Poor officiating: XD Den vs Pol: Pedersen takes shuttle off the floor and wins point

Discussion in 'Olympics 2016 - RIO' started by jjashik, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    Well, not having seen the shot in question, the Umpire behaved correctly - but how he could not have seen that is beyond me. It was clear as day that she took it after bouncing, and if you cant follow the high speeds of world class badminton, you shouldnt be an umpire in world class badminton! Not that this was high speed, mind you. Simple inattention.
     
  2. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    41,043
    Likes Received:
    2,066
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    and meanwhile, in tennis....

     
    Rob3rt, s_mair, nokh88 and 2 others like this.
  3. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    124
    Location:
    United States
    And he stopped Venus Williams from her 5th gold medal and winning a gold in every event today by beating her in the XD Finals.
     
    kwun likes this.
  4. FeatherBlaster

    FeatherBlaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Denmark
    So tell me:

    1) The shuttle hits the floor before you strike it, ref doesn't see it, you play on.

    2) You take a swing at the shuttle, misses (but hit it slightly), the shuttle proceeds to just a few millimeters outside the line. It's possible that your (intended) hit affected the path. Ref misses it, and you take the point.

    3) A very hard flat drive touch your hair, clothes or arm, and proceeds over the backline. Ref misses it, you say nothing even though you opponent objects.

    4) You let a shuttle drop thinking it's out. It lands clearly inside the line. Ref calls it out. You pick up the point, knowing that the call was wrong.
    4B) If you play on a court with hawkeye, you rutinely fist pump and scream "Soooo!" to lure your opponent into not calling a challenge.

    Which of the above scenarios are OK and accepted. Which are really bad to a degree where internet debaters should start consistently applying nicknames and whishing "justice to be done" so the player loose all matches.

    Would it make any difference if your opponent had pulled one from the list before you?
     
  5. FeatherBlaster

    FeatherBlaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Denmark
    Clearly Petersen pulled #1 in that match.

    But opponents had already pulled a number #2, and Petersen's explaination to the Danish media's question about the incident, was something like this:

    "Surely the Polish player would not had given us the point in the mirror situation. He had already show that in the first set."

    "We have highly skilled referees, and if we stick to their calls in all situations, these errors will even out over time."

    Well, personally I'd not have gone for that point. Infact not for any point from my list. But I think I might be able to go for #4 over time (not 4B though), if I had been on the receiving side of errors. I think it's difficult for an amateur to view this from a pro perspective.
    If I played for a living, and I came across opponents that often took points in these situations, I might be tempted to adobt Petersen's point of view.

    Surely, in women's doubles #4 and #4B is the norm.

    In fact, I forgot to add:

    4C) Rutinely and immediately fist pump and scream on all opponent shots that hits the line, to affect referees.

    This is seen SO often in WD, and only rarely triggers a warning from the chair ref. (It should, you're not allowed to apply pressure on the line ref in this manner).
     
  6. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    The difference between #1 and #2/#3 is that #1 can never ever happen to you without you noticing. It results in a radically different shuttle flight, since it is on its way up already from the bounce, and anyone on a decent playing level should be able to see it regardless.
    Arguing that errors even out over time is a weak excuse, trying to push the responsibility of acting fair onto the refs. Other players manage to behave fairly, even though they want to win, so dont give me the bullshit 'its a competitive sport' excuse either.
    The question for everyone is where you draw the line, but if this isnt over the line for you, you probably think giving wrong calls on whether the shuttle was out is okay and just a way to win as well.
    I want to win my matches very badly as well, but I'm actually incapable of behaving this way. Even if tempted against some opponents, I just cant give wrong calls or pretend the shuttle never touched me or the floor. It just goes against decency and all principles of fairness and honest competition the sport stands for.
     
  7. FeatherBlaster

    FeatherBlaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Denmark
    Neither can #2, and most of the time the same goes for #3 and #4.

    But I feel your point is, that since you COULD be in a situation where you wasn't aware of your own fault, in situations #2 through #4, then its OK to "cheat" with it?? Makes no sense. There is NO difference between those situations, in the case where you knowingly do not rule against yourself.


    Well, yes and no.

    In a perfect world, you're right. If all players called faults on themselves (like they do in snooker and golf), then you're right.

    But as soon as that doesn't happen (and clearly more than 50% of all professional players have problems behaving ethically in some of the situations I described), THEN the only way to ensure that things even out, is by putting the decision in the hands of the ref. Otherwise, the "good" players will consistently loose points to the "bad" players.

    It's simple game theory - and you end up at the least favorable outcome.

    Example:


    I take it, that you think Hurskainen is an idiot here (I actually think he should have given the point back by serving in the net).

    So, if Leverdez later in the game, got a call going his way - I simply cannot help to think like Petersen and say, f*** it - I got one in the bank, if the ref calls t, I'm keeping the point.

    Problem is, that there's the added bonus of tilting your opponent in these situations. Something a lot of players also like to gain benefit from.

