IN or OUT?

[kwun]

is this in, or out?

[cappy75]

How about a poll? I think it's IN btw.


is this in, or out?

[kwun]

thanks for the suggestion. :)

[Neil Nicholls]

I would say... Out

[Neil Nicholls]

And can you add an option for Don't Know or Not Sure ?

[cooler]

EZ call, it's out :)

in the olympic WS between CM and gong zhichao, gong had let go 2 to 3 incidents like that, that's just amazing judgement.

[jump_smash]

EZ call, it's out :)

in the olympic WS between CM and gong zhichao, gong had let go 2 to 3 incidents like that, that's just amazing judgement.

It is a little hard to tell from quality of photo!

But noting:
"Faults:
13.2 If in play the shuttle;
13.2.1 lands outside the boundaries of the court (ie not on or within the boundary line"

looks like the cork has touch the edge of line - therefore - in.

[bluejeff]

I would call it in......because the shuttle head is touching the line. (although not by much)

[cooler]

It is a little hard to tell from quality of photo!

But noting:
"Faults:
13.2 If in play the shuttle;
13.2.1 lands outside the boundaries of the court (ie not on or within the boundary line"

looks like the cork has touch the edge of line - therefore - in.

LOL, IMO, u made a call contravening 13.2

[nutty]

I'd call it in, just because I think the shuttle is still in the air. If I'm not wrong, there's also a shadow of the shuttle on the court, and judging by the way the shuttle is descending, I'd assume it was in :D

[cappy75]

Just by the trajectory itself, the shuttle headed for the line already. It's within the boundary of the court. BTW, it's not considered 'in' if there's doubt on the linejudge's part even when the shuttle is perceived to have edged the line. In this case, it's not even close to edging the line.

[badmad]

if I would be lineman over there, I would give it out.

It is very close though. probably clarity of the picture also adds to my call. :)

[ants]

This is a very close call... it seems that the shuttle touches the line a little bit.. but from the linesman angle it may seem out. I would say its out since the shuttle is clearer on the out part.

[SystemicAnomaly]

I would call it in......because the shuttle head is touching the line. (although not by much)

Can't tell for sure if it the cork is really touching the line or not. However, I would be inclined to say that it is very likely not. It seems that the initial point of contact with the floor is just outside the line. Given that the cork compresses very little (in normal cases), the cork would most likely not flatten out enough to touch the line. In the other hand, a tennis ball or a volleyball could conceivably compress enough so that the ball would flatten out sufficiently so that it touches the line even though the initial point of contact is just outside the line.

[Break-My-String]

When I first started playing badminton, the coach said, "If you cannot 'clearly' see it out, then call it in".

Cheers!

[Neil Nicholls]

I'm surprised so many are saying it's IN :eek:

[Syaoran_Style]

I'm surprised so many are saying it's IN :eek:
hahahahaha me too
yes i wear glasses lol but for me it's out ! ;)

[seven]

Difficult to tell but from what I see the shuttle is still in the air and is going to touch the line so it's IN...

[Neil Nicholls]

If it were still in the air, I would say it looks like it will land in.

I was assuming Kwun had grabbed the picture just as the shuttle landed.
Kwun, you wanna confirm?

[wilfredlgf]

Out. The tip should be hitting the outer side first, before the weigh pulls it down to look like an In. Very close, but I still say it's an out.

[jug8man]

im assuming that that is the moment of 'touch down'.
coz: why would kwun show a picture of a shuttle that has not 'landed' and ask us to judge in or out?

if so i would definetely say it is out.

[badmad]

"If you cannot 'clearly' see it out, then call it in".

I don't think that would be a right call.

How about putting as "If you can't clearly see it in, then call it out".. :D
It just depends who should reap the benefit of doubt.

[SystemicAnomaly]

I don't think that would be a right call.

How about putting as "If you can't clearly see it in, then call it out".. :D
It just depends who should reap the benefit of doubt.

Good sportsmanship dictates that you should always give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. In this case however, I'd still be inclined to call this shot OUT cuz that is what my eyes are telling me in this case.

The only thing that prevents me from saying that my call is absolutely correct is the inferiror quality of the photographic evidence presented.

[jamesd20]

I dont think the shuttle has landed, therefor cant make a decision.

If that was the position landed, then I would say out. The point of the cork that would have hit the line first would not have been in contact with the Line.

[david14700]

I know that any part of the shuttle touching any part of the line should be called in, but when you look carefully at the picture, AND also think about the shape of the shuttle's cork, then logically the tip of the cork will touch the floor (beyond the line) before the inner part touches the outer edge, so it should be called OUT.

This looks like a clear that has dropped vertically, it would be different if it was a smash that was travelling almost horizontally, then you could say the side of the cork did touch the line first.

Just IMHO. :)

[jkusmanto]

If we see the picture, most of us will say it is IN.
But if we are a lines men on the field, I think most us will call it OUT.


Because Kwun show us a picture, so I say IN.

[cooler]

I'm surprised so many are saying it's IN :eek:

I'm surprised some are undecided (even tho reason was given)

[cooler]

im assuming that that is the moment of 'touch down'.
coz: why would kwun show a picture of a shuttle that has not 'landed' and ask us to judge in or out?

if so i would definetely say it is out.

Exactly, no line judges nor umpire can make a line call if the shuttle hasn't landed on the court surface. A proper call is based on visual on the shuttle being landed and not from estimation of its projectory flight angle. So polling a line call before shuttle being landed is pointless and i assumed that is not the case here

[kwun]

just to clarify, the pic does show the moment the shuttle hits the ground..

[Casper]

I will call it "IN" as long as the bird touches the line. With the angle of that bird is heading, looks like is going to touch the line for sure.

[Syaoran_Style]

i don't see any part of the shuttle touching the line :confused: :confused: ... for me this is always "out" .

[bigredlemon]

that picture looked like it used edge enhancement. Basically, darkening/lightening the edges of high contrast areas, effectively making the line look bigger than it actually is.

Based on that, i'd say it's out.

[cooler]

just to clarify, the pic does show the moment the shuttle hits the ground..


;) Perfect....

