Tie Score Dilemma

[mndtrcks]

Thank you for all who read and replied about the "illegal service" thread. Here is another issue I've just dealt with the other day during a high school match between our number 1 varsity girls doubles and would like to get your opinion on this issue.

:confused: My players were down 13-14 (on the third set) when they got their serve back. They scored on their first serve and tied the game 14-14. Since our girls did not say anything and also paused for a few seconds waiting for their opponent to choose what they would want to do in which they did not say anything at all and got into position for the next service. So my girls continued the game first, by presenting the birdie or shuttlecock to her opponent and clearly saying point-14 which a number of people, including myself, heard. My girls won the point and game, or so it seemed. When my girls went to go shake their hands, they immediately said that they were suppose to go to 17. My girls told them they did not say anything when the score was tied 14-14, which they also admitted to both myself and the other coach. The IBF rule states:7.5 If the score becomes 14-all (10-all in women’s singles), the side which first scored 14 (10) shall choose either Law 7.5.1 or 7.5.2: 7.5.1 to continue the game to 15 (11) points, ie not to ‘set’ the game; or 7.5.2 to ‘set’ the game to 17 (13) points.

Here is the dilemma, the opposing coach's first issue is that her girls were not "offered" a choice when my girls scored and tied the game 14-14. First thing, the IBF rule does not state anything about an "offer to" but "shall" choose whether they would like to play to 15 or 17. Second thing, my girls do not have to say anything either since for one, they were not the first to get to 14, second, they had two serves to win the game at 15 and third, the IBF rule does not say that our players have to say anything when it clearly states that the player(s) who scored 14 first shall choose what they would like to do and third, after both my players and their opponents prepared for the next service, our palyers "thought" that they didn't want to set or play to 17, served, scored and won the point, match and game.

What player or coach would tell or offer to their opponent if they would like to set and play 3 more points especially when you or your player is "on a roll" or that you have two serves (in a doubles match) to win the game? If the opposing team does not "choose" either play to 15 or 17, where does the game default to? The problem I see in the scoring system in the IBF rules is that there is no "default" to play to 15 or 17 if the player(s) did not choose either one. That is second issue the opposing coach complained about. In my opinion, if my opponent does not say either or the two rules after I tie him at 14-14 and prepares for my service, it is a game up to 15 and if I win that service, I win the game. After arguing all the way up to their high school AD (Athletic Director), our girls were forced to play to 17 and lost 17-15 match and game. Our team still one the game 13-2 but the point of their match was not about winning, but what is fair. I felt whole heartedly that we followed the rules and that they should have won their game and second that their coach should teach his players more about the rules of the game because if those girls were to play in a tournament, they will most certainly lose the set or game if they did not choose either to "set" or play to 15. Thank you for your time and hope to read your response on this issue.

http://www.intbadfed.org/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=96&cnt=1&action=1280x1024

[merlin]

An interesting dilemma.

My opinion only: when tied at 14, it is an option to set, otherwise it is still played to 15. Therefore, failing to set means the game is played to 15. I think you are right.

[SteveStanley]

I think this is just a misunderstanding, I assume that there was no referee, that's why this thing happened.

In my opinion, once they tied at 14 - 14, both teams have to talk and understand wether it's set to 15 or 17. I wouldn't continue the game before this is clear, especially in the "no referee" situation.

I don't know if there is such thing as a default "set to 15" when both teams just keep quiet, on the other hand, no one can presume that the game should go to 17.

So, in this case, no one is right and no one is wrong. Just my opinion.

[krantikt]

I agree with Steve here, that, in case of there being no refree,
it is usually the norm for the players to ask their oppnents if they want to set or not.

Atleast thats what I and most people in the club do when we play social matches. As wether to set or not. Obviously in any IBF matches, they would not be conducted without a refree, and the refree would not let the match continue without a decision on wether to set or not.

IMO, and from the experience of playing with many others without a refree, the person holding the serve asks wether the opponents want to set or not.

[mndtrcks]

I can see if there was a scoring judge during a match where the judge can ask both players to set or to play to 15 and I also understand that the sport of Badminton is a "gentleman, gentlewoman" sport where the player who catches up to and tie the game as 14 may ask the other opponent whether they would like to "set" or play to 15, but the IBF rule does not stipulate the person who catches up from behind to tie the game at 14 have to offer the opponent to "set" or play to 15. IBF only states in their rule is that the player(s) who got to 14 first "shall" choose to either "set" or to play to 15 (IBF rule 7.5, 7.5.1, and 7.5.2). So it is up to them to say it not the opposing team who caught up to them to tie the game. My players chose to not say anything which is not illegal under the IBF rules and their opponents did not say anything either and got in their position to recieve my players serve in which we that point and supposed the game. If the players who got to 14 first and does not choose either "set" or play to 15 and prepares themselves for the next service, where would the default lie?

There should be a stipulation added in the scoring system rule that if no choice was made from the players who got to 14 first and prepares for the next service, that the game will default to whomever gets to 15 will win the match or game. Now how often would this issue arrise in a game? To me, very rare. The fact that I teach my players if they tie 14-14 to always "choose" to "set" or if they would like, to play to 15 is imbedded in their brains. Take in consideration that your opponents aren't mind readers and will most, if not all of the time not give you a benefit of the doubt.

[jamesd20]

When the players read out the score, Did they the 14-match point-14? If they did, they I would assume then for the opposition to have heard it, and accepted that as being the match point. Or they should have said "setting" or "Three".

It is a difficult situation however, and as you say the rules are not clear in what should happen, as In international competitions there is always an umpire to ask "are you setting". Email the IBF and ask them.

[Dill]

I always thought it was the option of the first team to get to 14 which is always your oponents, once you get to 14 which means a tie you ask them what they want to set to and they either choose 1 or 3.

Simple as that.

Since it is the oposition that states what to play to and they have not opted for the three then the assumption is straight through (1 point).

But you know what they say about assumption!

