four pairs from china, south korea and indonesia trying to loose their matches so as to get an easier match in the next round.... purposely hitting the cock into the net or hitting it out of court.
It's simpy not cricket, is it?
If you're hitting cocks, you need to do it with conviction!
I think one of the Chinese pairs were trying to avoid the other Chinese pair in order to maximise Chinese medal prospects. Not that that excuses them or anything.
I like that the Korean coach basically said 'they started it' about the Chinese, rather than protesting innocence.
I'd have done the same. The Olympics ( or any high level sport) is about maximising chances of a medal. Aus and Ger didn't exactly pull from the gun in the men's RR but nobody suggested DQing them, it's just tactics.
leggyblonde - MemberI'd have done the same. The Olympics ( or any high level sport) is about maximising chances of a medal. Aus and Ger didn't exactly pull from the gun in the men's RR but nobody suggested DQing them, it's just tactics.
No comparison.
It's not like they both repeatedly rode their bikes into the crash barriers, is it?
Eh? It is the same.
The badminton folks are being accused of not trying their hardest. Not of deliberately cocking stuff up.
I think there is a subtle difference between saving energy for later stages, and actively trying to lose to achieve a different draw in those stages.
It would be easy to solve this kind of thing by doing away with 'rounds' in the early stages and having straight elimination instead.
They were deliberately cocking it up though. They were hitting the shuttlecock into the net on purpose.
There's no comparison with a cyclist who may ride at 90% maximum capacity so as to preserve energy for a later surge in an attempt to WIN a race.
I wouldn't say it's really comparable, but that's what you get when you end up with a match situation where it's more profitable to lose. It's about winning, not competing, to these players.
Hardly anything the umpire can do either, you end up in a total nightmare situation. Tell them to play properly and the mistakes will just get more subtle, but the rallies still won't last, as you've got to make the mistake before the opponent does.
I'd be proper pissed if I was spectating though. We've got semi final tickets though, so that shouldn't be a problem 😀
Not the same as the cycling at all. They should have been disqualified.
I'd have done the same. The Olympics ( or any high level sport) is about maximising chances of a medal.
At the risk of sounding like a Seb Coe soundbite, I'd like to think it's about something more than just getting a medal any way you can.
They are not playing to lose really if you think about it
Its a tournament, not a single match. So the overall result is what makes the winner.
All they are doing is playing to maximise there chances of Winning overall.
Is it any different from track cycling, sprinters hovering for ages in a tactical battle waiting for the perfect time to attack.
Tactics to increase the overall chance of winning.
how about a swimmer taking it easy on his first length only to come back stronger?
Disqualify them. What they did shows contempt for the Olympics and the spectators.
There's a load the umpire can do, and in fact did do, he showed one pair a black card and as such DQ'd them, however that was then rescinded!
It was obvious what they were doing but the whole set up of the competition was ludicrous, any team that had won it's opening two matches didnt need to win their 3rd (roughly) and as such they're going to play it tactically.
Sucks for the spectators that want to see a competition but the fault at the end of the day has to lie with the authorities that put in a tournament that was so obviously open to 'abuse'
If we're equating it to other sports then imagine a swimmer that's already swam the qualifying time being asked to race another heat...
Change it to a true knock-out tournament.
The reason these "mini-leagues" were invented was to maximise the number of matches (money) and reduce the risk of an upset and a top seed getting through to the final (I'm thinking Champions League here...)
If we're equating it to other sports then imagine a swimmer that's already swam the qualifying time being asked to race another heat...
Or if Murray had got into the final 4, and then had to play someone to decide who he played in the semi, and he just hit balls into the crowd the entire match to avoid Federer until the final.
Perhaps the US basketball team should be DQed for not playing 100% in games against weaker teams too or saving their stars for the later games.
Is it any different from track cycling, sprinters hovering for ages in a tactical battle waiting for the perfect time to attack.
It's [i]totally[/i] different. What the badmintoners(?) were doing is gaming the tournament, which is right out of order.
They are not playing to lose really if you think about it
That is exactly what they were doing. All the pairs in question had qualified for the next round and were attempting to rig the next round to get what they would consider to be an easier opponent.
Whilst I completely disagree with it, is it similar to a team (e.g. football) who have already qualified with a game to go playing a sub standard squad to rest key players?
Whilst I completely disagree with it, is it similar to a team (e.g. football) who have already qualified with a game to go playing a sub standard squad to rest key players?
If those sub standard players were then asked to score own goals, yes.
Whilst I completely disagree with it, is it similar to a team (e.g. football) who have already qualified with a game to go playing a sub standard squad to rest key players?
There is a huge difference between not trying very hard and trying to lose on purpose to gain an advantage.
Perhaps the US basketball team should be DQed for not playing 100% in games against weaker teams too or saving their stars for the later games.
No they're (allong with the german cyclists) trying to get a win with the minimum effort either by saving their good players for harder matches, or saving their sprinter for the finish. The badminton players were deliberately trying to lose a game.
