The problem is it's still somewhat arbitrary how many times an umpire should say 'play' and in how many seconds interval as being human some are more patient and lenient while others impatient and strict. Going by such a subjective rule, in today's Viktor Axelsen match with Tian Houwei in the SSF , when Hawk-Eye already showed the shuttle was in but VA just couldn't believe it, refused to accept it and continued directing his protest to the tournament referee seated at their bench while ignoring the number of times the umpire was calling out to him (4 times ?) - wouldn't he be red-carded ? But as we know, the umpire let him off after only a verbal warning and the game proceeded. I mean rules are rules, or laws for that matter, but that doesn't mean there is no human side to it, the technicality of implementing it isn't perfect, that's why we engage lawyers/attorneys to argue our case in court, esp when it gives rise to somewhat differing interpretations for which the judges have to consider also the attenuating circumstances. Luckily badminton matches are not a life and death matter, so it's sometimes a matter of luck which umpire is on duty and his or her predisposition affects how strict or lax they choose to interpret and implement the subjective rules as opposed to objective ones such as whether a shot is in or out as called by the linejudges for which IRS (Hawk-Eye) where available can be called upon to arbitrate, otherwise the umpire will have to exercise their judgement in the case of a dispute. In life, there are always grey areas where a certain degree of latitude are exercised by those in authority according to their understanding, beliefs, competency, motives or even whims and fancies. Whatever it is, it depends on the person in charge and how we view him or her and what actions we can take to address the issue in any given situation. At times, even the same authority or umpire, in our case, can be inconsistent in their decision-making. I supposed that's life, you win some, you lose some.
I don't think you really got my point. I'm all in agreement with you, that umpires must show understanding for the situation, and sometimes be more strict or more lenient. BUT, there's a big difference depending on the reason for stalling, and the reason why the umpire has to say "Play". If the reason is, that the player is trying to buy time to gain an unfair advantage, the umpire should definitely not be lenient (unless players have just played a 50+ shot rally, or it's the first time the player is stalling, etc.). In the case of Axelsen today, that was clearly not the case (at that point you mention - it's at 4-5 first set!), it was a very special situation with the HawkEye not working right (I wonder why no-one mentioned the very clear HawkEye error we saw earlier, where the same shot and ruling was run twice!?). But anyway, once the umpire has made up his mind, that play must continue, he/she says "Play" - and players are expected to resume play. On that note, I think it would have been OK to hand Axelsen a YELLOW card (you don't get immediate red card) if he didn't resume play on the 2nd or 3rd "Play"... The real problem here is, that it seems to be up to each umpire, to decide how arbitrary they want their leniency to be... It would be very easy (and IMHO a good idea), if the BWF issued GUIDELINES here - on normal rulings and on when to allow leniency to the players, and how much. ALSO it would be perfect, if umpires learned, that calling someone to the ladder, to discuss with them that it's not OK they're buying time, is only making the problem worse (because they get exactly what they want, and they simply don't care for the lecture). That's outright stupid. So, my suggestion was: For players that are UNREASONABLY BUYING TIME, umpires should be instructed to only ask them to "Play" a certain amount of times, then hand a yellow card, then if repeating the offense, hand a red card. Don't start discussing with the player who try to buy time, they'll only get more out of their gamesmanship.
BTW: The umpire only said "Play" one time to Viktor. She did call for him, to not discuss with the HawkEye people and come to the chair - but she only called "Play" once, then said the score, and the match continued. I'm really in doubt about this whole HawkEye system going automatic, we've seen a number of errors now, and I strongly hope that BWF will review each ruling afterwards, manually going over the footage. Also it seems that it's possible to make errors operating the system (like the one where the same shot was run twice, and there's a 50/50 chance that the 2nd ruling was wrong). I know some players don't really trust the system 100%, which is why you see them spend all their challenges, even at shots they don't think is wrongly judged - but they feel that there's a chance it would be judged wrong. Perhaps quality is better at automatic? Perhaps it is worse? One thing automation achieves however, is impartiality. No judges being accused of having vested interests in the players, being overly nationalistic, etc. And in the long run, it's even for all.
Still your suggestion which looks simple and clear-cut on paper doesn't solve the problem of subjectivity of how many 'play' calls should be made after how many seconds interval unless the player obviously crossed the red line that no reasonable umpire will tolerate. Practically, it will still result in different umpires being seen as more lenient or stricter than the other. But , I agree, having proper and clear guidelines is better than not, to minimise the problem as much as humanly possible. That's why we rather trust technology, despite its current limitations, than humans who make errors regardless intentionally or not. The number of Hawk-Eye errors is so low the benefits of its use far outweigh the cost or disadvantages of not having it, for sure, no question about it. In Axelsen's case, the fact that the umpire had to call his attention so many times and ignored is sufficient reason to issue a yellow card whether she said 'play' or not, the difference is immaterial, like splitting hairs. However, I'd give Axelsen some leeway as a natural reaction of expressing disbelief but only up to a point, again it's a subjective decision. I guess we've no choice but to accept whoever umpire is on duty, give and take his disposition. On a side note, if technology one day is capable of taking over the umpire's job, I believe we will not hesitate to use it, apart from cost considerations. I even hope for the not too distant future when Hawk-Eye can do its job much more affordably and to a remarkably high degree of accuracy, say 99.5% , and that in an instant as to allow us to do away with linejudges. Hopefully, a technological solution can also be found for service judge as well. Not a dream, a matter of time.
