Results 375 to 391 of 392
08-09-2012, 02:08 PM #375
P.S you still never answered why there is no problem with match fixing as I highlighted in post #367.
Last edited by craigandy; 08-09-2012 at 02:12 PM.
08-10-2012, 02:11 AM #376
No. Just no. Rules are never black and white, theres always room for manipulation, i call that taking the game to it's limits. Nothing wrong in that, in competition, every bit of advantage counts. To say it's bad sportsmanship to take advantage is BS. That's called being overly generous.
I happen to have worked for a company that sponsored the last two Canadian Opens, i can guarantee you that the image of the sport had absolutely no bearing on whether we were to sponsor or not.
However for a bigger tournament, the reason why badminton gets so little sponsorship money is not because of scandals or lack there of, but rather because: THERE IS NO MONEY IN THIS SPORT. The majority of the fans of the sport do not live in first world countries or do they possess as much money as say North America, Australia etc. Most of the fans are from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc and of course China. China is a different market though, you're either filthy rich or dirty poor. So if you were a sponsor: would you rather invest your resources into a sport like basketball or badminton?
Let me break it down for you:
Basketball is watched around the globe: in poor countries and rich countries.
Badminton is watched predominantly in Asia, but not so prominent in wealthier nations.
So where would you put your money?
Don't believe me? Look at our racquet recommendation/equipment section:
Just look at all the posts that have something along the times of :
"i need a new racquet, my budget is XX dollars"
"i need durable strings, cause i can't afford to play with XX"
While the actual playing costs are actually quite low already for badminton, many people still have trouble coming up with the means to play. That is the unfortunate state that badminton is in.
08-10-2012, 02:30 AM #377
errrr. bad publicity does make sponsors think twice. It all depends on how bad the publicity is, and what the public's value system wil put up with at the time. Big sponsors have been known to withdraw sponsorships and endorsement deals even with megastars.
Sponsorship for local or provincial events or even national events that don't attract a huge following, do not really affect anyone too much, as you rightly pointed out. Those are decisions taken on niche marketing or compassionate/passionate grounds, IMO. The criteria for events (OG, AG etc) will obviously be much different.
Badminton can bring in the big money if it is managed correctly. But this does not have to be at the expense of fair play. This has been demonstrated in other sports in the last decade.
craigandy liked this post
08-10-2012, 03:53 AM #378
4.1.2 Players must thank their opponents
and Umpire before leaving the field of play to celebrate with their Coach or the crowd
more grey that goes unpunished
4.6 Trying to influence line judges
Trying to influence the decision of line judges by arm, hand, or racket gestures, or orally.
4.5 Failure to use best efforts
could DQ the korean for saving his energy for the bronze match because he knew he couldnt beat LD
Its all to do with interpretation of what is "honourable and sportsmanlike in rule 4.1.1"
is it sportsmanlike to give yourself the best chances of winning a medal-yes
was their behaviour honourable-probably not. but the format was asking them to shoot themselves in the foot.
Last edited by BaggedCat; 08-10-2012 at 04:01 AM.
08-10-2012, 10:36 AM #379
08-10-2012, 11:30 AM #380
08-10-2012, 11:31 AM #381
if you false start in 100m youre DQ - that is black and white. no interpretation or subjectivity.
i got to the context of the example in the end. i was just providing extra examples of greyness. :P
08-10-2012, 11:44 AM #382
08-13-2012, 03:36 AM #383
if being up to the refs generousity doesnt mean its grey then
in your cases, no rules ever are grey. even when you agree 4.5 Failure to use best efforts
is grey, using your own interpretation of grey one could argue that it is not grey. you either use your best efforts or you dont, it just depends on if the ref is generous enough to punish you or not.
i don think your interpretation of a grey rule is the commonly used one.
08-13-2012, 08:27 AM #384
This is the real world my friend - Many people do illegal things every day but that does not mean the crime is acceptable and most importantly that the law is grey because of this fact. It does not leave it up to interpretation just because some people get away with it.
08-15-2012, 09:10 PM #385
What do you guys think about having a Country Association quota of 2 for each tournament, that are always on opposite sides of the draw. But each country can also have as many professional athletes in the tournament as well. For instance CBA would be only allowed to field 2 representatives per tournament, but LD, CL, CJ can also be in the tournament provided that they are "licensed professionals" under BWF or something like that.