[mndtrcks]

When the players read out the score, Did they the 14-match point-14? If they did, they I would assume then for the opposition to have heard it, and accepted that as being the match point. Or they should have said "setting" or "Three".

It is a difficult situation however, and as you say the rules are not clear in what should happen, as In international competitions there is always an umpire to ask "are you setting". Email the IBF and ask them.

Besides myself, there were few others who saw and heard my player actually said' "point-14". When the others were watching the game like myself, my player paused for a moment waiting for the team to choose something. When she noticed nothing was said and they're opponents went to prepare for the serve, she immediately presented the birdie or shuttlecock, called out the loud and clear "point-14", served, rallied for a few shot and won the point which should have been the match and game.

For instance, if I were to reverse the tables and asked if my players called "set" and they did not, that would be against them and of course accept the loss. There is nothing to defend them with. It was their fault for not choosing what they wanted to do when they reached the tie. I would then tell all my players either after the game or the next practice to teach and make them remember that if that situation happens again, they would be smart enough to call "set". The way my players conduct themselves on the court wherever they are will reflect on me and how I taught them to play and act.

[Loopy]

I understand the problem, and it clearly isn't fair, mainly due to the miscommunication.
Normally, in our social plays, when it's match point, we present the birdie high in the hand, and we know it's match point. If that is the case, the opposing party knew it would be match point. If the opponent later says that the match should go to 17, it's very unfair and very sore loser spirit.
On the other hand, the one getting to 14 last should always ask out of courtesy if it should go to 15 or 17, even if it's not wrote in the rule book.

Miscommunication is really bad stuff... :o

[Neil Nicholls]

If the opposing team does not "choose" either play to 15 or 17, where does the game default to? The problem I see in the scoring system in the IBF rules is that there is no "default" to play to 15 or 17 if the player(s) did not choose either one.
...
In my opinion, if my opponent does not say either or the two rules after I tie him at 14-14 and prepares for my service, it is a game up to 15 and if I win that service, I win the game.

It doesn't default to anything. The serving side should wait until the receiving side have made the choice.
If the serving side are "on a roll" it is in their own interest to call the score and say "Are you setting?"
I think you should teach the players to ask the question.

[Papa Smurf]

I think personally those players shouldve known better. Their coach shouldve taught them better. I mean put yourself in the other girls shoes. What would you do if your opponents just said that you didnt set, so they won the game. I'd kick myself silly for forgetting to set, and then i'd suck it up, shake their hands and kick myself some more. It is my responcibility to know the rules, espeically something as crucial as that. To make it worse, its not even like they DIDNT know the rule they couldnt set, because they clearly knew that they could.
To most of us, we usually ask because we dont expect the other side to forget, and when most of us GET asked, we already know whats happening and what we want to do. If someone asks you, "would you like to set?" and its a surprise to you...well i dont have to finish this sentence. Its understandable if youre playing recreational....but competition level badminton? (I assume because its high school the competition level is good). I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but if you have to be reminded when to set, you might as well have ur opponents make youre line calls for you too, let them tell you if its in or out.

[Mag]

One simply doesn't serve until one knows if the other side sets or not.
I am sure that your players will never do this mistake again. ;)

The rules assume the existence of an umpire of scoring judge, so the situation you describe isn't really covered officially. But in one sense both sides have faulted, therefore a "let" would be the most salomonic way out of this deadlock. Replay the point. (What? Too late for that? :D )

[Benasp]

your girls has to want to what the other wanna go (1 or 3) if not it's weird, both team are not respecting the rules

[Gollum]

But in one sense both sides have faulted, therefore a "let" would be the most salomonic way out of this deadlock.

What does "salomonic" mean?

*edit* checks dictionary:

Salomonic, Salomonian - of or as of Soloman

Note the capital letter ;)

[mndtrcks]

your girls has to want to what the other wanna go (1 or 3) if not it's weird, both team are not respecting the rules

In the IBF rules:If the score becomes 14-all (10-all in women’s singles), the side which first scored 14 (10) shall choose either Law 7.5.1 or 7.5.2:. My girls got their serve back which means they had two serves and was down 13-14. My girls caught up and tied the game 14-14 with a second serve to go. The IBF rule above states that the player(s) who got 14 first (their opponents) must choose. My girls had no say in it and waited for their opponents to choose something. They did not say anything and prepared for the next serve. She then presented the birdie or shuttlecock to her opponent, called the score loud enough spectators and several coaches heard it and served. We got the point and my girls should have won the game. You say my girls were not respecting the rules, where in the IBF rules did they not respect it? My player waited for them to say something. Isn't that respect for the opponent instead of calling match point and serving it immediatley? Is it my fault that their coach did not teach them how to set or when to set? My girls aren't mind readers and does not look for the best advantage for their opponents to win. This is still a competition and if your opponent(s) do not know the rules, then who's fault is it?

As a responsible coach, and if the tables were turned in this situation and my girls did not call set and loss that point, there would be no going back. My girls would have lost because they did not follow the rules as stated above in IBF 7.5 and it would be my fault because I failed to to teach them properly. Please tell me where my girls disrespect the rules according to the IBF rules?

Thank you to all for your opinions on this issue. I greatly appreciate all your comments.

[Neil Nicholls]

Well, what's done is done.
More importantly,
What will you do for the future?

[Mag]

/.../ My girls had no say in it and waited for their opponents to choose something. They did not say anything and prepared for the next serve. /.../ Please tell me where my girls disrespect the rules according to the IBF rules?

Oh come on, your players were playing without an umpire, right? That means that the responsibility lies with the players, and thus common sense (or call it badminton etiquette if you like) is required. This applies to a lot: line calls, service faults, shuttle changes, drink and towel breaks, etc etc, and certainly the situation you describe.

You say that your girls know the rules. In that case I think your girls were a little naughty. They didn't ask their opponents if they want to set or not, but rather waited silently for a little while and then got ready to serve. Maybe your girls were thinking that either a) the opponents have forgotten to set or b) the opponents don't know the rules. Both alternatives are unsportsmanlike, and THAT is something that you, as a coach, should address! Your girls should not have served until they were sure if the other pair wanted to set or not, in order to avoid this exact situation!

