The Sporting Scene

[Cyberyeti]

Dwar, Phil's point is that Olympic badminton is a sport centered around winning a medal, not around winning matches. Therefore, in his anaolgy a bridge match relates to a badminton tournament and a bridge trick relates to a badminton match. There are certainly better examples but the anaolgy is not false just because you are unable to change the scale in your mind. As another example, in the last London Olympics, 1948, a British rower deliberately lost one of his heats in order to maximise the chance of winning gold. When he did in fact win the gold medal, his tactics were widely praised. This is in an era of "fair play" and "British sportsmanship".

 

One thing seems clear so far - the Olympics are not going to plan and almost every day mired in controversy. Not only the badminton, also the fencing (this was worse than the famous 1 second basketball final), the gymnastics (0.7 difference, what is that?) and the swimming (how difficult is it to make a starting device that works?). Plus the question-marks about empty seats and security. Maybe there is more too; I have only managed to see a tiny amount of sport and almost every time there seems to be a problem!

It has been quoted in the British press that badminton has a specific rule stating that you have to try to win every match, and that is the rule broken along with the one that penalises you for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

The problem is not the gambling (and yes sports betting is OK here) but the paying spectators demanding refunds having not seen the evening of top class badminton they'd paid for.

[cherdano]

Can anyone explain why it was advantageous for FOUR pairs to dump a match? Did they use no seeding/horrible seeding/seeding controlled by a non-Asian seeding committee/...?

[Cyberyeti]

Can anyone explain why it was advantageous for FOUR pairs to dump a match? Did they use no seeding/horrible seeding/seeding controlled by a non-Asian seeding committee/...?

The other very good Chinese pair unexpectedly lost putting them in the half of the draw with the winners of the two matches in question, all four pairs were trying to get into the other half of the draw.

[TimG]

To me (but I guess not to everyone) its a simple hierarchy. Winning the tournament is more important than winning a match, which is more important than winning a set, which is turn is more important than winning a point.

The rules (that have been cited in this thread) refer to a pair doing their best to win a match, not to doing their best to win the event. You and I may have a simple hierarchy based upon winning a tournament being first priority, but these pairs were playing under rules which did not follow that hierarchy.

 

Most of us can agree that CoC should be written such that dumping a match will not increase a pair's chance of winning an event. But, I think we can also agree that pairs playing under what we consider to be flawed CoC must still follow the rules (or be subject to the penalties proscribed).

[TimG]

I'd be surprised if there weren't betting in vegas too.

 

I'm curious to know whether the line on these matches changed significantly after the other strong Chinese pair unexpectedly lost a match. I guess where both pairs had incentive to lose the line might not change much. But, still curious.

[cherdano]

But, I think we can also agree that pairs playing under what we consider to be flawed CoC must still follow the rules (or be subject to the penalties proscribed).

Do you think the rules for such a violation of their "players' code of conduct" exactly spells out penalties for violations? What I found was just a single sentence mentioning that you have to give your best effort to win.

 

This is really what stinks about this situation in my view: there is no precedent, and the rule is unclear, so the committee deciding about the penalties has to make up things on the spot. I am not sure I know a single person on this planet who wouldn't be influenced in such a situation by whether he can empathize with the athletes (e.g. whether he will look at this from the athletes' perspective at all). You don't think a European disciplinary committee member would look at this with different eyes if the athletes are European?

[cherdano]

Btw, to give a comparison: There was a Judo team that refused to practice on the same mat as the Judo team from one specific nation. I am fairly sure there is some code of conduct rule that can be read to prohibit such behavior. I am also sure that anyone will find this more repulsive than throwing a round-robin match. But instead of ejecting the team, the official put up a screen so the two nations could practice on the two sides.

[TimG]

You don't think a European disciplinary committee member would look at this with different eyes if the athletes are European?

I don't, but maybe that just means I am naive.

[cherdano]

I don't, but maybe that just means I am naive.

 

I bet you also think that US supreme court judges decide cases on their legal merit alone, and remain completely unbiased when the effect of a decision would align with their political convictions?

I guess you also think that a criminal defendant has the same chances of success, regardless of the demographic breakdown of the jury?

 

After the contentious decision in the semifinal between a German and Korean fencer, the German coach and a German judge involved in the decision were interviewed together on German TV. The German judge didn't deem it necessary to hide that he is good friends with the coach. Needless to say, he thought their decision was extremely obvious, no big deal at all.