[seven]

just to clarify, the pic does show the moment the shuttle hits the ground..
So, how was it called IRL? that's what interests us! :D

[liew19]

Out!!!


Definitely, an In wouldn't be too much of a scene as the shuttle barely or rather dun actualyy landing in the area of the line. The trajectory of the shuttle itsself didn;t show that it is going in, rather it was going out.

[chibe_K]

I am sure the answer can be revealed by doing detail image analysis but hey this is sports, the linesman makes the call.

For a close call like that, the answer is depending on the linesman. If I were the linesman, I would call it IN because my judgement is the head of the shuttle touches the line. Others might call it an OUT, which is acceptable.....that is what makes a live sports different from a video game.

[kwun]

that picture looked like it used edge enhancement. Basically, darkening/lightening the edges of high contrast areas, effectively making the line look bigger than it actually is.

nope. it was a frame capture, any "visual effect", blame the tape! :)

[kwun]

28 in
27 out

this poll is closer than i thought!

i will let you guys know how the linesman called it at midnight PST.

[cooler]

28 in
27 out

this poll is closer than i thought!

i will let you guys know how the linesman called it at midnight PST.

LOL, at least we do know now that about half of the respondents are not ready to be line judges :p

[timeless]

My call would have been "out!".

At that camera angle, shots very close to the line, that seemingly look like they're catching the line, can actually be just out if one were to be sitting where the linesmen are and looking directly down the line. In that photo, the shuttle cork actually looks mostly out. The first contact point of the cork even looking to be outside the line. So I would say when looking properly directly down the line, the shuttle cork would have clearly contacted the ground outside the line/court.

[wood_22_chuck]

I voted "OUT!"

I would like the shuttle to be "safely in" to be called in. If it's hairline like in the picture, I wouldn't hesitate to call it out, even if half the cork where on the line, and half was out.

It would help the hitter, I would think, to adjust his/her strokes to account for draft, irregular shuttle speed etc.

-dave

[Tomsk]

In (if I win the point ;) )

[Infernal]

i voted in hehe

[jump_smash]

LOL, at least we do know now that about half of the respondents are not ready to be line judges :p

Hey Cooler, hope you have the right half!

(BTW, I am a qualified Line Judge)

Comment on IBF test rule change on Umpire over ruling Line Judges?

[kwun]

Hey Cooler, hope you have the right half!

(BTW, I am a qualified Line Judge)

Comment on IBF test rule change on Umpire over ruling Line Judges?
*cough* stay in topic. though feel free to start another thread on it... ;)

so... what's your call, in or out? :)

[wood_22_chuck]

He called it in, on the first page :)

-dave

[kwun]

ops.............. :o

[jump_smash]

*cough* stay in topic. though feel free to start another thread on it...

Sorry.....


ops.............. :o

That's okay, yes I called in. Contact with any part of the line is in.
(noting contact is with the part of shuttle that first contacts the court - the cork)

[Feng_MP-100]

The picture quality sux. But I think it's IN.

[stumblingfeet]

My call would have been "out!".

At that camera angle, shots very close to the line, that seemingly look like they're catching the line, can actually be just out if one were to be sitting where the linesmen are and looking directly down the line. In that photo, the shuttle cork actually looks mostly out. The first contact point of the cork even looking to be outside the line. So I would say when looking properly directly down the line, the shuttle cork would have clearly contacted the ground outside the line/court.
I agree. Out!

The bird appears closer in due to the camera angle. This is why in sports like rowing or swimming a line is moving line is sometimes superimposed on the action in order to correct for this effect. This is also why line judges sit looking directly down the line, in order to see more clearly.

Of course, people always make mistakes...

[Winex West Can]

I voted "OUT!"

I would like the shuttle to be "safely in" to be called in. If it's hairline like in the picture, I wouldn't hesitate to call it out, even if half the cork where on the line, and half was out.

It would help the hitter, I would think, to adjust his/her strokes to account for draft, irregular shuttle speed etc.

-dave

That's beside the point. The rule is that if the base of the shuttlecock touches any part of the line, it's in. Just because you like to be safely in is not an option :D

As a linejudge, you need to call the shot as you see it (regardless of whether you think it might be in or out). It's either IN or OUT or you signal unsighted.

In most rec games, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the opponents.

I don't understand it. A number of you specify that it should be out regardless of whether the shuttle touches the line or part of the line. The rules are there to be enforced. Can you imagine if you are playing and in the middle of the game, you opponent call you for a fault because they felt like it or felt that they should because that was how they feel without any justification or application of the rules. :)

[smash_master]

well because its still int he air theres always the possiability that it could go out or could land in but the again the angle at which the picture was taken was not parallel to the line so therefore it is hard to tell if it will be in our out at the moment. but then again as long as part of it touches the line its in so i would have to say in.

[Feng_MP-100]

I Call It Outtttttttttt!!!

[jump_smash]

[QUOTE=Winex West Can]That's beside the point. The rule is that if the base of the shuttlecock touches any part of the line, it's in. Just because you like to be safely in is not an option :D

As a linejudge, you need to call the shot as you see it (regardless of whether you think it might be in or out). It's either IN or OUT or you signal unsighted.
QUOTE]

Exactly!

[viver]

In - from what I see, the shuttle touches the line.

[wood_22_chuck]

I think it's ambiguous, and the poll reflects that. You'd call upon some interpretation or past experience to justify how you would call the shot, either in, or out.

BTW WWC, when can cappy75 and I get a game against you/wwcbro again? Separate thread or PM! :D

-dave

[prophet]

I think its in... I mean out.....I mean in.....no, no I think its out.....

Ok, Ok, out it is :rolleyes: by the narrowest of margins in my mind, the shuttle hits the outside first therefore making it out... whew! :eek:

[cooler]

I Call It Outtttttttttt!!!


Feng_MP-100


Location: Sunnyvale, CA United States
Posts: 208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The picture quality sux. But I think it's IN.

Hey, u can't have it both ways :rolleyes:

[paulchow]

ya its kind of hard to judge when you cant see where the shuttle touches the ground...

