These days, we see umpires/service judges can't do no wrong. They keep calling players flick serves illegal. Given it's hard to define where the first rib cage bone is, naturally it's hard to discern when the racket touches the bird, and which portion of the swing is simply a follow-through. The result is that flick serve is almost completely unusable. And sometimes, the umpire would judge the receiver foot-fault. I take it that the receiver moves before the serve is struck in all those cases. But is it easy to do correctly given the server and receiver are standing quite far apart for the umpire to observe at the same time? In those cases, even with video recording (on Youtube, e.g.), I check a few times but still couldn't see any obvious faults. I think the challenge system should extend to serve faults, and receiver faults. Or is there any other (fair) way a player could challenge an umpire in a match? Sometimes, I believe there must be occasions like that, you have umpires acting like "bad bosses" on court!
Do you think it is easy to smash faster than 300 kph? But people smash, right? Some smash more than 400... Why do you assume that experienced umpires, who sit in the chair day after day, watching serve after serve for many hours a day are unable to correctly determine a fault service?
We had some umpire forumers come in to discus this in a few older threads about this problem. Essentially they don't call borderline cases. But after a few very borderline cases have occurred in a match with one player, then it seems a fault will be called as a kind of a warning. I know. I've seen some receivers with very fast reaction times get called unfairly for jumping serves too early. But on repeated slow mo replay on YouTube, the umpire got it wrong.
The trouble is that umpires have a huge amount of things to do. It's not like the old days when badminton was a much slower sport. The stakes are higher now. I would never be an umpire - mind you, if you can keep up with what's going on as an umpire, then I think your risk of early dementia will be pretty low.
When I look at any service faults, especially those under §9.1.6 (height of shuttle) at international tournaments, the fault is usually blindingly obvious, like 10cm or even more. If anything, the service judges are extremely conservative in calling faults: Looking at slow-motion replays, and discussing with fellow umpires, service judges could often call dozens of faults per match, especially in Mens doubles. We sometimes discuss specific fault calls here in the forum, and my impression there is that almost always the umpire/service judge is completely justified in calling it. In a few cases, it's more doubtful, but frame-by-frame analysis usually shows that the fault has been at the very least very likely - if not definitely - commited. In national-level and below events, where umpires and sometimes service judges are present as well, I see plenty of flick serves that are not called. However, in these events most players' faults are definitely legal (5cm+ below the line) when looked at in slow-motion replays. So even when they go a little bit higher in a flick serve, they're still objectively legal. If a player who is already objectively committing faults (but not obvious enough that service judges call it) goes a little bit higher in a flick serve, it's not surprising that they get called. In general, I mean no offense, but many fans complaining here and in general may be less aware of the exact wording of the actual laws than international-level umpires. Just to clarify the responsibilities, service judges focus only on the serve, whereas umpires focus on the receiver. The umpire perceives the server's motion in the corner of their eye. Some umpires also rely on the sound for the precise timing of when the receiver's feet are allowed to move. Oftentimes, in international-level events, it's not an overly quick full-body start (likely because the servers at these levels can disguise a really good flick serve), but a small hop in order to start quicker (or even as a bad habit). It's also not unheard of to touch the line, either servers or receivers (even Lin Dan). At lower levels, we see plenty of different fault patterns. Just this weekend, I faulted (at a National U15/U17 tournament) receivers twice because of right foot not on the ground, once because of overly quick start, and once for touching the line (for about 17 matches, that was a little above average though). I'd love a challenge system, and would be willing to bet 100€ that we could call 10 or more faults per match in 75% of international-level Mens Doubles matches. As I wrote above, given the extremely conservative judging at the moment, such a system seems extremely counter-productive if your aim is to reduce the number of fault calls. Wait, you believe there must be occasions where umpires handle in bad faith, because there must be so? My general impression is that umpires - especially at the higher levels - are acutely aware of the laws, when to apply them, and when to follow RTTO§1.3 (the game is for the players). If you have very specific calls you doubt, why not post them along with the videos in question?
In this video, @ 1:00 time, do you see the receiver faulted? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUwcC_Mv0U4 Now that I watch it again, there may be a transfer of body weight, just as a player would do in his/her high serve, there's no discernible feet movement! And in this match, Boe/Mogensen were called service fault (and maybe at one or two times called receiver faults) almost every time (probably 6-7 times in total). Action is fast. Upon replay, still hard to tell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sr4zLQh7ew I know a number of people here don't quite like Boe/Mogensen. Hopefully we could put this personal feeling aside for now.
