its grey because it can go unpunished. black and white is - they either enforce it or they dont. if there is doubt of when a rule is enforced it can be termed grey. im sure someone could push 4.1.2 and 4.6. until they were punished, but they dont know that limit, so its grey. if you false start in 100m youre DQ - that is black and white. no interpretation or subjectivity. i got to the context of the example in the end. i was just providing extra examples of greyness.
Breaking best efforts/sport-disrepute rules has never gone unpunished before due to the fact no case has been proven previously. RE: 4.1.2 and 4.6 - Just because the umpiring/ref is generous doesn't mean the rules are grey.
your interpretation of a grey rule does not work in a real world scenario. if being up to the refs generousity doesnt mean its grey then in your cases, no rules ever are grey. even when you agree 4.5 Failure to use best efforts is grey, using your own interpretation of grey one could argue that it is not grey. you either use your best efforts or you dont, it just depends on if the ref is generous enough to punish you or not. i don think your interpretation of a grey rule is the commonly used one.
Exactly!! The rules are always there in black and white to be used by the governing body(BWF), e.g in cases like this one(the Olympics WD blunder). Therefore the Athletes/coaches should always be aware that the rules can be used, so it is a massive risk. Nobody can complain when the massive risk does not pay off and the rules are used, that there is some kind of injustice due to the format or whatever. This is the real world my friend - Many people do illegal things every day but that does not mean the crime is acceptable and most importantly that the law is grey because of this fact. It does not leave it up to interpretation just because some people get away with it.
What do you guys think about having a Country Association quota of 2 for each tournament, that are always on opposite sides of the draw. But each country can also have as many professional athletes in the tournament as well. For instance CBA would be only allowed to field 2 representatives per tournament, but LD, CL, CJ can also be in the tournament provided that they are "licensed professionals" under BWF or something like that. Where the BWF would ensure that "licensed professionals" would ideally have little to no ties with their countries badminton associations. Hopefully this would clear up a lot of the controversy with regards to walk-overs and match throwing and would lead to more professionalism(athletes independent and playing for themselves) in the game overall.
Nope, if you want to put a limit then you make it one and only one. Brazil doesn't get to send it's four best soccer teams and Canada doesn't get to send its four best hockey teams so fine. You want to emphasize the flag then the only fair way to do it is one participant per flag. This whole idea that a competitor has some kind of entitlement to a draw position based on nationality is ridiculous. While the structure of the OG sucked, what some people can't get their head around is that the Chinese had every opportunity to avoid each other in the early stage of the knock out stage. All they had to do was win their group. Well, they failed. The only way you are going to avoid this situation ever is by restricting the number of entrants to one.
I wasn't thinking about the Olympics when I made the suggestion. My suggestion is more geared towards like Super Series. I think if we can limit the National Association's role in badminton and replace it with more professionals, I think that would be a good step. The main point being is to separate the interests of the players and the national associations, which I think we all agree is not good for the game as it currently exist. For example: in this system, if the CBA can only send 2 players officially then they will either only have 2 players or be forced to make some players professional, which I believe players like LD & LCW & LYD & ZYL should and could be(financially speaking). I think in either case it would be acceptable and be a good transition to making the sport more professional like tennis. It would rely on the BWF to be able to stop collusion between professional players and the National Association. If either national assoc. or player violates they can be punished individually.
For the super series I don't think limiting the players by country is a good idea. In fact, it sucks. The influence of the national associations needs to be reigned in. Limiting players to 2 per country during the regular tour isn't good for the game and it's not good for the fans. Off the top of my head, consider tennis. If they had that rule instituted the tennis fans would have never been treated to Micheal Chang's improbable and very exciting run and eventual victory at the French Open in 1987. The bottom line is that the BWF needs to align itself better with the interests of the players and not the national associations.
OooooK, you (and quite a few others) are in severe need of a reality check. There is no grey area in the rules as they are written. The rules are not 'grey'. It is the enforcement of those rules that is grey and that is not uncommon or unusual in sport or in the laws of a particular land. For example, consider speeding. So this big issue you are trying to raise is hardly outside of the norm. Your trying to draw a parallel between the action of the WD players to LD not immediately shaking hands after his win and trying to say that his doing so should result in his DQ, show's you lack all sense of proportion to the point of being delusional. Let's hit this silliness by the numbers. 4.1.2 Players must thank their opponents.... Yes this rule is constantly being ignored by the officials in the BWF and I support their discretion in not enforcing this. However, if they chose to do so, the appropriate response isn't an DQ off the bat. The BWF would first have to issue warnings to players and if after a warning or two, players kept on violating this rule they could increase the sanctions the players faced. A DQ relative to such an offense is completely out of proportion to the harm done to the sport. 4.6 Trying to influence line judges I agree that I see this happen too often and I would like to see the BWF clamp down on it. However, again the proper response would be to issue a warning to a player for a first offence, following offenses could face increasing levels of punishment such as points awarded to the opponent to fines for habitual offenders. Still this is no parallel to what went on in the women's doubles. For this to have any proportion to that you would need to have caught one of the players threatening or bribing a line judge. 4.5 Failure to use best efforts DQ the Korean bronze medalist? First you need proof, second you'd need to show where he made the same kind of mockery of the game the WDs did. Good luck with that.
The system would only limit the players representing the countries association, but you could have an unlimited number of professionals from the same country, who would be independent of those national associations. In a badminton example pls explain why the system sucks, because I don't understand your Micheal Chang analogue. If your saying the strength of competition might diminish and that would suck for the fans, I would argue the current system with a lot of walkovers is worse. At least with the purpose system you have a way to transition to a more professional system as oppose to the status quo.
4.6 Trying to influence the decision of line judges by arm, hand, or racket gestures, or orally. Actually, I'm going to say something (possibly) outlandish. I'd like to suggest that 4.6 be retained the way it is, except to add the word "repeatedly." A player giving expression to his thoughts or doubts is something that adds a little spice from the spectator/tv-viewer's point of view. This helps retain and even maybe enhance viewership; more revenues; better times; TRPs, more ad revenues etc etc. Good for the sport. And from the angle of bringing more professionalism to the sport, this will also be an incentive for BWF and individual tournament organisers (the NAs) to train their line judges to ignore any pressure from prima donnas and local favourites. Line judges' performances must also be reviewed constantly by BWF appointed referees (someone here should know: is this being done already?) to bring them in to compliance.
[h=2]Walkovers & Thrown Matches[/h] Hi all, have been following the discussions in here about walkovers and players throwing matches. This happens simply because team managers look at the published draw for a tournament and think that they can work the system to get more points for 'lower' ranked players, so why dont we take that option away. Rather then producing a set draw that lays out a progression from first round to finals, why not simply produce a draw for the first round only. Then when all games in that round have been completed, do a new draw for the second round.....and so on. The same as happens in footballs FA cup (and no doubt hundreds of other tournaments). What ramifications would this have? OK players and coaches would not have as much time to prepare for future opponents and yes your top 2 seeds may well be drawn to play each other, but is that really any worse than what happened at the Olympics. It would certainly add to the workload of tournament organisers but surely a properly fought tournament is worth the extra effort. Is this workable