[cooler]

ya its kind of hard to judge when you cant see where the shuttle touches the ground...

errr, that's not the reply an umpire expected to hear from the line judge :rolleyes:

[bluejeff]

this is the situation that works the best for an instant replay :p :p
(no, we probably won't have that)

[Loh]

I don't think that would be a right call.

How about putting as "If you can't clearly see it in, then call it out".. :D
It just depends who should reap the benefit of doubt.

I agree. If the line judge isn't sure he should call 'unsighted' so that a 'let' call will be given by the umpire otherwise it wouldn't be fair to the either party.

I assume that the shuttle has landed (not still airborne), otherwise the line judge should not make any call yet. If the bird has touched the line, no matter how finely or thinly, it should be treated as "in" and normally the LJ should not make any call UNLESS it is 'out', whereby he will shout 'out' with his arms stretched from his sides. If I were the LJ in this case, I will shout 'OUT' with my arms outstretched sideways, because I see it as out side the baseline and not touching it.

But what happens IF:

1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?

2. The shuttle was about to land seemingly outside of the line but a gust of wind blew against the shuttle and made it land on its feathers first on/inside the line?

Care to offer your verdict, Mr Line Judge? :)

[jump_smash]

it should be treated as "in" and normally the LJ should not make any call UNLESS it is 'out', whereby he will shout 'out' with his arms stretched from his sides.

No exactly true. Line Judges do call in if shuttle is in it is a non-verbal call indicated by one arm pointing forward towards the inside of court!



But what happens IF:

1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?

2. The shuttle was about to land seemingly outside of the line but a gust of wind blew against the shuttle and made it land on its feathers first on/inside the line?

Care to offer your verdict, Mr Line Judge? :)

1. Out. Cork touched outside first.

2. In. Doesn't matter about wind or not.

[cappy75]

Whatever part touched the ground first counts (most of the time, the cork base first). That's what linejudges are for... to check the shuttle actually land on the ground:D.



But what happens IF:

1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?
Care to offer your verdict, Mr Line Judge? :)

[bigredlemon]

nope. it was a frame capture, any "visual effect", blame the tape! :)
most video cameras have built-in edge enhancement enabled by default. It can't even be disabled unless it's high end equipment. :)

[Neil Nicholls]

But what happens IF:

1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?

depends which happens first.

if the first contact is outside the lines, it is a fault, and as soon as a fault occurs, the shuttle becomes "Not in play". What the shuttle does when it is "Not in play" is irrelevent, so if any further part of the shuttle subsequently comes into contact inside/on the lines, it does not suddenly become "In".

It is exactly the same as if the shuttle lands clearly OUT and then bounces back in. Nobody considers that to be IN do they?


If different parts of the shuttle simultaneously contact IN and OUT, I'm not sure the rules are specific. But I would call it IN. Not that a person would be able to accurately judge that this has happened in the real world.

[kwun]

most video cameras have built-in edge enhancement enabled by default. It can't even be disabled unless it's high end equipment. :) here is the capture of a typical scene from the same tape as the line call. i will make you be the judge whether this is a edge enhanced or a blurry video source.

[kwun]

the call by the linesman was:

IN !

[cappy75]

Well, what can I say... guess the other half of the voters didn't need to change their eyewear prescriptions:rolleyes:.

[seven]

the call by the linesman was:

IN !


hehe, I was part of the "good" half! :D :D :D

[wilfredlgf]

That does not mean it's legally out. The linesman may have made a wrong call but as you know it, the call cannot be overruled.

If half of the BC population says its out then it's way too close to be accurate here. So, if they say it's in, then it's an in.

I still say it's out.

[seven]

That does not mean it's legally out. The linesman may have made a wrong call but as you know it, the call cannot be overruled.

If half of the BC population says its out then it's way too close to be accurate here. So, if they say it's in, then it's an in.

I still say it's out.
I think however that the linesman was better placed and is also more competent than BFers to call this shot in or out.

What BFers may think by watching a poor quality picture doesn't mean much compared to judging it live in real life!! :cool:

[SystemicAnomaly]

The linesman for the call in question was:

._
|_| Correct! (it was close enuff to be good?)

._
|_| Dead Wrong! (both the lineman & his seeing eye dog should go!)


================================================== ==

I had assumed that the picture quality was such that it made the shuttle appear as if it might be touching the line when, in fact, it did not.

As a linesman, I would possibly call this shout OUT. However, if I had to make this same call against an opponent, I might be inclined to give them the benefit it I was not 100% sure.

Did NE1 see the US Open (tennis) 2 weeks ago? There was a close WS QF match between J. Capriati & Serena Williams. In the 3rd & deciding set, there was several (4?) line calls made against Serena that appeared to be blatantly wrong. If I remember correctly, the worst of the calls was an over-rule by the chair umpire on a ball that was clearly inside the line (not even touching it). The linesperson had correctly indicated that the ball was IN, but for some unknown reason the chair decided to over-rule.

This just goes to show that linepersons & umpires are fallible even tho' they are undoubtedly screened & highly trained for grand slam events in order to minimize these types of errors.

[cooler]

LOL, i should have known this is kwun's trick question or a clip of a questionable line call ;) IMO, that call is a plain jane out. We all watched tournaments before and know that line judges do make errors.

In this case, the line judge called in a instance where as I and other have ample times to eyeball that freeze frame to make the real right call.

[seven]

Now that we have the answer, we are not going to start argueing about whether the linesman was right or wrong.
If some people think they are capable of knowing better than the linesman whether it is IN or OUT by just watching this picture :rolleyes: ... well, so much the better for them.
There are always people who think they know better than the umpire/referee, whatever the sport... :rolleyes:

[wilfredlgf]

Still, seven, what we have here is a still frame and we have tonnes of time to look at it carefully. The linesman could only see it within a fraction of a second. Who do you think would have a better look at it? They must make a decision within the couple of seconds.

A quote from Bill Shankly from football, "The problem with referees is that they know the rules but the don't know the game". :D

[seven]

Do you think your call will be better if you watch this picture for hours? :confused:

I remember in football at world cup 98, the referee gave a penalty to Norway against Brazil.
By watching the TV videos over and over, everyone agreed that there was NO foul.
Then one or two years later, they found an amateur video from another angle... which proved there was a foul and that the referee was right!

