4 ms·

I feel theres a critical omission here. Part of the game rules is that if you don't play to your fullest (which can probably only be proven if you play terribly

I feel theres a critical omission here. Part of the game rules is that if you don't play to your fullest (which can probably only be proven if you play terribly bad), you are immediately disqualified from the whole tournament. What does "play to your fullest mean"? Let me give you an example... in boxing I may be fighting someone who I know can knock me out easily, but he tires easily. If I can simply avoid him for the first few rounds, I know I can win a decision. Should I be disqualified for not engaging, knowing that this maximizes my chances of winning the fight? At an even more micro level, in basketball, it's common to intentionally foul a poor free throw shooter. At the moment you're doing the fouling you're not playing to your fullest, but you do so with the knowledge that in ten seconds this "poor" play will pay off. The badminton players did the same thing, except extended over the course of the tournament. One could argue that, like a basketball team that doesn't foul the poor free throw shooter, a badminton team that doesn't try to optimize their chances of winning the tournament are actually the ones that aren't playing to their fullest.

ximeng 14y ago
The rules say you must try to win every match, not try to win the tournament. Violation of Players’ Code of Conduct, Section 4.5 for “not using one’s best efforts to win a match.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/08/01/157703869/badmintons-detrimental-conduct-rule-and-losing-on-purpose http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/08/01/157703869/badmi...
- tghw 14y ago
  Why is that rule necessary? Shouldn't the tournament be structured such that the only way to win the tournament is to win matches?
  - chrischen 14y ago
    I can't think of any algorithms to accurately rank all teams except to just have every team play every other team. There's the ELO system, but I think that's only an approximation.
  - yen223 14y ago
    Probably to prevent match-fixing.
- kenjackson 14y ago
  In the context of a tournament that doesn't make sense. Let me give you an example. Lets say I'm playing team A. I know if I beat team A then I must play B and C. Both of whom I know I can't beat. If I lose to team A then I must play D and E, both of whom I know I can beat. Thereby me using my best effort to win against A also means that I'm knowingly putting myself in a position to lose my next two matches. So I'm not using my best efforts to win a match -- it just happens to be a future match, not the match that I'm currently in. Now if Section 4.5 was clear that it only applied to the match you were currently playing then it would be fine. But it's still a braindead tournament construction where to incentive players to do their best you must create a rule dictating it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ximeng 14y ago
    Braindead tournament - agree. Interpretation of 4.5 ambiguous - agree, though I think your alternative interpretation is less compelling. See also 4.16 - "Conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport", again under a reasonable interpretation this was committed, although you could argue that there is some future chain of events where this could be good for the sport I suppose. The fact that the judge told them to stop and they carried on doesn't go in their favour. http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=364321&tid=1 http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=364321&#38...
revelation 14y ago
But they didn't optimize their winning chances! They chose a very low chance of not being disqualified over a reasonable chance to still beat a tough competitor later on. They especially didn't change their strategy after being given immediate and clear warning that they would be disqualified (and in the process forfeiting any chance to win). I also don't think theres any ambiguity here that they were in violation of the rule. They were repeatedly putting the ball into the net on their openers.
- achompas 14y ago
  They especially didn't change their strategy after being given immediate and clear warning that they would be disqualified. I think this is the key piece--the referee in the South Korea/China match initially disqualified both teams before getting reined in by the IOC. If I'm one of those teams, I'm cutting out the bullshit after that and winning. They just kept going, however.
- kenjackson 14y ago
  Their ability to not hide their intent is more disappointig to me than trying to lose in this case. Funny, no one blamed the US Mens gymnastics team for intentially losing, but they looked like they were trying to lose on purpose. The only thing they had going for them was (a) they looked sincerely distressed and (b) there's no incentive we know of for why they would have done so poorly intentionally.
steve19 14y ago
Strategically conceding a point or advantage during a game, in order to win that game, is not the same as intentionally losing a game. A triathlon competitor may decide strategically to swim slower during the swimming component of the race in order to have more energy during the cycling component of the race.
- kenjackson 14y ago
  What's the difference? The only difference is the scope. In both cases you have some ultimate goal and in both cases you view the intermediate steps as just steps along the way to the main goal. In both cases you sacrifice an intermediate step as a way to strategically increase your chance of achieving your ultimate goal.
  - Jach 14y ago
    The difference isn't scope, the difference is in what's allowed to slide. In basketball, when does a player foul another player? When the ref calls it. If it was the home team's fault, the ref might even look the other way. The olympics are supposed to entertain the crowd. If the crowd is not entertained, the players are execu--er, expelled for being unsportsmanlike.
    - kenjackson 14y ago
      All sports are supposed to entertain, but virtually all sports make concessions for cases where their rules incentivize the behavior. Intentional fouling in basketball, rope-a-dope in boxing, intentional walks in baseball, sacrifice hits/bunts in baseball, gambits in chess, etc...
canistr 14y ago
I'm a competitive badminton player, and while what you may is partially correct, the product they had on the court was utter crap. There's a significant difference between playing half-hearted or reducing energy and just putting out garbage on the court. What the Chinese, South Koreans, and Indonesians did was put on display non-sense. Pure garbage that had no place in the sport. It's not like basketball at all or any other sport. If you want a comparison to how poorly these teams played, let's compare it to baseball. Suppose two teams wanted to lose. So the pitcher decides to through balls nowhere near the strike zone in an attempt to walk the batter constantly. But think of it as 4 intentional walks combined in order to force the opponent to score runs. But conversely, the batter decides he's going to swing wildly at bad pitches out of the strike zone so that he gets strikes and strikes out (some of you may be thinking of the South Park episode where this occurred). What the 4 pairs did on the court WASN'T EVEN PLAYING. They were scoring useless points for the opponent. It was a complete disgrace. Strictly speaking, you can't even make the comparison to other sports because of how ridiculous they "played". It doesn't matter that this is a round-robin style tournament or that they're trying to game the system for the benefit of their team. When you put garbage on the court like that, you SHOULD be disqualified.