Firstly, I'm glad we've official experienced umpires on board here to discuss with us, and give us their perspective. The challenge system may not reduce the number of fault calls, but if such a system exists, at least it settle any doubts any one (players, coaches, audience) may have. If players have conviction, they could use their limited challenges. If they don't use it, I guess we can reason that even the players themselves have no faith, and we could let it go. I've seen numerous fault calls, mostly on flick serves in the recent 1-2 years. I'd vaguely seen 1-2 threads on this topic on BC. But in the last 2 days, I'd seen something seemingly outrageous - either the players were persistent and/or outrageous, or the service judge involved was. At one time, the umpire raised a yellow card against Boe for taking too long. While he didn't serve immediately, do realize players need to gather their concentration, and be ready to jump into action immediately after, plus the variation in timing, all that good stuff we discussed here on BC. I don't see anything out of the ordinary (that others won't do, though maybe not their opponents that day). Yet they got fault. I personally not Boe/Mogoesen's big fan, though I like their plays. What I saw just seemed breathtaking. Finally, in your opinion (or anyone's), why don't the players change their services so their (flick) serves become more usable in real matches?
Just because they do this a lot doesn't mean they're correct all the time. Players practice their serves a lot too. Maybe many of service judges and umpires are good, but could there be room for some not very good ones, just as some "not very good" players people here don't like? If just by doing many times day after day, watching serve after serve would make them do no wrong, then would we be able to argue in the same way about line calls? And why would anyone need a challenge system? Each line is watched by a line judge, after all.
The "line". Is this the "invisible" line that we discussed here from time to time? 5 cm doesn't sound like a lot and obvious. If we're talking about point of contact (racket and shuttle) when service is struck, unless a player has already committed a fault in his preparation (e.g. holding the contact point already above the line), the movement is actually very small and fast, it'd be difficult to see, if not impossible. The rest is just follow-through. What are the art and science of service fault calls? And receiver fault? Please use the videos I provided as examples. If you like you could also cite your own videos, I guess.
This is undoubtedly a close call to make from the umpire's chair. The video is not the best quality (both in resolution and framerate). I extracted the keyframes which correspond to first forward movement of the server's racket to about contact: I marked the approximate point of contact with the floor in the first frame. There must be a point on the ground where the same part of the shoe stayed in contact with it. The areas of floor touching in the first and fifth frame seem to be disjunct, and there is certainly no point of the shoe that stayed stationary, so I would call this a close but justified fault. I'll look into Boe/Mogensen next, currently downloading the video...
To declare a fault, there needs to be a correlation between the moment the server's racket contact the shuttle, and the first movement of receiver's feet. How do you do that? And if we need to do this frame-by-frame analysis afterward, and only have a close call, how on earth would an umpire call that? Mind you, this is a Singles games, the advantage gained by even getting such tiny initiative is probably negligible. So to me, still puzzling.
That's the umpire, and not the service judge, so a totally different topic. The laws state that in play must be continuous. If a player takes any time to concentrate instead of just physically getting ready, they are in the violation of the letter of that law. In many games, the ratio of play time to pause time is outrageously low, oftentimes way less than 50%. Also note that the yellow card is the smallest official sanction, and it has absolutely no effect on the match (apart from psychological). In practice, the umpires use a multi-step warning system if a side delays the game: The umpire states the score twice. The umpire states the score, followed by Play. The umpire talks to the players and reminds them that play must be continuous or You must not delay the game (Non-professional levels only) The umpire warns the player that a yellow card is incoming. I've seen some umpires get the yellow card out of their pocket and onto their table. Tried it once, it really works wonders! The umpire shows a yellow card for delay. This is the first official sanction, but it has no effect on the match, just a fine to pay afterwards. The umpire shows a red card. This is one point for the opponent. At about this time, the referee will get involved. The umpire calls the referee and the referee disqualifies the side. I don't know a single case where this has happened in cases of delay. Professional players are aware of these steps, although the general audience is not. If you look closely at the match before the card, you'll usually see many if not all of the intermediate warnings beforehand.
Iirc a red card was produced to bring up match point in AE 2-3? yrs ago when Koo/Tan lost to Qiu/Liu(?) when the umpire deemed Koo to be delaying the game.
