Please give a legit explanation why team Thailand lost two points and does not allow substitutions s

The womens' volleyball Rio Olympic qualification match between Thailand and Japan was one of the most grueling sport matches to watch in the recent Thai Olympic history, and the Thais' questionable defeat at the hands of its long-time rival and host, Team Japan, was difficult to swallow.

Let us look first at the past stories. Japan is the stronghold of FIVB (Fédération Internationale de Volleyball) as well as home to the organization's main sponsors (Honda, Mikasa, etc). In the London'2012 Olympic qualification event, also held in Japan, it was widely speculated that the fixtures were set up to favour the host nation. The organizers had Japan and Serbia play the final match of the tournament, thus creating the possibility that this match's result could be fixed so that Japan could easily wriggle its way through to London.

As it turned out, there was a three-way tie between Japan, Serbia and Thailand. Prior to the final match, the Thais had already had one foot step on the plane to London; the only result that could disappoint the Thais was if Japan lost to Serbia by the scoreline of two sets to three, which would send Japan and Serbia to the Olympics and Thailand packing home. Any other combinations would see Thailand sailing through the qualification. But this 2:3 loss, Japan delivered. FIVB' investigation revealed no match fixing but it promised to consider having the final matches of all teams play at the same time (just as in the group stages at the FIFA World Cup).

Fast forward 4 years, there are no fixture changes made by the hosts. And again three teams were fighting for two final berths in Rio; this time in the names of Japan, Thailand, and the Netherlands. When the fixtures were revealed, the organizers made sure to have Team Japan play the Dutch in the final match of the tournament.

But things did get uglier. After the Thais' loss to the Netherlands and Japan's surprise defeat by South Korea, the contest between Thailand and Japan was likely to determine which team would grab the fourth and final ticket to Rio. The Thai girls played their hearts out, leading 2 to 1 set and trailing 23-24 in the fourth. As Team Japan was about to serve out the set, the Thai Coach (Coach Ord) requested one final substitution to replace a defender with a star attacker. The Mexican referee, Luis Gerardo Macías, respectfully declined the request, pointing out that there were no request signals from the Thai coach.

Normally, this would have been done by having a player hold out a substitution plate at court side, but Japan introduced a new digital system requiring the Coach to press on the tablet, which would then give a signal, not directly to the referee, but to the Japanese officials, who would then remit the requests to the referee. Why there had to be an intermeddler is hard to follow; what if, as Coach Ord believed, the signals from the Thai Team were stopped from reaching the referee? What followed was Japan 2-2 Thailand.

In the final set of 15, Thailand built an unassailable lead of 12-6, needing only 3 points to win the match and most likely a berth at the Olympics. At 12-7, Coach Ord requested a challenge on a foul by a Japanese player's entire head crossing the middle line under the net. Again, this was denied on the ground that the challenge request was not correctly signalled. Coach Ord's protests were reprimanded at a cost of a red card and a point penalty. Now the score became 12-9 instead of 13-8.

With Japan riding the momentum and finally taking 13-12 lead, Coach Ord again requested a substitution, which was again declined. Another penalty point was awarded, giving Team Japan double match points. Japan capitalized on this God-given lifeline, converting the second match point and taking the match at 15-13.

While the world is protesting the refereeing in the match, let us have a look on the news of the event "as it unfolded" in the eyes of the FIVB official reporters.

On the official website, accounts were given of the Thai team showing their "ill discipline" by "continuing to argue with officials"; eventually leading to the loss which is then described as "one of the most amazing self-destructions in sport".

First, FIVB, being neutral, shouldn't give judgments by calling out the coach's outburst a result of an "ill discipline". I believe it did that in support of the precipitous accusation of the Thai coach harassing officials. The description is both suggestive and misleading as the writers entirely left out from the report any explanation on why the Thai coach was so adamant. FIVB did not mention a word on the host's technological failures and the referee's repeated decisions to disallow Thai substitutions on critical moments.

Second, I can't see how a sane person could sensibly describe a "self-destruction" by someone else as "amazing". It might well be perplexing, baffling or unforgettable, but this event certainly should not have "amazed" anyone except probably some diehard followers of Team Japan. The fact that FIVB writers were "amazed" at it reveals a whole lot about their neglect of journalistic impartiality.

In my opinion, the standard of refereeing in this match was unacceptably inadequate. Worse, FIVB report of the match is also sport journalism at its poorest. From London'12 to Rio'16, FIVB did little to prove its commitment to the advancement of the spirits of Olympic Games. What transpired to the world has been the synonymity between FIVB and Team Japan. Go Nihon. Enjoy your prideful Olympic campaign.