All this to say that you shouldn't beleive what you see on a picture or on a video, the best person to judge is the one who sees it IN REAL and has been prepared in order to judge. (all the rest is only telespectator's OPINION, not facts)

[jamesd20]

Camera angles on football games have more margin for error however.On a badminton court IF the camera is exactly facing along the line, then any foot after wards should be more accurate (provided it has a clear view.)

However this particular case, and most tv cameras AREN'T facing exactly down the line. Also on a still, the frames are only a certain muber of frames per second, so errors are there. More errors can come from if the shuttle was smashed onto the line, as the cork may spread out and bee in contact with the line in a still, but the first contact may be out.

It is a continous argument. Good luck! :)

[Neil Nicholls]

the call by the linesman was:

IN !



does the formatting imply that you disagree with the line judge? :confused:

[seven]

Also on a still, the frames are only a certain muber of frames per second, so errors are there.
Yes this is an other important point, you never have the frame at the VERY EXACT moment when the shuttle makes contact with the ground. Always a split second after and/or before...

[chibe_K]

the call by the linesman was:

IN !


Good, that is my call. I am qualified to be a linejudge.

[cooler]

Do you think your call will be better if you watch this picture for hours? :confused:

I remember in football at world cup 98, the referee gave a penalty to Norway against Brazil.
By watching the TV videos over and over, everyone agreed that there was NO foul.
Then one or two years later, they found an amateur video from another angle... which proved there was a foul and that the referee was right!

All this to say that you shouldn't beleive what you see on a picture or on a video, the best person to judge is the one who sees it IN REAL and has been prepared in order to judge. (all the rest is only telespectator's OPINION, not facts)
of course you can could find close call cases where the referee and umpire are correct. I bet i can match or exceed the number of oppositive cases as well. HOWEVER, u r confusing trained(and often paid) umpire and referee with volunteer line judges. I dont know which thread in BF/BC but we know that majority of times, line judges are volunteers from different discipline with 2 minutes crash course or instruction on what to do. No visual instructions given other than been told if the cork touch the line it's in and if its' outside the line it's out. Arms out for outs(plus audible 'out') and arm/arms out parallel to line is in. Many line judges don't even play badminton or are badminton enthusiasts. I know, i have seen them in action. Many are often very green and 'frighten' on courts: shakey arms, shakey calls, weak voice. I watched couple of Athen matches from Han's dvds, the line judges look like from local volunteers. Hmmm, does greece really have many badminton players at all? They don't even have official line judge attire on. Every Athen match (so far) i saw there are line call dispute between players and line judges/umpire.

I believe the attached photo relates to a questionable call with questionable judgement made. Why else kwun wanna field this line call situation with us all ;) :p :) If this was a correct call, it would be just one of many thousands line calls that the 'viewer' see from watching his/her badminton tapes ;) :)

found some of the threads
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10904&highlight=line+judge

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14338&highlight=line+judge
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8428&highlight=line+judge

[chibe_K]

Everyone agrees this is a close call and there is really no definite answer. That is why it is called a line*judge*, in short, a call based on human judgement.

Lets invite the same linejudge, who called this IN during the match, to BF. We show him the same image and ask if he calls it IN or OUT. I will not be surprise if the answer is different. Even on the same day, I am not surprised the same linejudge yields different result for this type of close call.

[jump_smash]

of course you can could find close call cases where the referee and umpire are correct. I bet i can match or exceed the number of oppositive cases as well. HOWEVER, u r confusing trained(and often paid) umpire and referee with volunteer line judges. I dont know which thread in BF/BC but we know that majority of times, line judges are volunteers from different discipline with 2 minutes crash course or instruction on what to do. No visual instructions given other than been told if the cork touch the line it's in and if its' outside the line it's out. Arms out for outs(plus audible 'out') and arm/arms out parallel to line is in. Many line judges don't even play badminton or are badminton enthusiasts. I know, i have seen them in action. Many are often very green and 'frighten' on courts: shakey arms, shakey calls, weak voice. I watched couple of Athen matches from Han's dvds, the line judges look like from local volunteers. Hmmm, does greece really have many badminton players at all? They don't even have official line judge attire on. Every Athen match (so far) i saw there are line call dispute between players and line judges/umpire.

I believe the attached photo relates to a questionable call with questionable judgement made. Why else kwun wanna field this line call situation with us all ;) :p :) If this was a correct call, it would be just one of many thousands line calls that the 'viewer' see from watching his/her badminton tapes ;) :)

found some of the threads
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10904&highlight=line+judge

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14338&highlight=line+judge
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8428&highlight=line+judge

Cooler,
Thanks for links and information.

But from experience, this is incorrect.

1. Had extensive training before Sydney 2000,
including a WHTYE Trophy match.

2. Had training and revison at Olympic Test event.

3. Had revison at Olympic venue before Olympic Games started.

4. Sydney 2000 officials had uniforms.

5. Yes we were unpaid volunters generally, but got an allowance for Olympics, accomodations, meals etc.

6. All had Badminton experience over quite a number of years. And were not from different sports.

7. There are always disputes by players - that is the nature of the game.
There a quite a few players that are difficult.

8. Line Judges at seated down at court level opposite the lines they are covering, not up high looking down at camera shots with fuzzy feeds.

9. Yes Greece has International Badminton players -
Men's Singles Theodoros VELKOS ~ (5006)

OLYMPIC SPORT EVENT 2004
4 Feb 2004 - 8 Feb 2004 Goudi Olympic Indoor Hall,Athens
Round Scores W/L Opponent Nation
1/16 15/1,15/4 W Christos COUCAS GRE
Quarter-Finals 5/15,5/15 L Hyun II LEE KOR

[cooler]

I dont doubt your experience and training jump_smash. However, i do doubt that majority of line judges have similar credential as your. Remember that line judges are under extreme pressure too from eyes of thousands audience plus maybe tv camera. Players nervousness can be shake of after few rallies or 1st game (ie, early mistakes are not detrimental). HOWEVER, line judges are not allowed to make any mistake from the point the umpire says 'love all, play'. All the understanding of the IBF rules are moot if the line judge is nervous. Mistakes tend to foster more nervousness and more mistakes for that line judge because now more eyes are on him/her.