In video post processing, it's easy. I look at every frame. On the chair, see above - corner of the eye and sound. The result of the frame-by-frame analysis is that it's a definitive fault. Only from the chair it's a close call. Umpires can let these kinds of close calls slide or call faults. You can't fault the umpire for calling a fault when the call is justified. The laws don't mention any advantage. In practice, some umpires are more lenient, some umpires are not. Also, as @visor said, umpires are humans and often let past behavior guide future decisions, although they should not. For example, in the preceeding receiving situation, Kim Mun Hee moved very quickly as well (in frame-by-frame analysis a fault too). I don't think it's a good idea to require umpires to ignore faults not to a players advantage. That's a slippery line, and rules must by necessity quite concrete. So the umpire is quite correct here. However, the player probably played lots and lots of matches where she was not faulted in the same conditions. There are a number of reasons why (especially lower-level umpires) don't fault players: There is no service judge and the perspective of the umpire lies elsewhere / the umpires looks at receiver faults. They have been advised by the referee to be lenient for all or a specific kind of fault calls. They are unsure about whether a fault has been commited. They do opt to let it slide because they think it's not an advantage for a player. Most often, when you have four players on court who don't do legal serves, after a couple of service faults the umpire/service judge just lets the game play out. They don't want to interrupt the flow of the game. In (simplistic) theory, service faults at game or match point should be as likely as service faults at the start of the game, but can you imagine how disappointing a match would be if it ended on a service fault? They are unsure about the laws. They don't know the procedure of calling faults. I have seen (lower-level but veteran) umpires have a look into the RTTO for the service fault signs once they knew they had service judge duty. They are afraid of the ensuing confrontation (one veteran umpire once advised me to only fault women, since men tend to protest much harsher). They want to be friends with the players. They see fellow umpires not calling faults and thus don't call them either. The higher you get in the umpiring levels, the less these do apply. Players can get used to lenient calls at lower (=national) levels, and by some of the high-level umpires. When they meet strict umpires you see lots of fault calls. Oftentimes, players are unable to change their serve, since it's all automated. Sometimes you meet players who smirk after the first fault call, don't protest at all, and then show their "second serve" for the rest of the match, but that's quite rare.
I meant just the virtual line of the lowest part of the server's bottom rib. Apologies for the confusion. Note: point of contact does not matter! This is indeed a common misconception among many fans and players. The highest part of the shuttle is what counts. Umpires/service judges estimate the lowest rib to be about where the elbow ends when the upper arm is vertical. They then typically add quite a buffer for anatomical uncertainty. On top of that, they add a buffer for general uncertainty. All in all, my non-scientific estimate is that most umpires will draw their line at about 15cm above where it would medically be. Anything clearly above that is called a fault, anything at a little above the line ... is sometimes called a fault, and sometimes not. If you don't mind I'll look at Boe/Mogensen's match in details with some frame-by-frame analysis.
The mistakes can happen but usually when you think umpire made a mistake - he did not. Here is a very good visual explanation of proper service height: http://www.victorsport.com/coach_detail_4927.html Look at it and than check again Boe/Mogensen serves. You will see that beyong reasonable doubt EVERY single serve of Boe and most Mogensen's serves are faults. They are also known to play mind games - game delay, shuttle change discussions etc. to get an advantage in close game..
I sped through it and counted 4 service faults, 1 receiver fault and a yellow card. Unfortunately, no good pictures of the receiver fault, so let's start with the yellow card: The timing is a little bit unfortunate since the umpire calls on Matthias Boe just as he's finally serving, but he took 58 seconds from shuttle out of play to serve. That's not continuous play by any means. Also note that the umpire took every step I mentioned above multiple times. Just in the quick speed through, I think I've seen three instances of verbal warnings for delay before the yellow card. But on to the service faults: In two of the faults, there are no usable pictures. For the other ones, here's my estimate where the lowest part of the lowest rib is: As you can see, in both cases the highest part of the shuttle is at about 10cm above the line (for reference: a shuttle is about 8cm high when standing on the feathers). If my guess of 15cm for slack granted by the average service judge is correct, Boe and Mogensen can play these serves and expect not to be called at all. In fact, my feeling is that some players serve way higher than Boe/Mogensen and don't get called by the average service judge. This service judge seems just a little bit more strict. I estimate that @strarider is correct in assuming that most serves by both sides in this match are faults when viewed frame-by-frame. From that point of view, the service judge is still quite lenient for only calling 4.
Tks phihag. We can always count on your experienced input and analysis. From that pic, it would seem Mog even conveniently provided a HUGE red arrow mark on his shirt to guide the service judge.
Best comment of the week! :-D Phihag, thank you for your patient explanations. It's awesome that you take time to find the right frames and explain in detail what's going on "under the hood" of the mysterious umpire business... Just wanted to add that while it hurts to see players loose points, get cards and get disturbed during the match - it is extremely important that umpires keep doing this work. Some players, in order to win, are pushing the limits and try everything, even things that would give them an unfair advantage. An experienced umpire once told me - "you know why there are service faults? - to protect the receiver"... In badminton it is very easy to get free points if you cheat in serves. Often, the hole rally dependent on the service - lots of double rallies end in 3 shots, some times it even ends at the service, as it puts too much pressure on the opponent... And it can be both - service or receive that would give an unfair advantage if violated. I remember, there was a discussion here that servers are at disadvantage in badminton... I think, rules in badminton fine tuned so that nether server nor the receiver gets an advantage. The rules are not always perfect but if we try following them as precise as possible and fault the wrong doers - than it will be the closest to "fair play" we can get...