[Benasp]

that what i mean, IMO it's quite weid to continue serving without knowing what going on, your girls should have say, hey come on chose 1 or 3. But that a sad thing, it's common that kids doesn't know the exact rules and get cheated by other.

one exemple, i was playing mixed and the other team made a double touch and returned to serve like nothing, so my partner said, what are you doing ??? i simply say, i thinked that you wasn't knowing the rule, what a cheater

[mndtrcks]

Oh come on, your players were playing without an umpire, right? That means that the responsibility lies with the players, and thus common sense (or call it badminton etiquette if you like) is required. This applies to a lot: line calls, service faults, shuttle changes, drink and towel breaks, etc etc, and certainly the situation you describe.

You say that your girls know the rules. In that case I think your girls were a little naughty. They didn't ask their opponents if they want to set or not, but rather waited silently for a little while and then got ready to serve. Maybe your girls were thinking that either a) the opponents have forgotten to set or b) the opponents don't know the rules. Both alternatives are unsportsmanlike, and THAT is something that you, as a coach, should address! Your girls should not have served until they were sure if the other pair wanted to set or not, in order to avoid this exact situation!

First off, if you care to look at the IBF rules there is nothing that says the players who caught-up to tie the game at 14-14 can say anything. Second, they waited long enough for their opponents to get ready for the next serve. Third, if you hear your opponent call point-14, would you not know to put your hand up and say something like, "can we please set to 3." or at least say anything at all. So your telling me, that all the years you played badminton, all your opponents offered to set to 3? An opponent you played who ties you and gets ready for his point serve to win the game did not think to say, "would you like to set to 3?" It would be you at fault for not saying anything and not your opponent if you got ready to prepare for his serve and lost the point. Are going to tell your opponent, "oops...I forgot to set to 3. Can we play on until 17?" What if your opponent says, "Read the rule book. There is nothing in there where I have to offer you a "set". I win because you did not say anything and prepared for my service in which I served and you lost the point." Your opponent had enough "etiquette" to wait long enough for you to do some type of action like raising your hand to choose or play straight on because you went to go and prepare for your opponents serve. Is it your opponents fault that you forgot and did not have the commonsense to say something? Or are you going to merely say that was unsportsmanlike because I forgot and you should have reminded me? Maybe the next time you play that person again you might want to call every umpire needed because you might forget your score, what lines you are playing, and that he has no etiquette and very unsportsmanlike and I don't know my rules and my opponent will not remind me during the game.

I would like to illustrate again what you are not seeing and it is that there is nothing in the rulebook for the player to catches up and to tie the score to say anything and that makesthem naughty? If your talking about etiquette, they (my players) chose not say anything and WAITED long enough for them to get ready for the service, present the shuttlecock, CALL THE SCORE LOUD "POINT-14", to serve and for their opponents to ANSWER the serve. During any of those times they would had enough time to raise their hands to call "set". If you feel that is not "etiquette" and "sportmanslike" enough because there was no umpire, then maybe you should ask the IBF for another stipulation stating that the person who catches up to tie the score must offer their opponents a choice. I would love to hear the response you get back from it.

[Loopy]

First off, if you care to look at the IBF rules there is nothing that says the players who caught-up to tie the game at 14-14 can say anything. Second, they waited long enough for their opponents to get ready for the next serve. Third, if you hear your opponent call point-14, would you not know to put your hand up and say something like, "can we please set to 3." or at least say anything at all. So your telling me, that all the years you played badminton, all your opponents offered to set to 3? An opponent you played who ties you and gets ready for his point serve to win the game did not think to say, "would you like to set to 3?" It would be you at fault for not saying anything and not your opponent if you got ready to prepare for his serve and lost the point. Are going to tell your opponent, "oops...I forgot to set to 3. Can we play on until 17?" What if your opponent says, "Read the rule book. There is nothing in there where I have to offer you a "set". I win because you did not say anything and prepared for my service in which I served and you lost the point." Your opponent had enough "etiquette" to wait long enough for you to do some type of action like raising your hand to choose or play straight on because you went to go and prepare for your opponents serve. Is it your opponents fault that you forgot and did not have the commonsense to say something? Or are you going to merely say that was unsportsmanlike because I forgot and you should have reminded me? Maybe the next time you play that person again you might want to call every umpire needed because you might forget your score, what lines you are playing, and that he has no etiquette and very unsportsmanlike and I don't know my rules and my opponent will not remind me during the game.

I would like to illustrate again what you are not seeing and it is that there is nothing in the rulebook for the player to catches up and to tie the score to say anything and that makesthem naughty? If your talking about etiquette, they (my players) chose not say anything and WAITED long enough for them to get ready for the service, present the shuttlecock, CALL THE SCORE LOUD "POINT-14", to serve and for their opponents to ANSWER the serve. During any of those times they would had enough time to raise their hands to call "set". If you feel that is not "etiquette" and "sportmanslike" enough because there was no umpire, then maybe you should ask the IBF for another stipulation stating that the person who catches up to tie the score must offer their opponents a choice. I would love to hear the response you get back from it.
mndtrcks, I think mag is right. Etiquettes are NOT written in the rule book, but it is something that should be taught.
Where I play, the one getting last to 14 ALWAYS ask to how much to set.
But in your case, maybe both have forgot. It is not a matter of waiting long enough for the other party to ask. It is common sense that play shouldn't continue until we know to how much that playoff is set. Assuming that the play should be set to 1 is wrong.

If you want my interpretation of the rule, here it is:
7.5 If the score becomes 14-all (10-all in women’s singles), the side which first scored 14 (10) shall choose either Law 7.5.1 or 7.5.2: 7.5.1 to continue the game to 15 (11) points, ie not to ‘set’ the game; or 7.5.2 to ‘set’ the game to 17 (13) points.