Nervous players can over their nervousness thru feedback/correction while line judges can't as no shuttles would land the same spot or situation within that match. They sit in a chair and can not move about and must act as tho they are calm and alert while the bloods can't get to the brain.LOL

For example:
- taufik lost 7 straight points but performed brillantly to win gold
- emms/robertson gave away the first game (1-15) in the gold XD match due to nervousness.

[wilfredlgf]

If were to become the line judge for this game and for that call, I'll say IN.
If I were to do the judging from that still capture, I'll say it's OUT. Or IN. Or OUT. Or IN. Or OUT.

Of course, you won't expect me to say one thing and change my mind later, no? And definitely, not "I don't know". Especially not in a match like this.

If it is so easy to discern, why is there an almost balanced split of vote on BF, not a big 78:3 towards IN for example? To make things worst, we actually have more time and a closer look at it than the line judge himself.

Big debate, big debate. Keep em' coming! :)

[cooler]

I dont doubt your experience and training jump_smash. However, i do doubt that majority of line judges have similar credential as your. Remember that line judges are under extreme pressure too from eyes of thousands audience plus maybe tv camera. Players nervousness can be shake of after few rallies or 1st game (ie, early mistakes are not detrimental). HOWEVER, line judges are not allowed to make any mistake from the point the umpire says 'love all, play'. All the understanding of the IBF rules are moot if the line judge is nervous. Mistakes tend to foster more nervousness and more mistakes for that line judge because now more eyes are on him/her.

Nervous players can over their nervousness thru feedback/correction while line judges can't as no shuttles would land the same spot or situation within that match. They sit in a chair and can not move about and must act as tho they are calm and alert while the bloods can't get to the brain.LOL

For example:
- taufik lost 7 straight points but performed brillantly to win gold
- emms/robertson gave away the first game (1-15) in the gold XD match due to nervousness.

Players often get post game interviews as to why they win or lost. I wonder why no one interview the line judge(s) that made the controversial call. LOL

[cappy75]

Well, the linejudge saw the shuttle landed whereas the rest of us had this still picture of the shuttle still in the air to speculate. I don't see why you should belittle linejudges in this matter. For me, the only thing relevant with this poll is whether the shuttle hits the line or not... all other issues are extraneous and moot. It's 'in' according to the linejudge and that's the answer to the poll.


Players often get post game interviews as to why they win or lost. I wonder why no one interview the line judge(s) that made the controversial call. LOL

[tranvi007]

In or Out is just your opinion. But u can't tell, u can't predict before it lands. In many games i watched, it seems totally in but it's out, or vice versa, this is because the camera angle can really fool u.

[jump_smash]

I dont doubt your experience and training jump_smash. However, i do doubt that majority of line judges have similar credential as your. Remember that line judges are under extreme pressure too from eyes of thousands audience plus maybe tv camera. Players nervousness can be shake of after few rallies or 1st game (ie, early mistakes are not detrimental). HOWEVER, line judges are not allowed to make any mistake from the point the umpire says 'love all, play'. All the understanding of the IBF rules are moot if the line judge is nervous. Mistakes tend to foster more nervousness and more mistakes for that line judge because now more eyes are on him/her.

Nervous players can over their nervousness thru feedback/correction while line judges can't as no shuttles would land the same spot or situation within that match. They sit in a chair and can not move about and must act as tho they are calm and alert while the bloods can't get to the brain.LOL

For example:
- taufik lost 7 straight points but performed brillantly to win gold
- emms/robertson gave away the first game (1-15) in the gold XD match due to nervousness.

Cooler,

Thanks.

1. Umpire can always remove Line Judge (in cosulatation with Referee, 2.3)

2. IBF is still trialling rule change whereby Umpire can overrule Line Judge.
Tournmanet can elect to use "IBF Experimental Overrule" amendment.

Sorry can remember the details on this one, a friend is going to E-mail me that,
later today. This was used at 2004 Australian International.

[wilfredlgf]

2. IBF is still trialling rule change whereby Umpire can overrule Line Judge.

This could prove difficult.
Line judges are located where they are on the court for the obvious reasons: to be the third eye of the umpire in places where he/she cannot see.
Use this 'IN or OUT' example and you will see that an umpire may not be able to see any better than the line judge could.

I'd prefer a third official with video like football's fourth official for ambiguous calls, but some are actually against it because it ruins the 'drama' and 'romance' of football. Would that happen in badminton? Still, this can be a problem by itself - as in 'IN or OUT', what if the call is way too close?

[seven]

I don't think it is good for the game that the umpire can overrule the linejudge. It is obvious that the umpire isn't placed so he can judge the impact...

[Loh]

From a physical location point of view, I agree that the LJ should be in a much better position to see whether the shuttle touches the line or not, especially when the shot is to the baseline or at a spot much further away from the umpire than the LJ.

But sometimes the LJ is caught 'sleeping' or not paying attention and he refused to admit it by signalling 'unsighted'. We have also seen some LJs are biased in favour of their countrymen to the detriment of the opponent. If he makes a wrong decision which is followed up by the aggrieved player's protest and if the umpire is near enough to witness the shot, eg shuttle lands on or outside of the sidelines nearer to the umpire's chair, and agrees with the player, then I suppose the umpire can overrule the LJ. This sort of instances should be quite rare, I must admit.

Of course, in a case like this the LJ may have to be changed, here again it is up to the umpire's discretion. Or a protest for a change of the LJ can be channeled to the Referee by the player's manager, I believe.

[Wizbit]

We can see that there is a gap between the feathers and the line.

We can also see a shadow underneath the shuttle which indicates that it is still airborne.

My gut reaction is out, however if you go by the definition that it is 'in' if it touches any part of the line...part of the shadow touches the fringe of the line....;)

The call could go eitherway, I think the poll reflects this nicely ;)

[Neil Nicholls]

I don't think it is good for the game that the umpire can overrule the linejudge. It is obvious that the umpire isn't placed so he can judge the impact...

