Like the thread title says, not the umpire or SJ, but the referee. Often during games we se players appealing to the referee, who does nothing, because they can't. It happens in many games after bad line calls, dodgy service/receiver faults. My question is what are they there for. They do not overrule any decision, they do not take into account any video evidence - why do players protest and call for them? I am not getting at the referee as such, but why the players want to call them aswell. Bear in mind I mean during a match. Obviously they organise the Games and do duties outside of actual gameplay.
Their role are similar to a moderator in a forum... they will act as peace-maker, and if that doesn't work, they will ban you...LOL. Probably, all that they ever say is "It's okay... just go back and play... it's okay." Then if the player doesn't listen, "If you don't go back and play, I will take serious action against you later!"
The Referee is appointed at a tournament to deal with many matters and usually the least of which is what actually goes on on the court. The on court problems they will have to deal with will depend upon the level of event they are refereeing. 'For those where there is an umpire allocated to the match the umpire is in charge of the court and the referee should not go onto the court unless called on by the umpire. A player should not ask the umpire to call for the referee unless there is a disagreement over a matter of law. The referee may not overule the umpire on a matter of fact.' Quote is from a Guide to refereeing written by Dr David Pegg a respected Umpire and Referee in England.
Thanks Woody. So that was written by an umpire, about umpiring, but not actually a law or WBF rule? Nevertheless if this is the case, why do players call the referee - and why are they not punished for doing so?
It was written by a referee who is also an umpire about refereing. It is part of a 25 page booklet written by Dr Pegg. There is nothing written down by BWF other than vague things. It is not like the reccomendations for technical officials written by BWF about Umpiring and Service Judging. Those are the bible by which the TO's have to work to to ensure the laws of the game are applied correctly. As I said in the earlier post the Umpire is in charge of the court and whatever goes on on it. What punishment do you want? If the referee goes to the court it is generally to see what is going on or having been called by the Umpire will 999 times out of 1000 just tell the player to get on with the game. Do you really want more cards thrown about. Bearing in mind red cards mean points is that what you really want?
I don't want any punishment as such, I just wanted to know what the referees role is during the match. You seemed to have answered it - None. I think the cards are pointless.... What I also wanted to know was why the players also appeal to the referee to when they feel hard done by the umpire when I have never seen the referee do anything to help them, and it seems clear that they can't help them or change anything, why give them the right to appeal?
A referee shall never interfere on a point of fact. The referee can only consider appeals against an umpre's interpretation of Badmonton Law. A player should have that level of protection, but umpires usually know their buisiness so it hardly ever happens that a referee has to uphold such appeals.
As Gill clarke & David Mercer confirmed in the matches on BBC commentary today and some of our members have stated Referees can only rule on Fact or to debate a point of law, a service or Line judges opinion or Umpire decision is just that, an objective opinion. As a result the referee should not be called for by the Players for such decisions. (Maybe Gill & David visit BF?) Which brings me nicely on to the next point. Why do the players do it if they know the referee can do nothing, and what is the punishment (if any for calling them unneccessarily or illegally. It disrupts the flow of the game, and does not look good on TV when we have players appealing to authorities and IMO something should be done.
I would suggest that the reason why it is done is twofold. Firstly to provide a distraction which may put their opponents off of their game. Secondly to give them a respite and time to recover. Of course the players and Coaches know the Refereee will not do anything. Excellant example in todays's men's doubles semi-final when Fu/Cai were faulted on service several times in quick succession. The players demanded the Referee the first time it happened and Phil James the British Umpire refused and told them to get on with it. The second time it happened LYB marched around the court towards the Referee's table. Dennis Lee escorted him away from the court and eventually play continued. Sanctions!!! As I said earlier in this thread what do you want to see, the only option is more yellow or red cards. Do we really want to see that??
so if there is a real issue with a LJ or SJ, one that is making deliberate wrong call, what are the player's options? suck it up and continue playing?
As far as the game is concerned yes they have to live with it. If there are problems on a court you can bet your life that the referee will be watching it like a hawk. If after the match it is clear that the Umpire or Service Judge has made a complete hash of things that will probably be the end of their tournament and possibly BWF would remove their certification/ acreditation.
