree that it couldn't bring significant issues.
     
  15. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    Sorry I was not more supportive of your suggestion.
     
  16. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    Just to add one more detail from the point of view of an umpire...

    Big part of the good umpiring is in fact avoiding giving faults when the first reaction is that it's a clear fault, but then when you start inspecting it closely you realize it's not. It's really really hard. In the photo you posted - first instinct it is a clear fault, but remember - only touching the line on the floor is a fault, leaning above the line is not - so in my opinion even on the photo from a perfect angle it still does not prove there was a fault there... The sole of the feet is very possibly not touching and it is only view angle and shadow make it seem it does.

    In my opinion, the situation you showed can be an example of a perfectly done umpire / service judge work instead of a mistake as some people might think..
     
    speCulatius likes this.
  17. speCulatius

    speCulatius Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Location:
    'round here....
    I like this part.
    It's not a photo. It's an insane crop from a YouTube video. If you really expect that to prove anything clearly, you overestimate the amount of data it can carry.

    Obviously you did admit that a person with this angle would be better to judge it than both officials next to the court.

    I rest my case. You don't see a problem with missed calls, so you're not interested in discussing possible solutions. I made several suggestions how to deal with it. Badminton has a clean image and rather clear rules for the most part that are fairly easy to enforce. Not putting people in the right spot to do it is... failure to take advantage of that. It could be addressed. In my opinion, it should be, before it changes the outcome of a match. The rules are there for a reason.
     
  18. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    You are the one trying to prove that there was a missed fault using the photo (ok, let's call it insane crop). I am just saying that I don't see a proof that the system failing as it is and also believe that what you are suggesting is going to have problems. It's not personal, just business :D.
     
    #38 stradrider, Mar 25, 2022
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2022
  19. speCulatius

    speCulatius Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Location:
    'round here....
    Where did I say it was proof? I also mentioned that people with a better angle agreed on it. If it had only been for the video, I would not have mentioned it. But good to know that you seem to think you know my thoughts better than I do. Also from the picture: I'd be very surprised if the commentators were both wrong.

    Like I said before, you don't see a problem, so you ignore most of my suggestions.

    And I won't feel for you if people get mad at you when you miss obvious calls because you cannot see it.

    I don't think it's a good idea to try to enforce rules when you're not willing to put people in a good position to do so. Small changes could achieve that. Like I also said before, it wouldn't have to be line judges if you don't trust them with an easier call than what they have to do anyway... but then, why have them at all and not just let Hawkeye make the close calls?

    All those questions are rhetorical, no need to reply!
     
  20. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Norway
    Your condescending tone despite accusing me of of being aggressive is hypocritical. You think that because you are in company of the commentators it gives you some kind of superiority knowing what's best.

    I was trying to be polite but since you are not trying yourself, blunt it is...

    Not only that you lack knowledge in officiating of badminton and your suggestions are not based on reality. The "problem" that you think you found is not even remotely a problem as there is no importance to the the center line and no advantage to a player if standing on it. The rule is needed to define where the player should be while serving, but there is no need to reinforce it as perfectly as you suggest.

    This is my last reply, don't worry.
     
    khoai likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page