[MickyB]

As long as the format is flawed, people will dump matches. The next ones just won't be so obvious about it.

 

Yes, this situation only became obvious because it was in the interests of both pairs to lose.

[MickyB]

So, a country with a bottom seed...knowing they will be pitted in a K.O. against the top seed should spend thousands and travel thousands of miles, then get a return ticket for the next day.

 

There are plenty of possible formats that don't encourage dumping but guarantee everyone plays more than one match - eg double elimination or repechage.

[ArtK78]

There are plenty of possible formats that don't encourage dumping but guarantee everyone plays more than one match - eg double elimination or repechage.

In the New York Times today there was a story about a British pair in some Olympic sport many years ago who won the gold medal after losing a preliminary round match in that sport deliberately. It seems that the format included a repechage, and one of the pair determined that they would have an easier route to the gold medal by losing a match deliberately and reentering the main draw via the repechage, which is exactly what they did. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the NY Times in front of me at this moment, so I can't quote the names of the participants and the sport that they competed in.

 

The only format that truly guarantees that one cannot gain by losing is single elimination.

[gwnn]

I am also sure that anyone will find this more repulsive than throwing a round-robin match.

More repulsive according to what standard? It seems to me to be two quite different scenarios and I find it very hard to compare them. The outrage from spectators will definitely be bigger in the case of the badminton match. The judo case is rather sad because it involves a lot of politics and that's expressly against the IOC rules. But the judo contestants were likely coerced by their government while the badminton players made a conscious decision. But racism under any shape or form is zero tolerance.. But look at those serves right in the net.. I don't know.

[jeffford76]

The only format that truly guarantees that one cannot gain by losing is single elimination.

 

What would be a situation where it would be advantageous to lose in a double elimination tournament? (There may well be one, but I can't think of one.)

[VMars]

Btw, to give a comparison: There was a Judo team that refused to practice on the same mat as the Judo team from one specific nation. I am fairly sure there is some code of conduct rule that can be read to prohibit such behavior. I am also sure that anyone will find this more repulsive than throwing a round-robin match. But instead of ejecting the team, the official put up a screen so the two nations could practice on the two sides.

 

Since the Olympics are all about how we all get along in the name of sports, when anyone won't cooperate with that we just pretend it didn't happen, because then it won't interfere with the narrative of how we all get along.

[wyman]

What would be a situation where it would be advantageous to lose in a double elimination tournament? (There may well be one, but I can't think of one.)

 

Suppose A is 100% vs B, and C (unless they tank) and 50% vs D. And suppose that B is 100% vs D (and whatever vs C) And D is 100% vs C.

 

In a 4-man tournament starting with AvB / CvD, if A wins the first match, D will win the winners' bracket, A will win the losers' bracket, and A will have to beat D twice to win the tourney (25%)

 

If A tanks the first match, then B wins the winners' bracket, and A plays D in the losers' bracket finals with a 50% chance to win the tournament.

[dwar0123]

Suppose A is 100% vs B, and C (unless they tank) and 50% vs D. And suppose that B is 100% vs D (and whatever vs C) And D is 100% vs C.

 

In a 4-man tournament starting with AvB / CvD, if A wins the first match, D will win the winners' bracket, A will win the losers' bracket, and A will have to beat D twice to win the tourney (25%)

 

If A tanks the first match, then B wins the winners' bracket, and A plays D in the losers' bracket finals with a 50% chance to win the tournament.

I think I followed what you are saying and I think I see a flaw in your reasoning.

 

If A is 50% vs D, then D is 50% vs A. So how exactly is D winning 75% of the time if they are playing twice?

 

I could go on in explaining the math behind where you messed up, but that should be enough.

 

Suffice it to say, it is 50% whether or not they meet twice in the winners final and then again in the champions match or just once in the losers final.

[jeffford76]

Suppose A is 100% vs B, and C (unless they tank) and 50% vs D. And suppose that B is 100% vs D (and whatever vs C) And D is 100% vs C.

 

In a 4-man tournament starting with AvB / CvD, if A wins the first match, D will win the winners' bracket, A will win the losers' bracket, and A will have to beat D twice to win the tourney (25%)

 

If A tanks the first match, then B wins the winners' bracket, and A plays D in the losers' bracket finals with a 50% chance to win the tournament.

 

I think you've left out the case where A doesn't tank, and also wins the winner's final.