Should all be DQ IMO.
I think it's unfair to blame the players.
The idea is to win - otherwise why have medals.
If your chances of winning are improved by loosing, then not attempting to loose would mean that your not committed to the goal of winning a medal.
IMO the retards who designed such a dumb ass system that this could happen should be stuck in the lime-light and booted out rather than the teams just trying to maximise their chance of winning.
Disqualify them. They took the Olympic Oath and then reneged upon it:
[url= http://registration.olympic.org/en/faq/detail/id/28 ][i]"In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, [b]in the true spirit of sportsmanship[/b], for the glory of sport and the honour of our teams".[/i][/url]
Don't really like the 'spirit' of what they were doing but I can understand what they were.
Suppose it's akin to a runner running slightly slower so he/she can get into a weaker semi final where, say, the first four go through to the final. It's just in a sport like badminton you have to lose a point rather than just jogging round that last 33% of the lap.
I'd always assumed leagues were there so weaker nations at least got a couple of games rather than getting stuffed in the first round.
If you're hitting cocks, you need to do it with conviction!
<Tannoy> Emma82 to the forum </Tannoy>
Disqualified now. Nice to see a quick and effective decision.
Disqualified now. Nice to see a quick and effective decision.
Wow, really?
"Chief Olympic correspondent Paul Kelso tweets:
BREAKING: All eight badminton players have been disqualified from the Olympics"
more to follow
so says the Telegraph live feed.
Ooooo there's gonna be toys out the pram everywhere.
Right decision though.
Wow! Big decision.
Ooooo there's gonna be toys out the pram everywhere.
I doubt they'll have the strength or power to launch them out of the pram. Something to do with saving energy...
I doubt they'll have the strength or power to launch them out of the pram. Something to do with saving energy...
I don't think you've understood the issue at all (or you're just being silly) 🙂
They've been DQ'd now.
[edit] old news apparently! STW is quicker than yahoo!
The objective is to win the gold medal, not"entertain" people because they paid a lot of money for their seats. The teams were just using the most effective strategy within the rules of the competition. It's not their fault if the competition structure is flawed.
Charging them with not trying is just daft. How do you measure "best efforts"? Would it have been OK if they won by 5 points? Or only one point? Or if they only just lost? At what point would you draw the line for an acceptable level of effort? You can't. There is only win or lose.
One of the mopper-uppers viewpoint who I believe is a county standard player. Mrs B is a game-maker and at the Badminton showing people to there seats etc:
[url= http://jksalisbury.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/scandal-at-mopping-hq.html?spref=tw ]Scandal[/url]
or you're just being silly
Silly? You clearly don't understand how serious a game badminton is.
*walks off muttering under breath*
kcr (moot point as they've been disqualified) they were deliberately serving into the net and hitting the shuttle out of the court.
The objective is to win the gold medal, not"entertain" people because they paid a lot of money for their seats. The teams were just using the most effective strategy within the rules of the competition. It's not their fault if the competition structure is flawed.
Charging them with not trying is just daft. How do you measure "best efforts"? Would it have been OK if they won by 5 points? Or only one point? Or if they only just lost? At what point would you draw the line for an acceptable level of effort? You can't. There is only win or lose.
Completely true, but you can't change the structure of the tournament half way through. Fact is, they ignored a direct and reasonable order from the umpire. It's what I'd do (if I were the umpire).
Crikey - firm action!
So what contries get let back in following their elimination or are they just skipping a round?
I understand that. How many serves into the net, or out of court hits would it take to count as unacceptable efforts?
How many serves into the net, or out of court hits would it take to count as unacceptable efforts?
Any that come after the perfectly legitimate, reasonable request of the umpire, I'd say.
kcr - Have a read of the blog linked by blackhound above. It wasn't isolated. There were also shots heading way out that were retrieved and directed into the net too. Don't forget, these are the top players in the world.
Well in this case it was obvious they were deliberately trying to lose. But really it's a decision for the umpire to make.
Any that come after the perfectly legitimate, reasonable request of the umpire, I'd say.
Well no, that's a bit silly. People do hit it into the net and hit it out when they're not trying to as well.
How many serves into the net, or out of court hits would it take to count as unacceptable efforts?
At this level there should be zero hits into the net, catching the tape at the top, possibly. Three to four inches lower? These are the best in the world.
Right decision IMO.
At this level there should be zero hits into the net, catching the tape at the top, possibly. Three to four inches lower? These are the best in the world.
At this level there is a lot of pressure. Put the shuttle an inch too high and you're going to get it in the face. So it does get put in the net occasionally.
Occasionally, yes. Consistently, no.
At this level there is a lot of pressure. Put the shuttle an inch too high and you're going to get it in the face. So it does get put in the net occasionally.
Have you actually watched it? They're hitting serves miles out etc.!
Occasionally, yes. Consistently, no.
Agreed.
I think the fact it's being discussed, that the crowds were booing and the result of the BWF would indicate something out of the ordinary, no?