I think it is good that the umpire can overrule the LJ. As long as the overrule is used wisely.

I have seen matches on TV where a linejudge has called IN when the shuttle looked out even to people watching the TV. The TV broadcast then shows a slow motion replay from a better angle and shows that the shuttle was easily 6 inches out.

This is the sort of gross error that an umpire should be able to overrule.

[Mag]

/.../ I watched couple of Athen matches from Han's dvds, the line judges look like from local volunteers. Hmmm, does greece really have many badminton players at all? They don't even have official line judge attire on. Every Athen match (so far) i saw there are line call dispute between players and line judges/umpire.
I'd say that generally the Olympics have the highest standard of line judges possible. For instance, in Athens, I know that many line judges were actually certified umpires. A number of Swedish umpires didn't get selected for Athens umpiring, so they went down to line judge. According to their reports, they were not alone in doing so and there were literally no line judges without at least league umpiring experience. In other words, no crash-course "local volunteers".

[Phil]

Haven't been here in a few weeks, so I haven't bothered reading through all the posts.

Clearly, the shuttle is OUT, because the tip of the cork is out. When the shuttle cork first contacts the ground, the rally is over. In this case, the tip of the cork is pretty much in the middle. Just because the outer radii of the cork is "on/over" the line doesn't matter because the rally is over when that tiny point on the cork hits outside the floor.

I was at a camp once, and the coach spent a good ten minutes on this. He demonstrated using a shuttle whether it is in or out, base on where the first contact of the cork is. Another situation is when the shuttle is on a nearly horizontal flight path, and looks like it catches the baseline, when really it is OUT.

Granted, most people will call this in in friendly/non-competitive matches.

Phil

[cooler]

Haven't been here in a few weeks, so I haven't bothered reading through all the posts.

Clearly, the shuttle is OUT, because the tip of the cork is out. When the shuttle cork first contacts the ground, the rally is over. In this case, the tip of the cork is pretty much in the middle. Just because the outer radii of the cork is "on/over" the line doesn't matter because the rally is over when that tiny point on the cork hits outside the floor.

I was at a camp once, and the coach spent a good ten minutes on this. He demonstrated using a shuttle whether it is in or out, base on where the first contact of the cork is. Another situation is when the shuttle is on a nearly horizontal flight path, and looks like it catches the baseline, when really it is OUT.

Granted, most people will call this in in friendly/non-competitive matches.

Phil

thank for the explanation phil as i didnt want to dwell into this in detail because i want to know other people's verdict before i had expressed my reasons :p (people do form opinions based on other ppl's opinion, especially when a stronger reason is given)

As i have said most line judges were given 2 minute crash course. Being Cooler and wasn't satisfied, i actually went created various scenarios of shuttlecock making contact with surface AT VERY CLOSE VISUAL DISTANCE. I had examined the cork contact position at various landing contact angles at close visual range. On pure technical base, the first molecule of the cork cover touches the first molecule of the wood or rubber mat floor, the rally is over.

Mag, i bet no umpires with full knowlege of IBF rule went through the visual training or investigation like i have. Knowing the IBF rule doesnt help in this case because no umpire or line judge can microscopically see the contact point. The only way to make the right call is to understand and to have seen these situation beforehand so that in real situation, a right call can be made (in an instance too)through understanding because there is no way anybody could actually see the exact contact point, expecially given the distance, angle of sight and shadow which all hinder visual clarity.

My call remains unchange, EZ and out. Easy because in my mind i know the answer already for those circumstances.

As of writing, 52.38% line calls from BC members are, imo, incorrect even under close visual with zoom and freeze frame photo :p LOL So, what make a line judge making a better call (IN) live during the actual game huh?

[cooler]

i got timeouted.
I want to edit my statement

Mag, i bet umpires with full knowlege of IBF rules, 99% of them haven't went through the visual training or investigation like i have. Now, let see, hmm, how many line judges know all the IBF rules :p

[seven]

cooler, you know wise men admit their mistakes! :p (so why not be wise on this one... ;) )

Anyway, I won't argue about this, I think it is pointless! :rolleyes:

[cooler]

cooler, you know wise men admit their mistakes! :p (so why not be wise on this one... ;) )

Anyway, I won't argue about this, I think it is pointless! :rolleyes:

it's pointless to you because you don't have any good points to
make. :rolleyes:

if u read more of my posts, u would find i do admit mistakes when situation warranted but i dont back off if i think my claims stand. Here are links to all my oops. Go check them out if you want.
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/search.php?searchid=93630 I have admitted lots of oops so i must be a wise man. Thank you Seven.

I will continue to make line calls based on my above judgement. If you don't like it, you better report me to the IBF and our canadian badminton assocation because i'm such a bad line judge. I triple dare you.

[seven]

Sorry if I offended you, I was NOT saying that "you are not wise" in general, just saying that you could be wise in this particular case!

If I don't want to argue about this, it is not that I have no (good) points, it is
1/ that the subject isn't worth it
2/ that I don't think you would change your mind, whatever my arguments

My time on Earth being limited ;), I won't lose time on such trivial discussions! :)

[cooler]

Sorry if I offended you, I was NOT saying that "you are not wise" in general, just saying that you could be wise in this particular case!

If I don't want to argue about this, it is not that I have no (good) points, it is
1/ that the subject isn't worth it
2/ that I don't think you would change your mind, whatever my arguments

My time on Earth being limited ;), I won't lose time on such trivial discussions! :)

In that case u r surfing the wrong thread or even the wrong site. :rolleyes:
why did you elect to vote anyway if the whole subject isn't 'worth' it?

The subject isn't worth it to you because you treat proper line calls as trival and hitting a shuttle back and forth in the air is good enough for you.

[cooler]

For those people who say i don't know what i'm talking about, then I'll let pictures do the talking.

the first pic is a repeat of freezed and zoomed image provided by kwun.

the following pics is a recreation of the image in question.
every attempt to position the shuttle as closely as to the shuttlecock captured in the image in question.
i've attached several closeup of the cork contact point at various lighting.
Absolutely all care taken so that the shuttlecock didn't move between photo shots. As i have said before, the call was EZ, it's out.

the shuttlecock in my photo shots is an used yonex AS-50, probably same kind used in the tournament of the questioned image

[cooler]

for those who originally say the the shuttlecock is still falling and it's hard to tell, when that shuttlecock do land, it would be even farther out than what is shown in the picture in question.