 

 

They are 50% to win the winner's bracket, and then from there it depends on whether B or C wins the loser's match to advance against D. In the pathological case where C is 100% against B, then A will play D twice more, having to win one, a 75% proposition, for a total winning chance of 37.5%. If they lose their match to D in the winners final (50%), then they have to beat D twice (25%), for an additional 12.5%, bringing their chance of winning to 50% regardless of whether they tank.

[wyman]

Yeah sorry I changed my %s mid example and screwed up -- will think about it and fix if possible.

 

Edit: does making A < 50% v D do it?

[dwar0123]

Yeah sorry I changed my %s mid example and screwed up -- will think about it and fix if possible.

 

Edit: does making A < 50% v D do it?

If it is just a flat percentage, no.

 

But that isn't how the real world works, the better team tends to win more often the more games are played.

 

To use a bridge example.

 

If team A has a 33% chance of winning a 16 board final vs team D and a 33% chance of winning a 164 board final vs team D. Then it makes no difference if they intentionally lose vs team B.

 

But in the real world, the better team would tend to improve their odds the more boards are played and hence there there may be an argument to be made to say that if you have to play team D and they are the better team, you want to play as few boards as possible to improve the chances of a random upset.

 

Of course, you would be trading a 33% of gold and 66% of silver for a slightly > chance of gold and zero chance of silver.

 

And this is with really contrived examples, I think the system is very solid for all practical purposes.

[jeffford76]

Edit: does making A < 50% v D do it?

 

Yes. Basically the question is whether you'd rather play a team once or best of three. If you're 50% to beat them it doesn't matter. If you're above 50% you'd prefer best of three, and if you're below 50% you'd prefer once.

[Vampyr]

Btw, to give a comparison: There was a Judo team that refused to practice on the same mat as the Judo team from one specific nation. I am fairly sure there is some code of conduct rule that can be read to prohibit such behavior. I am also sure that anyone will find this more repulsive than throwing a round-robin match. But instead of ejecting the team, the official put up a screen so the two nations could practice on the two sides.

 

The solution to this is so obvious -- the team that rejects the mat has no opportunity to practise. I wonder what the political situation was that made it an imperative that both teams be allowed to practise.

 

I also wonder whether anyone involved with the badminton teams mentioned the flawed CoC with the organisers before the notorious match.

[barmar]

I also wonder whether anyone involved with the badminton teams mentioned the flawed CoC with the organisers before the notorious match.

Isn't this "flawed" CoC extremely common across many sports? It's the reason that every 3-4 months there's another article about dumping in TBW (since similar methods are used in many bridge tournaments when moving from the RR to KO stage).

 

If this is the way the sport has been played for years, why would they pick now to suddenly complain?

 

Plus, why would the team mention it to the organizers, if they were planning on using it to their advantage?

[sfi]

Isn't this "flawed" CoC extremely common across many sports? It's the reason that every 3-4 months there's another article about dumping in TBW (since similar methods are used in many bridge tournaments when moving from the RR to KO stage).

 

If this is the way the sport has been played for years, why would they pick now to suddenly complain?

 

Plus, why would the team mention it to the organizers, if they were planning on using it to their advantage?

 

It's not the way badminton has been played before, according to the reports. In all previous olympics the draw has been a straight knockout. And there were concerns raised about exactly this situation which the federation (somewhat naively) dismissed out of hand.

[barmar]

Perhaps, but this does not invalidate the premise, it supports it. Put it this way, over the course of a match, there are hundreds of opportunities to lose tricks.

But bridge already has a perfectly good analogy. A match in bridge corresponds to a match in badminton. Tricks are more like individual points in a game like badminton.

 

However, you can't treat them the same, because bridge values some tricks differently: the ones that contribute to making your contract are different from overtricks. Games like badminton have no such distinction, all that matters is making more points than the opponents (or getting to N points first).

 

In a bridge hand, there are usually some tricks that you are guaranteed to lose -- it's not like if you play better you can avoid losing to the opponent's trump ace -- so planning a bridge hand is often a matter of timing things properly. Thus, ducking a trick early is not considered dumping, it's a normal part of the game. There's nothing analogous to this in badminton.

 

There are other sports where it may be normal to reduce your effort in some stages of the game. In distance running, I imagine some runners may go at a slower pace early, to conserve their strength so they can run all out towards the end. Balancing this properly is what makes a good athlete in these sports.