Why not allow slow motion replay when Hawk-eye isn't available?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by galaxyduo, Apr 23, 2017.

  1. galaxyduo

    galaxyduo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    684
    Location:
    Olympics
    I just watched a GP event and the line judgement was horrible. Hawk-eye was not available for this GP event either. Even for many finals at SS events, line judges are constantly wrong and overruled by Hawk-eye. My understanding on why Hawk-eye isn't available for every court is because it is expensive. So why not use slow motion replay when Hawk-eye isn't available?

    Slow motion replay was used before BWF started using Hawk-eye. Slow motion replay was still a huge step up in accuracy. It would give players some confidence that a second more accurate look at shot would be able to determine whether it was in or out.

    Why doesn't the BWF use slow motion replay plus the challenge system for GP events? If slow motion replay is not expensive, it should at least be used for the main court in GP events. In fact, if slow motion replay is cheap enough, it should be added for more courts in SS events where Hawk-eye is not available.
     
  2. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,277
    Likes Received:
    1,894
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Yeah, totally understand. At the just finished China Masters there were quite a few wrong calls that were obvious when seen on the overhead slow mo replay and the audience was gasping.

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
     
    galaxyduo likes this.
  3. GingerCorslette

    GingerCorslette Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Asia
    Slow motion is not as precise as Hawk-eye. Slow motion cameras are also not available in a lot of courts. By that I mean high-fps slow motion cameras.

    My impression is that Hawk-Eye comes across as a more 'grand' decision, kinda like a higher being passing down a judgement. :D Players psychologically has the impression as well that it is unquestionable and so high-tech, and they submit to it. Players think Hawk-eye is objective.

    With slow motion, someone has to adjudicate. Someone or some people with authority will have to zoom in the replay and review and say 'yeah, that was out' - someone who the players would know as not infallible. Players would think slow motion is subjective.

    Say for example, we have Player A vs Player B. Player A's shot is called in; Player B doesn't think so. Authority figure(s) review the slow motion replay and find out that it was actually more than an inch out (or what GC would call 'not even close in badminton terms'). This is shown in the giant screen as well. Decision is reversed. Line judge says 'oops, my bad'. Player A is okay, Player B is okay. Authorities are okay. Everyone is okay.

    Now, another shuttle hit by Player A landed less than a centimeter out (harder to call real-time), but is called in. Player B leans toward out but thinks it is close, or that the line judge might have a better view than his top-to-bottom view. Authorities initiate slow motion review; giant screen comes in the picture too. Authorities say it was in. Player A is okay. Authorities are okay. Player B sees the giant screen and believes it was indeed out. He criticizes the - or gains ill feelings about - the authorities. Audience who saw the giant screen has mixed reactions.

    This inconsistency would be magnified and would give a worse impression than when slow motion wasn't used at all.
     
  4. GingerCorslette

    GingerCorslette Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Asia
    Agreed. Especially in the MS final. There were some horrific calls.
     
    galaxyduo likes this.
  5. SSSSNT

    SSSSNT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    Here
    Replays has been used in many sports. It eliminate mistakes at the cost of time, simple as that. Usually when the call is too close to make, the original decision stands.
     
    galaxyduo likes this.
  6. 2wheels04

    2wheels04 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Cal Central
    The hawk-eye setup is multiple cameras, and in badminton, just like tennis, there are ten (10) lines to call, ergo ten cameras, costs per challenge court could be several tens of thousands dollars. So most GPG and higher events have one, maybe two challenge (or tv) courts, unless you are playing in Indian Wells (tennis), then each court has hawk-eye.

    This system of having only 1-2 challenge courts is not fair for the early rounds when 4-5 courts are used, and line judges are not available for each line as they are at the business end.

    There is an Israeli outfit, whose technology rivals that of the not so infallible Hawk-Eye, and many clubs and unis are installing their system. So lookout for PlaySight, they could soon be bringing their SmartCourt near you, and badminton will never be played the same way again.


    And the best part is that many top level players have invested, so looks like player's choice!
     
    #6 2wheels04, May 2, 2017
    Last edited: May 2, 2017

Share This Page