This rule 7.5 means that a DECISION has to be made on how much to set BEFORE continue playing, and this decision pertains to the one who got 14 first.

[SteveStanley]

IBF rules don't dictate all the details, that's why it cannot be used against or for benefit of this situation.

As Mag said, one would not continue the game before it's clear what the decision on the set, no one is a mind reader so no one should make any assumptions. Assumption is never good. :rolleyes:

In my experience of playing badminton for almost 25 years, when there is no umpire, whoever is going to serve should make sure that the set has been decided and clear, I would not serve until the opponent makes up their mind - waiting is not enough. This is not an IBF rule, but just the informal rule that I've been using. Again, this is not an official rule, but just from my experience of playing badminton, off course different places/locations/countries may have different informal rules.

It was even more confusing before, because we used to set at 13-13 and 14-14.

[wood_22_chuck]

3rd set, down 13-14 ... your players got to 14-14 ... don't you think at this crucial point, you'd want to be ABSOLUTELY sure if 15 or 17 wins the game? There's a choice to be made at that point in the game, and barring officials, personal responsibility, etiquette takes precedent.

The ideal situation (both parties knowing) didn't happen. If you really want to follow IBF rules, the gist is: the first to 14 decides, right? They assumed 17, your girls assumed 15. They got to 14 first.

Both sides gambled, your girls lost. Get ready for the next tournament. I'll wager you won't garner much support for this case. No offense.

-dave

[Benasp]

in my little 6 years of playing i never have probleme with this, i mean the other team always knowed that they need to set the number of point. and i'm so happy to want the prolongation that i have no trouble to say it :P, it's not that big of a descision 1 or 3 lol, me i always take 3 except if i would have been to 14-14 by extreme luck versus a better opponent.

in your case there no place for a lawyer, both team did wrong, just to bad your lose period.

[Papa Smurf]

Well i think mndtrks girls were being a little deceptive with the scoring, but thats if you hit a shot, that you know went out, but your opponent called it in. Thats their bad. If it were recreational, i would point it out. But who here in a tournament, honestly would stop and correct the other team? "Please, take this point away from me, i dont want it". It may not have been ettiqutte, but you do not point out your opponent's mistakes. Those other girls KNEW they had the option to set, because they brought it up afterwards.

Just imagine this. Youre in the finals of some tournament where first prize is $2000 US. Its game point and you just hit a shot which u knew went out, but your opponents are standing around looking confused because they didnt see it, so they dont know what to call it. 90% of the people here would keep quiet, and hope they call it in. The other 10% of the people here would be one of those jack@$$es who go "if you didnt see it, you have to call it in". Simply the rules say whoever gets to 14 first calls, it is not the responsibility of ur opponenets to remind you.

[Loopy]

Simply the rules say whoever gets to 14 first calls, it is not the responsibility of ur opponenets to remind you.

No, but I honestly think you cannot continue playing if you don't know to how many point it should be set. This is rule 7.5

[mndtrcks]

3rd set, down 13-14 ... your players got to 14-14 ... don't you think at this crucial point, you'd want to be ABSOLUTELY sure if 15 or 17 wins the game? There's a choice to be made at that point in the game, and barring officials, personal responsibility, etiquette takes precedent.

The ideal situation (both parties knowing) didn't happen. If you really want to follow IBF rules, the gist is: the first to 14 decides, right? They assumed 17, your girls assumed 15. They got to 14 first.

Both sides gambled, your girls lost. Get ready for the next tournament. I'll wager you won't garner much support for this case. No offense.

-dave

None taken...this is why I am here in this forum, to ask other peoples opinion which I am taking whole-heartedly. But can you confuse strategy and sportsmanship? Since the IBF rule states in 7.5 that whomever gets to 14 first choose what they will play too, my player(s) opted to not say anything because the best strategy for them in their minds was that they get 2 serves to score one more point to win the game. Is that wrong for them to do that? I think that is a great strategy use especially when your opponent is not smart enough to know their rules, then why are you playing if you do not know the rules? Sportsmanship and etiquette had nothing to do with this but simply strategy to win the game. Their opponents did not say anything (which they both admitted to both their coach and myself) after they lost the point and supposedly the game to protest it after? So in this case their opponents prepared for my girls serve which in my girls mind felt it was an acknowledgment to go on with next serve hence to a game to 15. If there were an IBF rule that states that if there were ever a tie the player(s) who got to 14 chooses either to set or to go to 15; and if no choice was made, the player(s) who got 14 to tie the game must ask their opponent to choose. Wouldn't you lose some type of strategy in a game?

Sportsmanship is when after the game is done, you would go and talk to the other players to teach the rules by saying something like, you know, you could have set the game to 17. They could have said either, "I knew that but wanted to finish to 15" or "oh, I didn't know you could do that." but not while educating your opponent during a game or tournament. What I told my girls about this was that the other mistakes they made during the game, if you did not make those mistakes, you would have never gotten in this predicament as well as lose the match and the game. A great lesson and experience learned. Thanks for all your opinions. This helps better me as a coach and player.

[kwun]

i just want to chime in for my humble opinion.

by the Laws, a game in badminton is 15 points. it is only extended when there is a special circumstance (ie. 14-14) to extend, or set, to 17. if setting didn't happen, or agreed on, then the game naturally finishes at 15.

in other words, if both sides do happen to keep silence at 14-14. that means there is no set and the game finishes at at the natural end point of 15. if any player on court decides that they would like to extend to 17, they must speak out. you have the power to speak out, if you don't speak out, you are voluntarily giving up that power.

i also want to point out that, when one do speak out, the final choice of setting or not, however, still goes to the side who gets to 14 first.

technically this is what should happen.

whether one takes advantage of this and use as a tactic is proper ettiquette or not.. well... ;)

[wood_22_chuck]

I think I see the point now.

It may be that I'm am uncomfortable with the "strategy" although professional players also utilize this method ... Lin Dan, Jen Eriksen for example.