    And you see this game back and forth... Players know that Petersen lately has started to serve a bit slow (she did that because it gave her better consistency). They turn it around and use it to their advantage, by making sure they are suddenly not ready when she's serving. You saw that in both group matches at the Olympics. The Polish players took long to get ready (got warned). Adcock was ready, then looked down just as Petersen started her serve - on two occasions. One of them, Petersen server anyway, to show the ref, that she was ready, and that it was not her who was stalling. She got warned for serving while Adcock was not ready to receive. It's mindgames, you have it on all levels, but some players are doing it more than others. Boe is the Danish champion here, and all the Asian people (and you) in here are giving him a very hard time for it. While no one seems to care when Japanese womens doubles consistently scream to affect line refs, or Chen Long consequently dictates the pace of the game by not being ready to receive in close matches when hes pushed hard. (look at his World Championship semi and final from Copenhagen, constently with an arm in the air when receiving).

    Different players are doing different things in this department, and it seems that cultural differences apply, in regards to what's deemed OK and what's not. (The primary example being Chinese players loosing on purpose, I know that Danes have a REALLY hard time with that, where as most Chinese blame it on the tournament system saying they are just maximizing their chances of winning, its part of the game).
     
  8. FeatherBlaster

    FeatherBlaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Denmark
    Just to make sure no one misunderstands... I have no problem with Chen Long at all. I just wish that fans could see things in a broader perspective, instead of going all black/white in these discussions and their view on the players.

    As for Chen Long, remember, he was the one that gave us this hilarious way of dealing with strange referee calls. Gotta love him for that.

     
    jjashik, kwun and j4ckie like this.
  9. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    Both #2 and #3 have happened to me without me noticing. Several times. It's possible to touch the shuttle so lightly that there's no feedback through your racket - while at the same time it's also possible to just create a draft that causes the shuttle to wobble like you touched it, which might cause an opponent to mistakenly assume you touched it. Same goes for clothes, but those never give 'feedback' when a shuttle touches them, so a loose edge of your shirt touching the shuttle is all but unnoticable unless you see how the shuttle gets disturbed by it or it just touches your body directly (if it touches the shirt strongly enough to drag the shirt in some fashion, it will not fly on. That is not "missable"). Prime example for #3 happening without the player noticing is the 2012 OG MD finals, where at some point Cai Yun's shirt touches a shuttle very lightly, and it goes out afterwards. No one except Boe/Mogensen saw that it touched him (or believed, as I doubt they actually 100% saw it), and the point was given to the Chinese. Watching the slow-mo replay, you can see the shuttle wobble a tiny bit, just once....and watching the stream and seeing the slow-mo just once, I had been entirely convinced that CY actually didnt touch the shuttle and BoMo were just on another of their "I'm infallible" power trips they were prone to having back then.

    #4 is debatable, since there's a drastic difference between a fast shot going across the line and a shuttle dropping down vertically - line calls are very hard for the first scenario, and players tend to believe more than see what happened in that type of situation. I've been entirely convinced of a shuttle falling in my favor before, and seen video proof afterwards that I was wrong.
    Around here, I know few players who intentionally deceive, though. Some are very very annoying with how strongly they believe every close call is in their favor, but only a handful actually deceive intentionally, and everybody hates them. (Although not just for that, but things like that aren't coincidence. Someone who lies on line calls is always, always an *******.)

    Hurskainen is a tool in that situation. Should've told the ref what happened. I've been in that situation before, with my opponent not even noticing my shot was out, and told them. This is disgraceful. Close calls, one things, blatant mis-calls like these....come on. Get some balls and tell the umpire your shot was out.

    If I notice an opponent doing things like these on purpose, I might retaliate in some fashion - not behaving as 'correct' as I usually would, if you will, celebrating more vocally and the like. However, lying on these matters is a line I will not and have never crossed. It undermines my own integrity, and even against the worst asshat of an opponent, I am still solely responsible for my own actions, and I personally consider lying to get a point a huge offense.



    Regarding the serve - you can't tell me that's not a tactical ploy by her. Nobody needs 10 seconds after getting into the ready position to concentrate. If you need to focus hard, to it before you get into the ready position, that way you won't cause your opponents the discomfort of waiting for you to serve for such a long time. Or, if you do this, dont be surprised when they turn that little bit of gamesmanship against you. While I'm not a fan of the Adcocks, I'm behind them on this one (assuming it played out the usual way, Pedersen taking about 10s to serve after getting into the ready position - I haven't actually seen the match, so it's an assumption based on what I've witnessed of all players involved).

    While I personally hate players that do this type of s**t, I know that that is a pet peeve and my feelings are stronger than average/reasonable on that matter, and I try (hopefully successfully) to separate those feelings from my actions. If I notice I'm getting disturbed by such a tactical play in a match, I'll tell the opponent to not take as long, and if he doesn't change anything, do what I assume the Adcocks did and turn it on them by getting out of my receiving 'ready' position after 5 seconds or so.
     
  10. Justin L

    Justin L Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    51,457
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Location:
    Citizen of The World
    Yup, I remember that one, Chen Long's great sense of humour, and he's made a good point too, got to love this guy.
     

Share This Page