The recent unfortunate incident involving Badminton Men's Singles World Number 1 Lin Dan's outburst in Seoul clearly signals for a change in the Badminton World Federation's (BWF) adjudication system. The allegedly biased line calls, that subsequently caused much controversy in the badminton community obviously needs to be addressed to suite the growing demands for accountability and fairplay from not only the player, but badminton fans worldwide.
Understanding that the BWF has limited funds and resources, as this has been the reason given by the BWF for not wanting to install the immensely popular 'Hawkeye' system, the solution might lie in using and manipulating existing technology. Taking a leaf out of the sport of Cricket, which have implemented the 'Third Umpire' adjudicating system, where a disputed line call can be reviewed by another umpire by using video replays, the BWF can easily modify the existing technology to improve the adjudication system. If viewers in front of the television watching the badminton broadcast can clearly see whether the shuttlecock landed 'in' or 'out', it shouldn't be an overly tedious task for another umpire to do so.
Additionally, the BWF can follow what the Tennis Authorities have done, which is to give each player a set amount of incorrect challenges. The fine details, I am sure can be easily implemented and decided by the BWF.
During the Copenhagen Masters Men's Singles Finals last year, there was a disputed line call that went against Danish number 2 Kenneth Jonassen when he was playing Danish number 1 Peter Gade. The shot was replayed instantly on the big screen T.V. on top of the umpire, and the linesman's call was obviously wrong. If this call was to be corrected, Kenneth Jonassen would have won the second game. Peter Gade proceeded to win the second game, and hence, the match. This is a perfect example as to how existing technologies can be manipulated to help improve the integrity of the game.
In a time where badminton's popularity is being threatened worldwide, both from a Olympic point of view and a funding point of view, this is a step the BWF should take to preserve not only the integrity in the game, but the interest. We have witnessed how immensely popular the 'Hawkeye' technology has been with Tennis fanatics. I believe by taking this step, the BWF will 'kill two birds with one stone' by one, restoring confidence in the players and the badminton community, and two, popularising the sport.
First it was the China Open in 2007 where it was alleged that disputed line calls caused Lee Chong Wei the title. Now it is the Korean Open where it also could have caused Lin Dan the title. The BWF have to do something before both the players and the badminton community worldwide lose faith in the integrity of the system.
The Badminton Blog (thebadmintonblog.blogspot.com) Webmaster
I plan to send this letter to The Star newspaper editor tomorrow. Any comment is largely appreciated.
6 comments:
I also think BWF should give players to challenge the call. As for Lin Dan case, it's very clear that the shuttle was out. I don't blame him for losing his temper. It's not the matter we must win all the time but for this case, the lineman is trying to make him lose
BWF should use international line jude team - just like 2006 Thomas Cup in Japan.
BWF uses international line judes for olympics.
BWF uses internatonal umpires and pays them.
BWF wastes enough money on other issues.
I think maybe line judges from the organiser's country should be scrutinised more thoroughly during the selection period, and ensure that they are well-trained before allowed to be on court? And I agree with your suggestion on the third empire issue. Hope your letter gets accepted and published.
vinny, but how are you going to scrutinize if they will be bias during the tournament itself? this sort of things cannot be predicted beforehand. it takes a huge amount of time even if possible.
I guess using international line judges might help the situation a little. But maybe the 3rd empire solution will be a better and more effective attempt at resolving this issue.
The Star? The Toronto Star? lol
Post a Comment