If I'm not mistaken, the referee got a line-judge changed during a MS match in one of the more recent Super Series I'm unable to check as I'm now away from my personal video store... but, on a hunch, was it at the infamous China Open?
Replacing a line judge is not a problem and although extremely rare is permitted. Replacing the Umpire or Service Judge!!!! I do not know if that has ever happened
First James: First point. What can a referee rule on and on what can he not. Gil is to experienced to make a mistake like that. If there is one thing a referee will never rule on, it is a point of fact. Perhaps we have to define "fact" in terms of Badminton Law. By"'fact" we mean an observation made by an on court technical official. It is therfore something that has been seen bij a linejudge ( in/out), a servicejudge ( shuttle to high, racket not pointing donwards, feathers first, doubble movement) or an umpire ( racket over the net, flick off, hitting the shuttle before it crossed the net ect. There is no point for a player in argueing against these observations befire a referee because the referee is in no position to influence an officials observations. However, a player might disagree with the officials way of daling with this observation and there we enter the field of interpretation. It is a players right to bring that kind of dispute before a referee, leaving the fact of the matter untouched. Real life example: service judge calls a service fault, umpire does not see or hear, the fault being given, receiver does not return the service and the umpire gives the pioint to the server. Service judge does not raise attention. This is a handling mistake by the technical officials the facts of which were not disputed by any of the players/officials involved when it was brought before the referee. The referee overturned the umpire's decision and gave the point to the receiver. See here the difference between "fact" and "dealing with fact". Second point: why call teh referee in the first place? Nornally the referee is callled by the umpire on request by the players. Players can not call the referee by thenselves. Before the umpire meets the request he will explain to the players that there is no point in doing so if their appeal only involves a dispute on fact. When a player than still persists the umpire will call the referee to avoid unnecessary commotion. This basically constitutes a time fault and could lead to yellow or even red. Whether such measures will actually be taken depends on the situation in the match at that particular moment. Second Woody: I did not see the MD SF, but I know the players and I know how they serve. There is reason enough to assume that the calls were correct. We can safely assume that the chinese appeals were political and were an attempt to intimidate the officials, they have tried that before. I also know Phil and I know him as a very experienced colleague knowing very well what he is doing. Refusing the first time is the correct action. LYB consulting the referee is the obvious consequence and is outside Phil's control. It is also something he cannot and should not prevent. I did not see what Dennis did, but I hope he did not intervene on his own initiative and waited for Phil to call him on court. When consulted by a coach it is the normal referee's approach to follow the game from behind the court and assess the situation from there making himself available to come onto court when asked and at the same time making it clear to all involved that he is present and is following what is going on. When players refuse to play on. pilling cards is an option, but in many cases this could also send out a signal of losing control and that is tha last thing that you want in situiations like that. Third Kwum. Players do not have to suck up continous mistakes bij officials. Line- and service judges can be replaced by the referee in case of continous mistakes. The player can make the umpire aware of his feelings, the umpire will then make his own assessment and act accordingly. This would involve calling the referee and puttiong before him a request for an official to be replaced. Players can also bring a case before the referee involving the replacemant of the umpire. Mind, such replacements will never be done upon the first request. The referee will assess the situation himself and take the appropriate action. Fourth Woody. It takes a little bit more than making a mess of one match or one event to take away an officials accreditation. An official can have a bad day or a bad event just as easily as players can, but if there proves to be a stuctural problem then BWF will indeed take the necessary action. It has indeed happend that a service judge was replaced on more than on occasion, both for not doing anything where he should and in an other case for doing "to much" in the eyes of the referee. In the latter situation the facts of the case were beyond dispute. Looking at all the above, I am quite convinced that officiating an event / match is a billion times more exciting than playing it.
