seo seung jae ec849cec8ab9ec9eac

Seo Seung Jae (서승재)

avatar m

it is my understanding bwf is updating it weekly and it is specific to olympic qualifying, save for the tripartite (wildcard) rules.

“The World Ranking Lists of 28 April 2020 will be used to allocate the athletes Quota Places in Men’s and Women’s Singles, and Men’s, Women’s and Mixed Doubles.”

i’m not so sure the # of points you accumulate during the qualifying period matters. if i’m ranked #3 at the start and you #9, then you accumulate more points than me during the qualifying period, but at the end of the qualifying period i’m still ranked #3, and you #4, i will still be seeded higher than you for the tournament.

also, from what i understand reading the reg’s the ‘noc’ allotment criteria is used before the continental allotment…?

anyhow, every time i read the reg’s it becomes less clear: https://extranet.bwfbadminton.com/docs/document-system/81/1466/1471/Section 5.4.1.1 – OG – Qualifying Regulations for Tokyo 2020 (ENG).pdf

nothing is coming up when i click your link, but i’m very interested in seeing it. have a better link?

it’s not a rule, but more of an interpretation of contract language. bka and bwf would have to settle the matter on their own through mediation/arbitration/court/whatever if they care to take it that far.

bwf would have no legal standing to do so since there is no contract binding seo to bwf.

again, bwf has no legal standing to demand anything of seo.

in the smaller and less rich assoc’s player fines usually play out between the player and their assoc… the assoc. has to pay bwf, then the assoc. tells the player they will not enter them in anymore tournaments until they reimburse the assoc. whatever happens in seo’s case will be settled between bka and seo.

ko v. bka was a domestic civil legal matter challenging the legality of bka’s rules inflicted upon korean citizens. bwf was a peripheral party to the suit, yet had no legal standing to make any concessions, demands or influence. ko’s player status, active or retired, as viewed by bwf was irrelevant to the case. if fine’s were piling up on behalf of ksh and bwf wanted their money that would be a bwf v. bka matter.

seo could take the same route and sue bka to enter him in tournaments, but bka could (and likely would) restrict (pressure) chae & choi from playing with him. i cannot speculate what bka would actually do as i do not know anyone inside of bka. all i do know is that this colossally sucks for all the players involuntarily attached in this spat.

i became an even bigger fan of ksh for standing up and challenging this aspect of the current archaic system.

it will take a very rich player/person with nothing but time on their hands to sue bwf in order to overturn the current system.