[Phil]

for those who originally say the the shuttlecock is still falling and it's hard to tell, when that shuttlecock do land, it would be even farther out than what is shown in the picture in question.
Exactly.


cooler, you know wise men admit their mistakes! (so why not be wise on this one... )

Anyway, I won't argue about this, I think it is pointless!
This is just flat-out provoking... first basically calling out the other side, then saying it is all "pointless," as if to get in the last word.

Besides, it's clearly IN. I was surprised to see about a 50/50 split in the votes. I expected most to be OUT.

Phil

[kwun]

i think seven is just joking around. so please take him lightly. :)

i assume, cooler, that EZ = easy.

i am looking at the last closeup picture you attached, even though with perfect rigid geometry it would have been out, the apparent softness and non-evenless in the your "court surface" is making it hard to determine if it indeed touched the line or not.

so i don't find it an easy case myself. call me stupid if you like.

[kwun]

Besides, it's clearly IN. I was surprised to see about a 50/50 split in the votes. I expected most to be OUT.
so Phil you think it is IN?

even with cooler's re-enacment of the scene (do we sound like those "Cop TV" show? :)), we still cannot get a concensus on the call.

[cooler]

so Phil you think it is IN?

even with cooler's re-enacment of the scene (do we sound like those "Cop TV" show? :)), we still cannot get a concensus on the call.

kwun,eyes definitely sharper than a camera lens ;)
good eyes, in that shot, i admit i had did not flatten out the tape completely, leaving a tiny rift at its edges. So i go flatten the tape on the wood, and taken more shots with back light too.

the point is that the center of contact point is out of bound first before downward momentum compresses the cork into an area of contact. If one use the argument that if the cork touches the line it's in, then what about situation where the cork hit out first and bounces and landed in or on the line. Any lineman will call that out but if we go by if cork touches line is in rule, then all those shuttle went out and bounces in should be call in. No one want that rule.

in tennis, the ball compresses even more as seen from mac cam, where the ball roll along a large surface area before bouncing up again. How about this situation, a tennis ball touch the base line, compresses and keep rolling and the center of compressional rolling occur actually outside the line, is that in or out. ? I think point of contact rule should be use as who know what is the air pressure of each tennis ball. Same as for the shuttlecock, the area of contact will depend on how fast the shuttle hit the mat and the shape of each cork. I know each brand and grade of shuttles have different cork curvature profile. Are linemans really know of all the cork shape of each brand of shuttle used? Center of contact point is the best rule. It brings the resolution down to say +/- 0.5mm difference in contact point before I consider it hard to tell.

[cooler]

i think seven is just joking around. so please take him lightly. :)

i assume, cooler, that EZ = easy.

i am looking at the last closeup picture you attached, even though with perfect rigid geometry it would have been out, the apparent softness and non-evenless in the your "court surface" is making it hard to determine if it indeed touched the line or not.

so i don't find it an easy case myself. call me stupid if you like.

note the dark area left of the tape and below the blue arrow, it's the shadow. Shadow means empty space which is resolved with back lights

[cooler]

so Phil you think it is IN?

even with cooler's re-enacment of the scene (do we sound like those "Cop TV" show? :)), we still cannot get a concensus on the call.

i think phil called it out ;)

[kwun]

note the dark area left of the tape and below the blue arrow, it's the shadow. Shadow means empty space which is resolved with back lights unfortunately, the shadow covers both the empty space and the contact point... ;)

anyway. note i am on neither IN nor OUT side. my point was really that it is quite hard to tell. the linesman won't have such a close macro view of the contact point. it is not "EZ"...

[odjn]

I wish i can hit a shot thats IN like that all the time :crying:

[cooler]

unfortunately, the shadow covers both the empty space and the contact point... ;)

anyway. note i am on neither IN nor OUT side. my point was really that it is quite hard to tell. the linesman won't have such a close macro view of the contact point. it is not "EZ"...

LOL, ok, it's not EZ for most line judges then. :p

[Mag]

Cooler, I merely responded to your statements about Athens line judges being "local volunteers", as I knew that was not the case. :)

Regarding your interesting photo investigation: are you sure you didn't misplace the shuttle 0.5 mm? :p That would make the shuttle a definite IN or a definite OUT in your photos.

I think you have showed clearly that this line judges' decision was indeed impossible, or arbitrary if you like. So, the best ruling would have been if he/she put hands over eyes (because it was impossible to judge) and let the umpire rule, hopefully a "let".

[jug8man]

it was a hard call and deserved a great discussion. even tho it was called IN by the LJ i would still call it OUT based on that picture. dont want to dispute with anybody... im just stating my opinion on how i perceive the evidence.


cheers

[seven]

i think seven is just joking around. so please take him lightly. :)
Yes, the original subject was fun and entertaining.
Now I don't think there is a point to spend all my time in what we commonly call "deaf discussions"... ;)

Sorry Phil if you thought this was in order to have the last word, I rather think by saying this that I am leaving others - who want to continue argueing - have the last word...


i assume, cooler, that EZ = easy.

i am looking at the last closeup picture you attached, even though with perfect rigid geometry it would have been out, the apparent softness and non-evenless in the your "court surface" is making it hard to determine if it indeed touched the line or not.

so i don't find it an easy case myself. call me stupid if you like.
Agree! ;)

[Neil Nicholls]

Regarding your interesting photo investigation: are you sure you didn't misplace the shuttle 0.5 mm? :p That would make the shuttle a definite IN or a definite OUT in your photos.

I think cooler might have put the shuttle closer to the line in the reconstruction than in the real case.

[cooler]

I think cooler might have put the shuttle closer to the line in the reconstruction than in the real case.