-dave

[Winex West Can]

I will put in my 2 cents (or rather 3 cents Cdn) :D

I think it is good etiquette that regardless of whether you or your opponents got to 14 first, is to enquiry and verify that there is either no setting or setting.

By keeping quiet, you are hoping to pull a fast one similarily to calling a shot out when it's in (or vice versa). Just because the rules doesn't stipulate what needed to be done doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

In reply to Papa Smurf, I would say that the honest badminton players will call the shots as they are. I do and that's coz I do not want to win by cheating. If I am not sure, then I will keep quiet and if we can't verify then a let is played. That's the principle of good sportspersonship and I think some of our current top players are losing some of those principles.

[badmonte]

In my opinion, the rules state that if tied you have a choice if you scored 14 first. If you do not say anything you have made a choice not to set. In my 25 years of playing and running IBF sanctioned events at a UC in the are, I would have to agree with the notion that it is the responsibility of the players to know the rule. Therefore, when I was tournament director and something like this happened I would ask the parties involved "Who got to 14 first ?" Then I would ask that team "Did you set?" If they said no, I would say then the game went to 15 and you lost, sorry. I wouldn't know how else to call it. The rule also states that a decision has to be made before the next serve is played. So once the serve is played you can't go back and set so you cant replay anything. Simply stated they didn't set, the next serve was played, so you play to 15. If you were a tournament director how could you rule any other way? If you tell them to go back you are now breaking the rule that states you have to make the decision before the next serve is played! That would be wrong!

[Mag]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the opponents were acting based on a questionable "strategy". The fact remains that if you had taught your girls proper court behaviour -- in this case that they must make absolutely sure whether their opponents are setting or not -- the opponents' "strategy" would not have been possible.

Unfortunately, there will always be opponents that are more prone than others to bend the rules a little. As a coach, part of your job is to prepare your players to prevent and counter such behaviour in others, and to stay focused when it happens. Sometimes a player is subjected to bad calls or "unfair" situations (such as this one), and it is your responsibility teach the players to move on, focus on the next point, next game, next match. Anything else is counter-productive.

[Dill]

Everything else aside you DO have to ask because the option to set is not yours to begin with and you have to know what the other team decide so you know what you are playing up to!

The option on the other side is to play straight through or to set (3 points), they have to let you know one way or the other because it is them that decides, you have no say in it what so ever.

It is my opinion that your team should not have proceeded to serve until they were notified of either straight through or setting.

Nothing to do with etiquette or gamesmanship, just plain common sense

[cmd17uc]

If mndtricks team had lost the serve, and the other team won their serve giving them the 15-14, would this problem still have arisen?

[badmonte]

Mag and Dill:
If you were running a tournament how would you handle the dispute? The rule says it has to be done before the next point is played. That did not happen. A point was played. So have to rule on it. The rule book does not say you have to ask, period. If you say that and rule to replay from the point of set 14-14, you are going against the rules. If you say the needed to ask, again you are adding something that is not in the rule book. It may not be great sportsmanship, but it is not illegel. If rule in favor of the team that was at 14 first and say to go back and replay you are breaking one rule and adding to another, which you can't do. Therefore, by the rule, and not personal opinions on sportsmanship, you would have to side with the team that won 15-14. Then educate why that shouldn't happen ever again.

[Dill]

Mag and Dill:
If you were running a tournament how would you handle the dispute? The rule says it has to be done before the next point is played. That did not happen. A point was played. So have to rule on it. The rule book does not say you have to ask, period. If you say that and rule to replay from the point of set 14-14, you are going against the rules. If you say the needed to ask, again you are adding something that is not in the rule book. It may not be great sportsmanship, but it is not illegel. If rule in favor of the team that was at 14 first and say to go back and replay you are breaking one rule and adding to another, which you can't do. Therefore, by the rule, and not personal opinions on sportsmanship, you would have to side with the team that won 15-14. Then educate why that shouldn't happen ever again.

My point is that it is the oposition that choose what to play to, if that is not done vocaly then you don't serve because you do not know what you are playing up to.

This is my understanding of the rules, simple as that!

[badmonte]

Dill:
I understand your point. I agree with you and in a perfect world it would never happen. It happens often in lower level flights of tournaments because not everyone is 100% sure of the rules. But you did not answer the question. How would you rule if you were a tournament director and two teams came to you and explin your justification in accordance with the rules?
I am interested in finding out how everyone would rule on this matter.
Again to recap:
Once the game has gone on to the next point you cant go back, because the rule says it has to be declared before the next serve. So how would you rule?

[SteveStanley]

I would ask them to continue playing at 14-14 instead, and whoever got the 14 first has to decide on setting before they resume the play.


Dill:

I understand your point. I agree with you and in a perfect world it would never happen. It happens often in lower level flights of tournaments because not everyone is 100% sure of the rules. But you did not answer the question. How would you rule if you were a tournament director and two teams came to you and explin your justification in accordance with the rules?
I am interested in finding out how everyone would rule on this matter.
Again to recap:
Once the game has gone on to the next point you cant go back, because the rule says it has to be declared before the next serve. So how would you rule?

[Papa Smurf]

I would ask them to continue playing at 14-14 instead, and whoever got the 14 first has to decide on setting before they resume the play.
Would you still do that if.... instead of bringing it up after 1 point, the other team brought it up after playing 3 points? Say for example, mndtrks kids tied it at 14, then served and won the match 17-16. Now what if the other kids then mentioned that they never got the option to "not set." Would you make them go back to 14-14 and replay? Because having the option to set or not set, would be the same situation.

[Dill]

Would you still do that if.... instead of bringing it up after 1 point, the other team brought it up after playing 3 points? Say for example, mndtrks kids tied it at 14, then served and won the match 17-16. Now what if the other kids then mentioned that they never got the option to "not set." Would you make them go back to 14-14 and replay? Because having the option to set or not set, would be the same situation.

Difference in this instance would be that both teams played past 15 points and if the play was at 14 all then service would have changed hands a couple of times, so there is time to raise an objection during the game.

