I would argue it is detrimental to the reputation of the sport if you throw game in the final of the world championship...
It's a common thing to see boxers just run around or cover up or do clinch tactic for a couple of rounds trying to recover after a knockdown. It's not exciting, but everyone recognize it's a tactical move, not throwing the game. It's the same in almost every sport and badminton is no exception.
What are sportsmanship ways to tactically "throw" a game? So as long as it is entertaining and the public is happy or the winners pretend that they trying hard enough, it is okay to throw the game? I thought this was a sport competition, not an exhibition show where players don't really need to worry about anything else but winning the matches and the title eventually.
If there are spectators than it is a show no mater if it is just for sport. Why there such a nice presentation of the matches in other ways, announcements, lights, fogs, fireworks even some times? If we want people's respect of badminton we should not have to see players not trying on court...
Because the players aren't getting paid to give out a "show"..? They are losing money technically. They put up a very good display in G1 and G3. I don't know about other people, I think the other 3 lop-sided matches could be seen as something not respectable too if you ask me. It's world championship final after all...
What if it was also the same in the third game, only than you would think it was not respectable or would it be still ok? Where is the line? Did you see players in other finals obviously giving away the points?
But it wasn't so in the third game, overall they won the match. You are the umpire. I am just the layman trying to understand the rule. From the words you were using, you said the World Champions should be embarrassed for throwing a game. Is it your personal opinion or is it you saying they were playing against the rule? Or is this rule something that can be interpreted differently by different umpires? Or referee when it comes to disqualifying.
I think argument that MA/HS did not do wrong because they were trying to win the match is not very strong one. Let's say MA/HS are loosing in the third match and they do the same. Is it ok to warn them than? But as an umpire you allowed it in the second game, why suddenly now? Umpire must be consistent... But really... I was taught the rule to use "best effort to win the match" is exactly for players just giving away points on court and not continue play even if it is the second game. It is bad sportsmanship and therefore they should be warned. Why often players think it's ok? I think most coaches would teach them to do it and that's ok. As long as an umpire permits it. Are all umpires doing the same? I don't know, but Jacob Syndberg did and he is one of the best umpires out there.
Key word being not fighting and excessively. The boxer is still fighting. It's just he's conceding a couple of rounds to his opponent. The same goes in almost every sport. This tactic is their best effort to win the match. Therefore there's no problem with sportsmanship.
I see. From the players point of view as professional athletes, they work for their sponsors or their team who pay them. It's kind of their duty to win the match but not "giving their best effort " and then to lose in the end. But if you are saying that they should at least put up some "show" to "throw" a game, then probably I can agree they were doing it too obviously. Then again I think it was around 9-17 when they started doing it. Everyone knew it was over.
What if, what if, what if. What if they were winning 20-5 and stopped trying to win points? Is that against the rules too, using your interpretation? (directed at Stradrider) Isn't there a technical difference between "match" and "game"? Throwing a game is different to throwing a match and the rules only specify "match". Observant and knowledgeable viewers would have seen that the players were tactically playing out the game. They didn't start the game intending to lose it, it was an unfortunate result of being outsmarted tactically and their own errors that they fell behind so far that the probability of winning was too slim. You can't force somebody to try their hardest at all times - in all circumstances, either winning or losing. It isn't about scoring the biggest points difference, it is about scoring 2 games out of 3. Football(soccer) has a long history of using this tactic. You could play like the world cup US Womens team and win 13-0 against Thailand or settle for 2-0, take it easy, maybe do tricks for the fans. The outcome will be the same. Weirdly, some people think the US should have gone easy on Thailand, others respect them for playing to their potential for 90 minutes. No single opinion is the right one, only the rules determine what is right. If a rule is not broken then why talk about rules?
Trying to find the point in the 2nd game where they gave up...I think MA decided after the interval at 6-11. 2-6 - Fallen behind already as Japanese pounce on chances 3-7 - MA Smashing hard to win the point 6-8 - 2 points difference but again Japanese press hard to win the point 6-11 - 5 points difference but a chance to change tactics during the break? HS still trying to win points. 7-11 - HS error 7-12 - Noticeably less movement and effort, MA giving away an easy kill after a good smash earlier. 7-14 - Commentator: "Indonesians have gone completely off the boil" 8-15 - Commentator: "Ahsan is thinking about the third game" 8-16 - MA casual defence but got a point from an unforced error 9-19 - Commentator: "Regrouping for the third and final game" 9-20 - Umpire talks to players - why not sooner? 9-21 - Game over and a few whistles from the crowd. Commentators talk about winning the match, not the game and expect fireworks in third game. After the interval it looks like MA stopped trying while HS did push for a number of points before also giving up, and they only get 2 more points - 1 was an unforced error, 1 was a topple off the net - both against the run of play. Why did the umpire wait until 9-20 to talk to the players? They clearly stopped trying 8 rallies earlier. The commentators did mention that the Indonesians chose the ends (during G3 interval). Maybe the ends are an important factor in their decision. Was the drift end to-end rather than side-to-side?
Football is the worst example - the most controversial sport, I am not even going to start... So, "not using best effort to win a match" can only be used in the last game? Before that it is not justified? So, if they are doing this in the third game where everyone knows they have lost than it is not ok, but in the second game it is fine? Oh, wait, I forgot - only if they won the first game, but if they lost the first game than it is not ok? I am sorry but it just doesn't make any sense. May be it's ok in club internal tournament, but sorry, you cannot do it in world championships...
The reason he said it at 20:9 because it was outrageous - HS had the shuttle land near his foot and didn't do ANY effort to return it...
I understand your point. Every point should be played with best efforts? If MA/HS did not try in the third game (or second if they lost the first) then they are clearly not going to win the match, which would break the rule. But the rules make no mention of games, only matches. Throwing a game is fine, throwing a game that results in the match being lost is not fine - at all - ever. There are more situations that will also need to be addressed if "best efforts" are to be applied at all times but it is either unreasonable or impossible to expect a physical activity to be performed at the maximum effort non-stop. Like taking it easy when you are winning 20-5 against a weaker opponent. Is show-boating trying with best effort? How do you measure and quantify best effort? Should players be given a score out of ten by a panel of judges after each point? Badminton is not a sport based on judgement of technical ability, that's for ice skaters and snowboarders. Badminton players can become world champions by winning a match 2-1 or 2-0. What badminton players cannot do legally is throw a match 1-2 or 0-2. Usain Bolt won many races without using best efforts all the time. He only needed to be the first across the line. But I bet there is a similar rule in athletics.
I will not compare badminton to other sports, everyone is different. What is forgivable for others might not be good for badminton.. After London 2012 there were even discussions of taking badminton out of Olympic games. BWF would not let it happen and after that the instruction was given to the umpires to take this rule seriously and prevent such a behavior in any way. It doesn't mater if you loose the match or not - good sportsmanship is to give your best effort at all the times and if you obviously don't even try there will be consequences...