ximeng 14y ago

The rules say you must try to win every match, not try to win the tournament. Violation of Players’ Code of Conduct, Section 4.5 for “not using one’s best efforts to win a match.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/08/01/157703869/badmintons-detrimental-conduct-rule-and-losing-on-purpose http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/08/01/157703869/badmi...

tghw 14y ago
Why is that rule necessary? Shouldn't the tournament be structured such that the only way to win the tournament is to win matches?
- chrischen 14y ago
  I can't think of any algorithms to accurately rank all teams except to just have every team play every other team. There's the ELO system, but I think that's only an approximation.
- yen223 14y ago
  Probably to prevent match-fixing.
kenjackson 14y ago
In the context of a tournament that doesn't make sense. Let me give you an example. Lets say I'm playing team A. I know if I beat team A then I must play B and C. Both of whom I know I can't beat. If I lose to team A then I must play D and E, both of whom I know I can beat. Thereby me using my best effort to win against A also means that I'm knowingly putting myself in a position to lose my next two matches. So I'm not using my best efforts to win a match -- it just happens to be a future match, not the match that I'm currently in. Now if Section 4.5 was clear that it only applied to the match you were currently playing then it would be fine. But it's still a braindead tournament construction where to incentive players to do their best you must create a rule dictating it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ximeng 14y ago
  Braindead tournament - agree. Interpretation of 4.5 ambiguous - agree, though I think your alternative interpretation is less compelling. See also 4.16 - "Conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport", again under a reasonable interpretation this was committed, although you could argue that there is some future chain of events where this could be good for the sport I suppose. The fact that the judge told them to stop and they carried on doesn't go in their favour. http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=364321&tid=1 http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=364321&#38...

revelation 14y ago

But they didn't optimize their winning chances! They chose a very low chance of not being disqualified over a reasonable chance to still beat a tough competitor later on. They especially didn't change their strategy after being given immediate and clear warning that they would be disqualified (and in the process forfeiting any chance to win). I also don't think theres any ambiguity here that they were in violation of the rule. They were repeatedly putting the ball into the net on their openers.

achompas 14y ago
They especially didn't change their strategy after being given immediate and clear warning that they would be disqualified. I think this is the key piece--the referee in the South Korea/China match initially disqualified both teams before getting reined in by the IOC. If I'm one of those teams, I'm cutting out the bullshit after that and winning. They just kept going, however.
kenjackson 14y ago
Their ability to not hide their intent is more disappointig to me than trying to lose in this case. Funny, no one blamed the US Mens gymnastics team for intentially losing, but they looked like they were trying to lose on purpose. The only thing they had going for them was (a) they looked sincerely distressed and (b) there's no incentive we know of for why they would have done so poorly intentionally.

steve19 14y ago

Strategically conceding a point or advantage during a game, in order to win that game, is not the same as intentionally losing a game. A triathlon competitor may decide strategically to swim slower during the swimming component of the race in order to have more energy during the cycling component of the race.

kenjackson 14y ago
What's the difference? The only difference is the scope. In both cases you have some ultimate goal and in both cases you view the intermediate steps as just steps along the way to the main goal. In both cases you sacrifice an intermediate step as a way to strategically increase your chance of achieving your ultimate goal.
- Jach 14y ago
  The difference isn't scope, the difference is in what's allowed to slide. In basketball, when does a player foul another player? When the ref calls it. If it was the home team's fault, the ref might even look the other way. The olympics are supposed to entertain the crowd. If the crowd is not entertained, the players are execu--er, expelled for being unsportsmanlike.
  - kenjackson 14y ago
    All sports are supposed to entertain, but virtually all sports make concessions for cases where their rules incentivize the behavior. Intentional fouling in basketball, rope-a-dope in boxing, intentional walks in baseball, sacrifice hits/bunts in baseball, gambits in chess, etc...

canistr 14y ago

I'm a competitive badminton player, and while what you may is partially correct, the product they had on the court was utter crap. There's a significant difference between playing half-hearted or reducing energy and just putting out garbage on the court. What the Chinese, South Koreans, and Indonesians did was put on display non-sense. Pure garbage that had no place in the sport. It's not like basketball at all or any other sport. If you want a comparison to how poorly these teams played, let's compare it to baseball. Suppose two teams wanted to lose. So the pitcher decides to through balls nowhere near the strike zone in an attempt to walk the batter constantly. But think of it as 4 intentional walks combined in order to force the opponent to score runs. But conversely, the batter decides he's going to swing wildly at bad pitches out of the strike zone so that he gets strikes and strikes out (some of you may be thinking of the South Park episode where this occurred). What the 4 pairs did on the court WASN'T EVEN PLAYING. They were scoring useless points for the opponent. It was a complete disgrace. Strictly speaking, you can't even make the comparison to other sports because of how ridiculous they "played". It doesn't matter that this is a round-robin style tournament or that they're trying to game the system for the benefit of their team. When you put garbage on the court like that, you SHOULD be disqualified.