In the other instance I would have the players together and discuss both sides of the argument but the team that won have broken the rules by not waiting for the other team to let them know what to set to, they continued play regardless.

My option would be that having everyone return to the court to play to one point would be silly and that possibly 3 points would not be a good idea either, my prefered option would be to have a game to 5 points without any setting but only if both teams agreed and no objections were raised by either the teams or their coaches. This should be fair and eliminate any quick points or flukey shots and give both teams a chance. It would also eliminate any recriminations afterwards by the players or their coaches, i.e. I had to play more points than the other teams and I was tired in the final.

If you agree you have nowhere to run and can only blame yourself.

In the instance of this happening more, then my view is that if you don't know the rules then you have to seek clarification at the judges table, afterall that is why they are there!

If we have an umpire here I would like to hear their views - I think they would penalise the winners for breaking the rules.

[SteveStanley]

If they play and won the match 17-16, it means both teams understood that they are playing to 17 and the serves have gone back and forth at least a few times. So, no replay off course.
Would you still do that if.... instead of bringing it up after 1 point, the other team brought it up after playing 3 points? Say for example, mndtrks kids tied it at 14, then served and won the match 17-16. Now what if the other kids then mentioned that they never got the option to "not set." Would you make them go back to 14-14 and replay? Because having the option to set or not set, would be the same situation.

[Papa Smurf]

If we have an umpire here I would like to hear their views - I think they would penalise the winners for breaking the rules.
There are soooo many things wrong with what you just said...First off, what i dont get is that you insist that it is mndtrks girls who broke the rules. No where in the rules does it say you have to ask. It is upto the people who got to 14 first to decide. IF anything, they're the ones who should get penalized, and it would be ridiculous to penalize them. The other girls knew the rules, but they didnt exercise that option. Its not like they DIDNT know and someone took advantage of them. The girls tied to score at 14, waited....held up the bird and said.."POINT-14"..then the other girls got ready to recieve the serve, and once it was served, they returned it. Then after the point was won, they said 'hey wait a minute, we wanted to set.' They CLEARLY KNEW THEY COULD SET. Playing past 1 point or 3 points, it does not matter, the moment to object is past. What youre thinking of is like similiar to arguing a line call 2 plays ago or 10 plays ago.....it does not matter, that moment has passed. What i mean is like if you hit a shot, i call it out. I think pickup the birdie serve it, you return it, we rally, i win the rally ofcourse (hehe), then you argue that i made a bad call on the last play and that the birdie touched the line.

Then if your ruling would be to go out and play 5 more points, what if one of the sides didnt want to play for another 5? You would disqualify them? Not only are YOU breaking the rules, but youre adding on rules in the middle of a tournament. If one of those teams complained to your governing badminton board.....you would lose your sanction. Had you created that rule and posted it in writing at the beginning of the tournament you would be fine. But essentially you are creating rules that are not IBF sponsored. Why not stop at 5? why not throw the match out and make them play again? Or just disqualify both teams.

[Papa Smurf]

If they play and won the match 17-16, it means both teams understood that they are playing to 17 and the serves have gone back and forth at least a few times. So, no replay off course.So if someone says to you.."GAME POINT"...do u not understand that we are playing for game point? They said.."POINT-14".....Other girls heard it, and returned the bird no problem.

[SteveStanley]

So, if the girls say point-14, does it mean that they got to decide the "set"? Who should decide on the 1 or 3 set?

That's why I'm saying, both teams made a mistake by not saying anything, that's why they have to replay.

In case of winning at 17-16, does it make sense to replay? I just use my common sense.


So if someone says to you.."GAME POINT"...do u not understand that we are playing for game point? They said.."POINT-14".....Other girls heard it, and returned the bird no problem.

[Dill]

There are soooo many things wrong with what you just said...First off, what i dont get is that you insist that it is mndtrks girls who broke the rules.

Not broke the rules, but ignored them! The oposition are the ones with the choice of what to set to as per the rules so why did they just anounce the score and serve? Is it not their duty to wait for a reply?



No where in the rules does it say you have to ask.

That is correct you do not have to ask since you have no say in the outcome but you do have to wait for a reply do you not? So how can you proceed without a clear indication of what to play to since it is not your decision?



It is upto the people who got to 14 first to decide. IF anything, they're the ones who should get penalized, and it would be ridiculous to penalize them. The other girls knew the rules, but they didnt exercise that option. Its not like they DIDNT know and someone took advantage of them. The girls tied to score at 14, waited....held up the bird and said.."POINT-14"..then the other girls got ready to recieve the serve, and once it was served, they returned it. Then after the point was won, they said 'hey wait a minute, we wanted to set.' They CLEARLY KNEW THEY COULD SET.

Then fine, but what I would like to know what does "POINT-14" mean? I thought the correct call is "matchpoint", possibly including a "what do you want to set to?" so ther is no way there can be any ambiguity.



Playing past 1 point or 3 points, it does not matter, the moment to object is past. What youre thinking of is like similiar to arguing a line call 2 plays ago or 10 plays ago.....it does not matter, that moment has passed. What i mean is like if you hit a shot, i call it out. I think pickup the birdie serve it, you return it, we rally, i win the rally ofcourse (hehe), then you argue that i made a bad call on the last play and that the birdie touched the line. Then if your ruling would be to go out and play 5 more points, what if one of the sides didnt want to play for another 5? You would disqualify them? Not only are YOU breaking the rules, but youre adding on rules in the middle of a tournament. If one of those teams complained to your governing badminton board.....you would lose your sanction. Had you created that rule and posted it in writing at the beginning of the tournament you would be fine. But essentially you are creating rules that are not IBF sponsored. Why not stop at 5? why not throw the match out and make them play again? Or just disqualify both teams.

Nope my point is that if there is any recourse by any of the players then it is dealt with in a common sense orientated manner after the action listening to both parties and their coaches and agreeing a course of action which all parties have a say.

