How can it be a Chinese conspiracy when the second example from the tournament (post #15) has a Chinese player, He Bingjiao, suffer the same error that the Japanese did?
C'mon guys, you should really watch the video of HBJ vs PVS first before rushing to comment. Do you know who the umpire is? He's Iranian, Mohammed Hossein Zadeh. Why does it matter where he's from? Had he been from India then we can say there's conflict of interest and state conspiracy theories as him possibly siding with PVS. But as it is, he's just inept. There is a very significant difference.
The benefited party was CHN WD pair. The lineman was from CHN. The umpire was from CHN. The tournament was held in China. The victims are JPN WD in particular and badminton in general. It's a conspiracy.
definitely something very fishy was going on........ very very disappointed, not going to watch games held in china any more...
It does not matter if line judge is local or not, all technical officials have a code of conduct to follow, to be neutral. It is only to avoid potential "home" bias that umpires that are not from that country are appointed for matches. It will be almost impossible to find line judges from other countries to be on all courts. And therefore the bias cannot be completely avoided. The instant review system (a-k-a HawkEye technology) is not for countering the local bias, it is to arrive at correct outcome (unless it also cannot). This is where the situations turned out the way they did. Umpires must know the law. Umpires must also anticipate player challenge after each rally. It is extremely helpful if the umpire also knows the game - that is, player tactics, and follows the recommendations (for overrule, challenge, etc). In the Womens doubles, it appears that the umpire did not know the law. The end of the game was announced. Perhaps that is why the referee when he arrived on court did not correct, it would have made everyone look silly. Ego before spirit. In the Womens singles, it appears that the umpire either did not know the law, did not anticipate player challenge, nor know how the game was unfolding. The recommendations (RTTO) requires umpire to ensure player had valid right to challenge, which in both matches, the respective players had, and that the player clearly said 'challenge, or make clear signal by raising arm. If the umpire did not see this, or hear, then, well, that is most likely cause. Mistakes will happen, people blink, it is a natural physiological response, what is critical is that having all these laws and recommendations and technology, should be properly used. The court is not the place to train umpires, the challenge court especially is vulnerable. This is so easy to correct off the court, with a slight tweak in the mechanics of operation to focus on key aspects. Deputy or not, they all are equally in charge. The role of the referee is also specified in the recommendations (see 6.2) Specifically, it is "... the referee shall supersede the line call by the line judge or the overrule by the Umpire if challenged by a player / pair where an Instant Review System is in operation." In both matches, the respective umpires did not ensure the player had challenged. This is not in keeping with Law 17.6.1 of upholding and enforcing the Laws of Badminton ... The referee could have intervened, only on matter of law; so he stuck with knowing the law part of the book. In the womens singles, since there was no challenge, the hawkeye was not used, that is Law 17.5.2 not invoked. In the womens doubles, again, challenge not ensured, so Law 17.5.2 not invoked. So when the deputy came on court, during the exceptionally long interval, his body language with hands tied in the back, is what he most likely told the umpire. When the player/s were not satisfied by the challenge appeal that they had made in keeping with the laws, the umpire/s failed to follow another section of the law - 17.6.8 refer to the Referee all unsatisfied appeals on questions of law only. (Such appeals must be made before the next service is delivered or ...) So in these two situations, even though the line call started the situation in the first instance, at the corrective step, we have umpires either not knowing the law, or loosing concentration, and the referee knowing the laws, and all of them not going with the spirit of the game. Any referee taking pride in wearing their red shirt would have come on the court and corrected the obvious misapplication of the laws; s/he is in overall charge. Here, we have players presenting situations where the umpire, and then the referee crew, had a chance to shine. ¡Qué lastima! Recall the referee at the London 2012 Summer Games, when he rescinded the DQ, that is, he corrected himself?