Very observant, were u a line judge at one time? ;)

In my re-construction of the 3D model from the original fuzzy 2D black and white, i did say i try to be as 'close' as possible, i wasn't lying LOL. I was afraid someone would think i would be bias. Yes, i did recreate the scenario with doubters in mind so i gave as much leeway to doubters as possible since the black and white blowup was a fuzzy enhancement of the orginal video capture. To take care that, i printed the black and white with shuttle and line sizes referenced to real dimensions.

In my pic below, i have outlined the real possible position of the shuttle and the line. I've key in the speed band of the shuttle, and the middle of the cork shadow as the middle axis. I've use the inside line edge as reference line because it has a better consistence edging across the photo. All outlined objects are in real dimensions. From that, Neil is correct, my 3D reconstruction is or could be closer than what really was.

That's why i made the call EZ out from the original video capture image.

[cooler]

Cooler, I merely responded to your statements about Athens line judges being "local volunteers", as I knew that was not the case. :)

Regarding your interesting photo investigation: are you sure you didn't misplace the shuttle 0.5 mm? :p That would make the shuttle a definite IN or a definite OUT in your photos.

I think you have showed clearly that this line judges' decision was indeed impossible, or arbitrary if you like. So, the best ruling would have been if he/she put hands over eyes (because it was impossible to judge) and let the umpire rule, hopefully a "let".

in the 3d reconstruction, the line edge to center of shuttle contact point is 3mm.

in the following up outline of the 2d black and white, that distance is 4 to 5mm. (not exact because 2d couldnt give me the exact contact point)

As noticed by Neil, the 3d reconstruction is about 1 to 2 mm closer to the line edge than what really was he saw from the original video captured image.

[cooler]

i dont have the photos to attach but from the cctv5 slo-mo replay of the 3 bad line calls against (IN) peter gade during the 2005 sudirman MS match between taufik and peter gade, I viewed them and make my calls, 2 were OUT while 1 was IN.

[daringkidz]

I'm not really sure about the exact rules of badminton but..

Can't the umpire call a 'let'? As in replay the shot since its almost impossible to call? (Based from the poll)

[baddersfreakz]

OUT the most percentage of the shuttle is in the outside of the court

[pwakankar]

It depends. If I hit it.. of course it is in
if my opponent hit this .. it is out ;)

seriously, i think it is out.

[Canuck19_14]

I think it pretty much depends if that is actually touching the floor. If it is I think it would be IN but at that angle if it was still in the air it would of went a little bit further and would be out ? O.o close one though...

[Canuck19_14]

OUT the most percentage of the shuttle is in the outside of the court

Doesn't matter how much is out. If it touches the line its still in.

[Smichz]

Judging from the video or pic,it can be called as an out.But the live line umpires would probably call it in.

[DivingBirdie]

This is not a video, but if you tell me it's a capture of the precise moment any part of the shuttle FIRST TOUCHES the ground, i would say it touched the green floor FIRST.

However, I am also sure that most umpires would call such a shot IN during a match. Usually a shuttle is called out only when there is totally no suspicion of it having touched the line or not.

Verdict:
Going by strict rules it'd be an OUT, but IN call usually wins benefit of doubt:D

[wilfredlgf]

Nowadays it depends on who's playing and who's judging.

http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/files/images/can%20of%20worms.jpg


;)

[cooler]

we need keep showing the BWF the can of worms, hopefully they squirm and wake up and do something. In post #1, the sample photo showed a shuttle even more closer to the line.

http://bcpk.org/AE/tago.PNG

Ouch. I did not know that the moment had been caught so clearly by a line-cam... ojojoj, poor Tago. Well he will be sure to protest more strongly next time!

[cooler]

problem is, if player can forget about it, then bwf will keep on sitting on their butt and do nothing, or using excuse of 'we're looking into it'. Line camera is cheap to install, we don't need hawkeye system. Cork doesn't compresses like tennis ball, a cork shadow over the line helps to decide in some cases, still not for all cases. A line-cam for each major lines should does the job. In badminton, a camera view in the axis of the line is preferred, not like in tennis where a top down view from the hawkeye system.

[cooler]

Look at the poll, 52% of people guessed wrong (in my opinion and from my photo case study). This support that under normal tv camera angle on a above ground view, more than half guessed wrong. This support my view that in 2007 CO, outside audience or tv fans, without the aid of on-the-line cam, can be wrong.

[cooler]

the call by the linesman was:

IN !



it seem so did the line judge in 2010 AE MSF too

[PapA_xlonG]

To be fair for all players, we need eagle eyes !!

[darkwingduck]

The replay shows its out. Yeah the feather maybe is in but the cork is out!!!!!!

[LD rules!]

do recall that a couple of points earlier in Tagos match, his block/lift that the line judge deemed to be out, was in aswell, thats two points in the space of 3 minutes

[LD rules!]

do recall that a couple of points earlier in Tagos match, his block/lift that the line judge deemed to be out, was in aswell, thats two points in the space of 3 minutes

second thoughts, at 17-18 in the second game the shuttle is close, probaly just out

[Blurry D]

I vote out. This is because i believe the replay is closer and the linesmen and LCW cannot see it.

[Many Ch0icez]

I belive this shuttlecock is indeed with a big juicy IN ;)

[drew tze en]

i agree it looks in !!
what is the answer?

[GameGod]

That is out because the shuttlecock head is not touching the line - the shadow from the head is. You can tell even from the low quality of the photo.

[drew tze en]

that looks in though !!
if it touches the line it is in

[allyjack110]

What would happen if the cork misses the back-line but the feathers touch the line? If any part of the shuttle hits any part of the line, shall that be deemed in or out? I would have to be a very flat shot!!! I have always thought that the cork was the determining factor since it is usually the cork that touches the surface first.

[amleto]

What would happen if the cork misses the back-line but the feathers touch the line? If any part of the shuttle hits any part of the line, shall that be deemed in or out? I would have to be a very flat shot!!! I have always thought that the cork was the determining factor since it is usually the cork that touches the surface first.

I'd like to see the shot that landed feather first near the back line. wowsers.

It is physically impossible unless you can tumble the shuttle that far

[thunder.tw]

And can you add an option for Don't Know or Not Sure ?

Then it's in. You should always be sure if you are going to call 'out'.

[Koyori]

Seem to be "in".