No I would not lose my sanction by agreeing a course of action which all parties had consented to! No one is being forced to play to a set score or another game.

Matters like this sometimes have to be dealt with in tournaments but this since this one, according to you is outside the rules and their interpritation then the only fair way to resolve it is asking all parties involved their opinion and finding neutral ground and taking it from there, once action is agreed then there is no comeback from any party and no one does anything they don't want to.

My analysis if there was a complaint about the game would be to ask mndtrks girls what the setting was to and who announced it, a game can only proceed if there is an anouncement of what to play to, 1 or 3. In my opinion matchpoint was not claimed by that side so they would be penalised serving when not knowing what to play to.

That is unless of course if POINT-14 means matchpoint according to the rule book.

That is my interpritation of what happened.

[Benasp]

rematch from where the game were getting confused ( 14-14 1 st serve), but i don't think we could do that so the winning team stay cause they were both in the error.

[Papa Smurf]

No you would not lose your sanction if both parties agreed, but what i'm saying is what would you do if one of those parties did not agree to whatever it is that you decided. You still do not have a definite solution. What i'm trying to get it, is that you two (i forget who else was leaving posts) want to develop rules on a case-by-case basis. That would be totally unfair, because then youre leaving it upto human descretion, and thats how we got in this situation in the first place. My feeling is that IBF should come up with a contingency rule, basically doing one of two things.

1)You leave it as is, and whoever got to 15 first would win.
or
2)You automatically goto a set 3, and one team would be up 15-14. (but theres problems here, because if you were the team that goto 14 first, why would u ever say anything? I would play it out, if i got the serve back it would be game point, if i didnt it would be set)

The reason why it would be unfair if you leave it upto human descretion is that you will get different rulings based on the tournament director. You may not have a fair one, you may have a biased one who doesnt like that team. There should be one set rules so that you have an if/then.

The other problem with the solution you guys came up with, is making a team replay a point. No matter what sport it is, you will NEVER see a team have to replay an event. (american football does not count, because the penalty would be directly related to the play, while in this case regardless of what decision of setting or not setting would be that would not effect the outcome of the next rally). If for basketball, a free throw was made while the clock wasnt running properly, they would NEVER make the player reshoot the free throw. No matter how bad the call on the play was. Example, 2 years ago in the NFL, tampa bay buccaneers, on 4th down. The guy managing the field marker left it on 3rd, brad johnson thought it was third down so he spiked the ball to kill the clock. Only to be later told it was really 4th down. You better believe the they got off the field because the game was over. Does that sound fair? someone holds up the wrong sign so he loses a game.....it was totally fair because he shouldve known what down it was.....same thing in this case, those girls should have known.

And whoever it was...YES, you said that mndtricks girls broke the rules.
"If we have an umpire here I would like to hear their views - I think they would penalise the winners for breaking the rules."

All I'm trying to say is....come up with a standard rule that we can use without any exceptions.

[Papa Smurf]

Then fine, but what I would like to know what does "POINT-14" mean? I thought the correct call is "matchpoint", possibly including a "what do you want to set to?" so ther is no way there can be any ambiguity.

In the US, on the west coast (i dont know if they do this anywhere else actually) we sometimes just go ..."POINT".....to signify matchpoint. I dunno its a westside thing i guess? We like to shorten things, everyones in such a daym hurry to spit out the sentence that we end up developing new words like...'shizzle'.....and every other word that rhymes with it.

[Dill]

No you would not lose your sanction if both parties agreed, but what i'm saying is what would you do if one of those parties did not agree to whatever it is that you decided. You still do not have a definite solution. What i'm trying to get it, is that you two (i forget who else was leaving posts) want to develop rules on a case-by-case basis. That would be totally unfair, because then youre leaving it upto human descretion, and thats how we got in this situation in the first place. My feeling is that IBF should come up with a contingency rule, basically doing one of two things.

1)You leave it as is, and whoever got to 15 first would win.
or
2)You automatically goto a set 3, and one team would be up 15-14. (but theres problems here, because if you were the team that goto 14 first, why would u ever say anything? I would play it out, if i got the serve back it would be game point, if i didnt it would be set)

The reason why it would be unfair if you leave it upto human descretion is that you will get different rulings based on the tournament director. You may not have a fair one, you may have a biased one who doesnt like that team. There should be one set rules so that you have an if/then.

The other problem with the solution you guys came up with, is making a team replay a point. No matter what sport it is, you will NEVER see a team have to replay an event. (american football does not count, because the penalty would be directly related to the play, while in this case regardless of what decision of setting or not setting would be that would not effect the outcome of the next rally). If for basketball, a free throw was made while the clock wasnt running properly, they would NEVER make the player reshoot the free throw. No matter how bad the call on the play was. Example, 2 years ago in the NFL, tampa bay buccaneers, on 4th down. The guy managing the field marker left it on 3rd, brad johnson thought it was third down so he spiked the ball to kill the clock. Only to be later told it was really 4th down. You better believe the they got off the field because the game was over. Does that sound fair? someone holds up the wrong sign so he loses a game.....it was totally fair because he shouldve known what down it was.....same thing in this case, those girls should have known.

And whoever it was...YES, you said that mndtricks girls broke the rules.
"If we have an umpire here I would like to hear their views - I think they would penalise the winners for breaking the rules."

All I'm trying to say is....come up with a standard rule that we can use without any exceptions.

I'm not saying make anyone do anything, all I am saying is that all parties are present (players, coaches, officials) when any discussions are taking place with what to do and the matter is resolved to the satisfaction off all parties there is no bias towards any one party in the debate!

These kind of things where situations arise that are not wholy covered by the rules happen more regularly than you know about and it is up to the tournament organisers to find neutral ways out of these kinds of predicaments that suits all parties involves. That is of course if there are no "local" rules previousley printed that take these things into account.

More or less like local rules on certain golf courses.

And the thing about saying "point" is that it is a regional variation and not evereyone would understand what this means especailly if the score has gotten away from them as it does in all games at times.

