As Ajay Jayaram pointed out, it can't 'help to avoid players from cheating' because any player who intends to cheat can still just finish the match without trying hard.
Correct I agreed with what you said. Ajay Jayaram has pointed it out so boviously. Players who intends to cheat can just lose the match without even trying to win.
But cheating (= deciding the winner by non-sports means) is not the main problem this rule wants to avoid! That's already handled by §4.5 of the Player's Code of Conduct. If a player makes obvious mistakes (serves into the net, does not move like they could), then they will face serious penalties, including a black card, as we have seen at the WD scandal at the London Olympics 2012. A player who wants to lose is playing a different game: The aim is now not to score points, but to appear engaged in the match. That's hard, doubly so if the player actually wants to win, but their federation wants them to lose. Most players losing intentionally will thus still win quite a few points, especially if routine sets in and they are playing actual rallies. Therefore, the pre-decided winner will have played a full match. Sure, it will have (most likely) been easier than the corresponding match of the opponent they want to beat in the next round, but the exhaustion will be comparable. Therefore, even if the federation decides the winner, the winner will not have an advantage (in form of a rest day) over their next opponent. And that is the real problem of resigning against teammates.
I agree with some of this. However, the black card at the London Olympics was a very special case because both pairs in each match had an incentive to lose. There have been insinuations about another match at the same Olympics but in that case, only one side had an incentive to lose and there was no way to make a case for disciplining players. Certainly, as the cases addressed by rule 4.4 only involve compatriots, we can be sure that there will never be a circumstance when opposing players from the same MA have an incentive to lose, particularly given that this rule is predicated on the notion that certain matches between compatriots are decreed to have a certain winner by decision amongst the players or by order of coaches, etc. In a normal world-class badminton match, if your opponent wants to win, you can keep from winning yourself by simply not trying hard. Serves into the net are completely unnecessary and hence there is little risk of a black card, regardless of Rule 4.5. The BWF introduced 'firm measures' way back in 2011 but there has never been a public case of disciplinary action being taken, apart from the London black swan event. Avoiding exhaustion is one issue but is it the only one? When Li Yongbo supposedly admitted to telling Zhou Mi to lose to Zhang Ning in Athens, the reason given was that Zhang seemed more likely to beat Mia Audina, so it was a combination of fatigue and also of one desired winner. When Gil Young Ah and Kim Dong Moon were asked to lose to Park Joo Bong and partner, it was to ensure the latter's ranking went up fast enough that they would qualify for Atlanta. Accusations about supposed moves to help Chen Jin qualify for London claim similar motives, though this is mere speculation. Now, if you're expressing an opinion that engineered ranking points do not involve as much injustice as a rested player having an advantage over their next opponent, fair enough. I believe that opinion might be shared by a lot of people who think China has been unfairly constrained from sending excellent players to the Worlds and Olympics. Also, the team-mates' ranking points issue is really only important in Olympic years, whereas the stamina problem you single out is one that continues for all four years in the cycle. So again, fair enough. I have heard complaints from those skeptical of players withdrawing from finals, with accusations of made-up injuries or illnesses. However, spectators have apparently also voiced displeasure at matches where they felt the players were not playing to win.
@event There is also another incident about Ye Zhaoying being told to purposely lose her WS match to Gong Zhichao at the 2000 Olympics semifinals too.
Although it is very dificult for us to say who is at fault for the London Olympics 2012 fiasco it looks like both Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli have been given orders by Li Yongbo to purposely lose their match on the third day to avoid playing with their own team mates. This happened because Tian Qing / Zhao Yunlei suddenly lose a match that both of them are supposed to win on the third day resulting in them being runner up and not topping the group. Due to that the runner of the group match will face the winner of the other group match. In order to avoid Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli from playing with Tian Qing / Zhao Yunlei, Yu Yang Wang Xiaoli must be second in the group. If both the China WD are second in the group they can avoid meeting each other in the quarter finals. So due to that, both Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli have been given orders to throw away their match and purposely lose their match on the third day by Li Yongbo. What a fiasco indeed as this incident has resulted in 4 WD pairs being blacklisted in London Olympics 2012.
Orders by Li Yongbo? That is preposterous. Not only does that theory assume that Wang and Yu are morons but it also implies that Jung/Kim's reason for also trying to lose was merely to foil the Chinese plan. No Korean pair had ever beaten Tian/Zhao up until that point and it is clear from the performance that Jung/Kim had no interest in winning a match that would send them up against Tian and Zhao in the SF. The exact same motivation can be seen in the next match. Since the other two pairs were not yet disqualified, the winner between Ha/Kim and Jauhari/Polii was doomed to play Wang/Yu in the QF and neither wanted that. Kim Min Jung blamed the BWF's chosen tournament structure and felt she had no choice because an outcome that put her in the QF against the Chinese was the worst thing for her chances at a medal. Yes, it's true that Wang/Yu was the only pair with a winning record against Tian/Zhao so they had the least to fear but Tian/Zhao had also beaten them at the All England and the Asian Games so if there was any pair in London that Wang/Yu were worried might beat them, it was Tian/Zhao. In short, all 8 players had exactly the same motivation. If it had all been Li Yongbo's idea, the Koreans would just have beaten Wang/Yu and life would have gone on.