Occasionally, yes. Consistently, no.
But that's the point - where's the line? That's what kcr was asking.
In a game of badminton there's between 21 and 59 serves. So how many being put into the net are acceptable? There's loads of other ways you can throw the point. Have your toe touching the line. Touch the net. Put it wide, or deep, or short. Foul serve (quite a few ways of doing this too).
Have you actually watched it? They're hitting serves miles out etc.!
STWers in misunderstanding people after not reading the entire thread shocker.
I'm not defending the players, as I said, I would've DQed them as well. kcr asked where we draw the line between not playing very well and losing deliberately. I was expanding on that.
Are some people in this thread being deliberately contrarian in the time honoured STW tradition?
These players were a disgrace and I'm relieved that they've been disqualified.
Are some people in this thread being deliberately contrarian in the time honoured STW tradition?
You have to ask? 😉
RealMan - have a read of the blog posted above. The blog was written by someone who was actually there.
Just watched the footage.
No way were they playing to win, even i wouldn't hit the net that much.
If they were really good, they should have been able to at least make it look like they were trying to win.
Throw 'em out, hang 'em up, wee in their shoes and get the Bombers out.
[img] 
[/img]
🙄
😀
Interesting.
.... your point RM?
How do you even argue with someone that is agreeing with you? That must take some real skill..
I'd always assumed leagues were there so weaker nations at least got a couple of games rather than getting stuffed in the first round.
Thinking about this, doesn't one of the european football tournaments (CL or uefa cup?) wotk on the basis of the first 16 are seeded and then there's group stages for everyone else to qualify?
[edit] FA cup? Although that's knockout all the way IIRC but the big boys dont enter untill the later rounds?
Odd...
I don't see anyone arguing - just having a discussion and pointing towards other sources of information that may help in understanding what actually happened.
Do you need a bit of a lie down?
They are not playing to lose really if you think about it
That is exactly what they were doing. All the pairs in question had qualified for the next round and were attempting to rig the next round [b]to get what they would consider to be an easier opponent.[/b]
Exactly.
So playing to win then, like I said.
It's a [b] Tournament[/b] not a [b]Match[/b]
So they are playing to win the Tournament. And by losing a Match they increase their chances of [b] Winning the Tournament[/b]
Comes down to badly laid out tournament really.
Totally the fault of the organisers.
Do you need a bit of a lie down?
Would I have to get up first?
Honestly lol, you've completely misunderstood everything. Read the thread 😉
brilliant... China Badminton Team Song
OK. Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that hitting the shuttlecock into the net or out of the court deliberately is not acceptable.
If I lob a nice easy serve over the top, or make a soft return to my opponent, is that also unacceptable? If so, exactly how difficult does my serve or return have to be, to count as “reasonable effort”? Would the umpire make a call on this?
Is the argument that certain teams in the competition must always beat their opponents during the round robin, and any other result would indicate that they didn’t try hard enough?
I’m not being contrarian. I think this is enforcing the unenforceable. These athletes are the best in the world, and that’s why they behaved in the way they did. Their objective, as it should be for a successful sportsperson, is to win, and they identified the best strategy for doing that within the rules of the competition. Disqualifying them because people didn’t like the inevitable outcome really is contrary.
These athletes are the best in the world, and that’s why they behaved in the way they did. Their objective, as it should be for a successful sportsperson, is to win, and they identified the best strategy for doing that within the rules of the competition
They should be doing that within the rules and the spirit of the game, not exploiting the rules of the tournament. That's not sport.
I understand that you're not being contrary; I think the problem people have with this incident is it was [i]so[/i] blatant that both pairs were trying to out-lose each other.
'You are quite right though, enforcing this is going to be very, very difficult. If teams want to proceed down this path then they are indeed going to need to be considerably more subtle. In which case, wouldn't their energy and focus be better spent trying to win 'properly' rather than influence the running order of the knock-out stages? (rhetorical q.)
Yes, what they did was within the rules of Badminton, but it was also in opposition to the Olympic oath that all the athletes pledged to adhere to.
kcr has is spot on. There is a flaw in the design of the tournament - proof of this will be when they change it for the next games. Were they trying too hard to lose?
There is (was) some discussion about whether Adlington will race in the heats for the 4x200m relay today. The team have the option to use her in the next round, however, or not if they don't think they are in with a chance of winning a medal.
The difference with RA in the swimming is it is a squad trying to get through. You will see the same in the 4x100m and 4x400m athletic relays. For example Jamaica may rest Usain Bolt for the 4x100m when he has already run heats/ finals of 100/200m and will take a risk with a 'second string' athlete in order to rest Usain.
What kcr said earlier is correct though. I was surprised they were DQ'ed. Thought it more likely they would manipulate the next round to what *should* have happened.
The plan for the swimmers is to only include RA if there is a chance of winning a medal - if they don't then a weaker squad will be entered and they'll just make up the numbers.