Where the BWF would ensure that "licensed professionals" would ideally have little to no ties with their countries badminton associations. Hopefully this would clear up a lot of the controversy with regards to walk-overs and match throwing and would lead to more professionalism(athletes independent and playing for themselves) in the game overall.
08-15-2012, 09:55 PM #386
This whole idea that a competitor has some kind of entitlement to a draw position based on nationality is ridiculous. While the structure of the OG sucked, what some people can't get their head around is that the Chinese had every opportunity to avoid each other in the early stage of the knock out stage. All they had to do was win their group. Well, they failed.
The only way you are going to avoid this situation ever is by restricting the number of entrants to one.
08-15-2012, 11:15 PM #387
I wasn't thinking about the Olympics when I made the suggestion. My suggestion is more geared towards like Super Series. I think if we can limit the National Association's role in badminton and replace it with more professionals, I think that would be a good step. The main point being is to separate the interests of the players and the national associations, which I think we all agree is not good for the game as it currently exist.
For example: in this system, if the CBA can only send 2 players officially then they will either only have 2 players or be forced to make some players professional, which I believe players like LD & LCW & LYD & ZYL should and could be(financially speaking). I think in either case it would be acceptable and be a good transition to making the sport more professional like tennis. It would rely on the BWF to be able to stop collusion between professional players and the National Association. If either national assoc. or player violates they can be punished individually.
08-16-2012, 12:33 AM #388
08-16-2012, 12:56 AM #389
Your trying to draw a parallel between the action of the WD players to LD not immediately shaking hands after his win and trying to say that his doing so should result in his DQ, show's you lack all sense of proportion to the point of being delusional.
Let's hit this silliness by the numbers.
4.1.2 Players must thank their opponents....
Yes this rule is constantly being ignored by the officials in the BWF and I support their discretion in not enforcing this. However, if they chose to do so, the appropriate response isn't an DQ off the bat. The BWF would first have to issue warnings to players and if after a warning or two, players kept on violating this rule they could increase the sanctions the players faced. A DQ relative to such an offense is completely out of proportion to the harm done to the sport.
4.6 Trying to influence line judges
I agree that I see this happen too often and I would like to see the BWF clamp down on it. However, again the proper response would be to issue a warning to a player for a first offence, following offenses could face increasing levels of punishment such as points awarded to the opponent to fines for habitual offenders. Still this is no parallel to what went on in the women's doubles. For this to have any proportion to that you would need to have caught one of the players threatening or bribing a line judge.
4.5 Failure to use best efforts
DQ the Korean bronze medalist? First you need proof, second you'd need to show where he made the same kind of mockery of the game the WDs did. Good luck with that.
08-16-2012, 01:29 AM #390
If your saying the strength of competition might diminish and that would suck for the fans, I would argue the current system with a lot of walkovers is worse. At least with the purpose system you have a way to transition to a more professional system as oppose to the status quo.
08-16-2012, 01:47 AM #391
4.6 Trying to influence the decision of line judges by arm, hand, or racket gestures, or orally.
Actually, I'm going to say something (possibly) outlandish.
I'd like to suggest that 4.6 be retained the way it is, except to add the word "repeatedly."
A player giving expression to his thoughts or doubts is something that adds a little spice from the spectator/tv-viewer's point of view. This helps retain and even maybe enhance viewership; more revenues; better times; TRPs, more ad revenues etc etc. Good for the sport.
And from the angle of bringing more professionalism to the sport, this will also be an incentive for BWF and individual tournament organisers (the NAs) to train their line judges to ignore any pressure from prima donnas and local favourites. Line judges' performances must also be reviewed constantly by BWF appointed referees (someone here should know: is this being done already?) to bring them in to compliance.
Nict_26 liked this post
By twobeer in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 22: 12-06-2011, 03:32 PM
By taneepak in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 79: 07-29-2011, 07:44 PM
By xymaerts in forum Malaysia Open / Korea Open 2011Replies: 368: 01-30-2011, 10:46 PM
By chris-ccc in forum General ForumReplies: 17: 09-03-2010, 10:13 AM
By Johansen in forum General ForumReplies: 2: 11-16-2004, 05:08 AM