The reason behind it is very simple. If there are 2 China WD in the QF, the chances of China winning 2 medals from WD will increase. Hence Li Yongbo actually wanted both Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli and Tian Qing / Zhao Yunlei to advance to play in the semi finals. In order for both his WD players to advance to the semifinals, they must both avoid playing with each other in the QF. However, if Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli topped the group match that means they have to play versus Tian Qing / Zhou Yunlei in the QF which Li Yongbo wanted to avoid at all cause. Hence throwing away the match by purposely losing on the third day of the match by Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli cannot be avoided. All the fiasco could have been avoided if Tian Qing / Zhao Yunlei top the group match and won their match on the third day. However, both Tian Qing / Zhao Yunlei lost the match surprisingly. So Li Yongbo had no choie but to give orders to Yu Yang / Wang Xiaoli to purposely throw away and lose their match on the third day.
@phihag So what do you think will be the best solution to prevent players from retiring against their own team mates?
I am not sure I understand the question. The current rule of not awarding WR points seems to be quite effective. In addition, referees should (and as far as I know do) pay close attention on all matches where one athlete retires (or competes significantly below what is expected) against a teammate from the same country or club. I am unaware of any matches with questionable injuries or results in the recent months. Therefore, the current state seems to be great - no change needed. Ajay Jayaram is an unfortunate case. The situation is partially his fault for not reading this thread. Maybe it would be a good idea to allow players to petition the BWF to make an exception and reinstate their WR points just this one time.
I agred with what you have said. But @phihag Lets just say someone play but never try hard to win the match against their own team mates how can the umpire detect it? How can the umpire know the player is not trying hard enough to win?
@phihag I think a lot of cheating cases or retiring against own team mates have been undetected because the player may have just play as normal but did not try to win. How can the umpire know this? I believe that lots of cheating ir trying hard to lose the match by not winning the match against their own team mates comes undetected.
@phihag Take for example in the recently concluded RIo Olympics 2016, Zhang Nan / Zhao Yunlei won over Xu Chen / Ma Jin in the bronze medal playoff with the score of 21-7, 21-11. Can you detect any elements of cheating here?
First of all, handling exceptionally bad play or resigning should be the task of the referees, not the umpire - although if it's glaringly obvious, the umpire should certainly talk to the players, and call the referee during as well as after the match. As I wrote above, losing intentionally is not actually that easy. From watching the match: None at all. With a head-to-head of 23:3, Zhang Nan and Zhao Yunlei winning is also the expected result! Just from the situation, I think it's extremely unlikely that this match result is irregular. What would be the motivation to lose in an Olympic final (even if just bronze)? For the federation and coaches, it does not matter at all which pair wins, they'll get credited just the same. For the players, if they reach bronze, they are celebrated as heroes, and otherwise labeled as losers (ok, that may depend a lot on the country). So an Olympic final is actually the most unlikely situation in which one could lose intentionally. Why do you think otherwise? No offense, but your post sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence at all? Who do you think would be motivating this (federation or coaches, or even players? For a lot of players, that sounds highly unlikely). If there are plenty of instances, can you name the 10 most egregious in the last months? Why don't we see complaints from the other players/coaches/federations/TOs, as we did before the BWF rule change? Most athletes I know want to play good Badminton and want to win, especially against team mates. Without this drive to win, I believe it is hard to reach any top level. For most matches between two players from the same federation/club, neither federation nor coaches do care which side wins. Directing one side to lose also comes with significant risks of those players disobeying or whistleblowing. The players themselves have absolutely no motivation to ever lose, as doing so would not only reduce their standing in the tournament/potential prize money, but may also hamper them psychologically in future matches.
@phihag Zhang Nan / Zhao Yunlei won over Xu Chen / Ma Jin in the bronze medal playoff with the score of 21-7, 21-11. Can you detect any elements of cheating here? I know that the h2h as pointed out is very obvious. Zhang Nan / Zhao Yunlei should win the match. But looking at the scores of the match, I was thinking that Xu Chen / Ma Jin is not even trying hard enough to win the match. I feel that it is impossible for Xu Chen / Ma Jin to lose with such bad scores.
Okay I am replying to the first question in bold. (why do you think otherwise)? Do you have any evidence? So below is what I think and the evidence. Sorry no effoense intended here. I am talking in the sense that both XD players are from China. So whoever win that bronze medal play off match, it is no longer that important anymore as China will still get 1 bronze medals. So I was just thinking that perhaps coaches may have given order that Zhang Nan / Zhao Yunlei should win the match and Xu Chen / Ma Jin should lose the match. I know that h2h has poined out of Zhang Nan / Zhao Yunlei win over them is obvious. I am merely stating that the score itself 21-7, 21-11 proves fishy. It is like Xu Chen / Ma Jin is not trying at all to win the match. @phihag
If that is your evidence, it is extremely spotty. First of all, the score does not matter in a KO match - if someone were cheating, why wouldn't they have played better if the result is still the same? At the very least, one could use it as a good training match. Secondly, if one side figures out the other side's play, or is just technically better, or the other side has some disadvantage, 21-7 21-11 is certainly not unusual. In this match, Zhang Nan and Zhao Yunlei were ruthlessly effective in getting the attack. Thirdly, if you look at the actual match, Xu Chen and Ma Jin are playing with total commitment, diving around court and the like. In the end, sorry, but your theory of cheating in this match seems extremely dubious to me, even when compared to traditional conspiracy theories like a faked moon landing. I saw a match with a one-sided result, but still with very good rallies from both sides.
Precisely! But why? As I wrote above, the coaches would risk a lot by giving such an order. They would not gain anything! The players would risk a lot by following the order (both could get disqualified later). The losing side would lose a lot of financial, recognition, and other benefits, so they are strongly motivated to play their best. At the end of their careers, whistleblowing is also becoming easier.