Erik I did see the atch at the time. I am not suggesting that Phil got it wrong, I too have worked with Phil and he was absolutely correct in what he did. Looking at the tv replays of the service faults that were called it was clear that indeed the shaft of the racquet was not pointing downwards and that the fault had been called correctly. Dennis did not come onto the court at any time but merely headed off LYB who mas marching behind the Umpire (off court towards the referee. The Chinese players were stalking around on the edge of the court gesturing towards the Umpire. By not issuing any cards the Umpire allowed the fire to go out of the situation and eventually the game continued. Is that not a better action than issuing cards. I for one would certainly have thought so. I am not disputing about the Referee not being able to change a matter of fact and your explanation of the differences is quite correct and I hope helpful to those who do not understand the differences. I have line judged at many tournaments in England and also this last 18 months around Europe and indeed the TUC finals in Jakarta. I have seen disputes wwhich have all been dealt with in a correct and appropriate manner. As regards the officials having their certification/ acreditation removed I totally agree it is not likely to happen because an official has a bad day (they are human after all). I was merely pointing out that there is an ultimate sanction available to the BWF. Personally I cannot understand why players and coachs get so wound up about it all. As for some of the posts on this forum where people get themselves in knots!! Well as I have said in other threads if people think they can do better get themselves trained after all the best seat in the house is in the Umpires chair.
Nope, this is exactly what I don't what. I think they are just a charade. They serve a purpose in football, but not badminton. I would prefer to see this dealt with later through a fine for players if they delay the game in this way. It is embarassing to see it on tv when you get 5min delay and referee comes on and nothing happens or changes. Or touchline ban for coaches where they bring a dispute from behind the scenes onto the court (this thread was made before MD SF but illustrates this point well) or some other form of punishment where Is there a formal and transparent process for this? I am sure you know in football referees (to avoid terminology disputes this is an Umpire in bdm) have to write a match report, whilst I am positive this cannot be the case in bdm waht method of recording on court disputes is there by BWF officials? or do they ignore it until an official complaint is made (I assume these are actually quite rare). At the moment I don't see BWF taking any action on these issues, which are just as important as the actual rule infrongements themselves for TV purposes. Erik L. Thanks for the comprehensive post, it was too substantial to quote!
I quite agree about cards. I have never personally issued a card to anyone one court and I hope I never have to. The Umpire when they come off court does not complete anything except sign the score sheet. They do not have to write a report if they have issued a card. The Referee has to wrte a comprehensive report to the BWF detailing lots of different things but also detailing who has been issued with cards so that the fines can be imposed. Interestingly the Referee does have to right to put in their report details of incidents where in their opinion a card should have been issued but theUmpire did not isue one. BWF can then deal with the matter retrospectively and fine the player/s if they so desire. Long delays are a pain and in breach of the rule which says play shall be continuous but what can be done. If the situation is already heated the delays allow a cooling off period with an alternative of card issue or stokig the fire even more.
I certainly agree with Woody that issuing cards would not have been the best course of action in this case. It would probably only have resulted in a longer delay. Good work bij Dennis then. The only suitable place for LYB to be in a situation like this is the Arctic. I also agree that there is realy no point for coaches or players in getting upset over such matters, in the end it doesn't bring anything To James, Mind, cards do serve a purpose within the context of a match and as you probably know BWF are looking at other options for the administration of cards. calling it a charade goes a bit far, but I am inclined to agree that certainly the yellow does not make a to big impression on players at the moment. BWF is als looking at a registration system involving penalties such as suspensions for events to follow ans/or fines. In my country, Holland, we have been using such a system for one year now and the results are promissing. The badminton umpire uses a scoresheet, either electronic or manual on which the match is recorded. Anything out of the ordinary the umpire records on that sheet. Of course he does not write down that he is umpiring like crap. That remains for the referee to assess. Also the referee writes an event report in which he can include is observations of the functioning of a particular official. Both BWF and the continental BU's have assessment committees which will use this information to take action and when necessary they can include that official in an asessment session to form their opnion. I don't know whether this instrument has actually been used for such a purpose yet.
In early rounds (I know it is not so much of a problem), how can the referee know if any cards have been issued when 5+ courts on at all times..... Thanks again Erik, I still thinks cards are a charade though. Formal warnings are used in tennis and action taken on these formal warnings without the dramtics of the umpire waving a coloured card around. I think WBF should take a greater responsibility for assessing referees, not to get rid of bad ones, but to improve the level of the current ones. Refereeing and respect for the referee is one of the thinks that makes games flow. This makes it more enjoyable to watch. At some points in badminton as I said before it is embarassing the delays cause with no outcome....It needs to be clamped down on. Thanks for your continued contributions btw it is not a topic we have discussed often (at least on a constructive level!)