You should be clear and either say "matchpoint" or "setting".

I would still like to hear the opinion of a ref!

[leehsim]

In a proper tournament, beside the players, coaches, supporters, the appointment of courts officials- refereee, umpire, srvice judge and line judgel is very essential.
Expecting player to act as umpire in a tournament is totally unfair.
Beside your player is using the wrong vacabulary when the score reached point-14, instead of calling that, it should be called out as
Match Pont, 14-all
As your player called out the score as if she is the umpire, then she should ask the opponent side
Are you setting?
If affirmative
Setting, 14-all
or if the answer is negative.
Game is not set

[badmonte]

Again, everyone is trying to penalize mndtrcks girls, but they did not break a rule. Their opponents were the ones in error and should know their rules. I can't believe so many people want to add to the rules or break rules to rule "Fairly". Bottom line is you never go back and replay a point that has already been played. Many of you say that you would force them to go and play, but what if mndtrcks girls said they won, because the rules state that all games end at 15 unless the team at 14 first sets before the next serve is played. That is what the rule says. Would you disqualify them for knowing the rules better than you? I would side with mndtrcks girls everytime. I have coached many badminton teams in college and high school and if my players did not set and lost 15-14, I would be upset with them and myself. I would not be upset with mndtrcks girls. In fact it has happerned on more than one occasion and I've never asked to go back and replay anything. My team did not exercise their option and they lost. I try to teach personal responsiblity, not blame others. That's one of the great things about sports and how they relate to life.

[badmonte]

So, if the girls say point-14, does it mean that they got to decide the "set"? Who should decide on the 1 or 3 set?

That's why I'm saying, both teams made a mistake by not saying anything, that's why they have to replay.

In case of winning at 17-16, does it make sense to replay? I just use my common sense.I do not get your point. The rule says you have a choice, but that choice is to be made before the next point is served. If you do not choose to set than you play to 15, or next point wins.
What I also do not understand is that everyone is giving mndtrcks opponents an unfair advantage. Think about it...the best thing would be not to say anything and play the next point, then if you break serve you can serve for the win at 15. If you dont break serve then you can protest that you did not get a chance to set and must so you can play to 17. Has anyone thaught that maybe it is mndtrcks opponents that were being less than honest. They clearly knew they could set, but they didnt. It was only after they lost did they change their minds. Maybe they didnt want to set beacuse they thought they could break serve, and then when they lost they changes their minds. Why would anyone want to be so anxious to reward that kind of unsportsmanlike behavior?

[leehsim]

I do not get your point. The rule says you have a choice, but that choice is to be made before the next point is served. If you do not choose to set than you play to 15, or next point wins.
What I also do not understand is that everyone is giving mndtrcks opponents an unfair advantage. Think about it...the best thing would be not to say anything and play the next point, then if you break serve you can serve for the win at 15. If you dont break serve then you can protest that you did not get a chance to set and must so you can play to 17. Has anyone thaught that maybe it is mndtrcks opponents that were being less than honest. They clearly knew they could set, but they didnt. It was only after they lost did they change their minds. Maybe they didnt want to set beacuse they thought they could break serve, and then when they lost they changes their minds. Why would anyone want to be so anxious to reward that kind of unsportsmanlike behavior?
I would say that the most unsportsmanlike behavior of this tournament is the organiser committing the biggest mistake of not appointing the most important court offical i.e. umpire and expect all parties to follow the Law of Badminton IBF

[badmonte]

I would say that the most unsportsmanlike behavior of this tournament is the organiser committing the biggest mistake of not appointing the most important court offical i.e. umpire and expect all parties to follow the Law of Badminton IBF
My understanding is that this is a high school match, and the officials would be the coaches. I would say it is not realistic to have an official at each court in that situation. From the original post by mndtrcks it seems that his teams opponents knew the score, knew they could set, and did not set. Then lost the point and then asked to set.
Again is a perfect world I would agree with you, but theirs perfect and theirs reality.
In this situation it seems clear to me, that mndtrcks team should be declared the winner, because they did not break a rule and if you go back and replay you are allowing their opponents to change their minds after the fact and get away with it....and thats crazy!

[leehsim]

My understanding is that this is a high school match, and the officials would be the coaches. I would say it is not realistic to have an official at each court in that situation. From the original post by mndtrcks it seems that his teams opponents knew the score, knew they could set, and did not set. Then lost the point and then asked to set.
Again is a perfect world I would agree with you, but theirs perfect and theirs reality.
In this situation it seems clear to me, that mndtrcks team should be declared the winner, because they did not break a rule and if you go back and replay you are allowing their opponents to change their minds after the fact and get away with it....and thats crazy!I don't want to side with any party and conclude which side is the winner.
Now my question is:
Who is the " umpire' for the match, the player who call out the score, the coach?
There must be someone who does the duty of keeping the score sheet or call out the score and try to act as 'umpire'
If there is none, I still think that the organiser is unsportmanlike.

[badmonte]

I don't want to side with any party and conclude which side is the winner.
Now my question is:
Who is the " umpire' for the match, the player who call out the score, the coach?
There must be someone who does the duty of keeping the score sheet or call out the score and try to act as 'umpire'
If there is none, I still think that the organiser is unsportmanlike.
In high school badminton in california, players keep their own score unless they ask for a score keeper or score keepers provided (other high school players) in section championships.

I dont understand why so many people on this post don't want to choose a side. bottom line that is what mndtrcks originally asked, for our opinions on how we would decide based on the rules, not our thoughts on sportsmanship and the like.

Again, for me it is easy, the only decision that I could make and not be in violation of the rule book is that mndtrcks girls won. In my opinion, it would be hard to justify any other conclusion without adding to or breaking an existing rule. As I have stated before in a perfect world it would never happen but it did and a point was played, so you can't go back. Also mndtrcks opponents knew the rule, they just wanted to evoke it after the fact. Everyone has said they didnt speak up, but they did after they lost! Too late. It may be a hard lesson to learn, but its one that needs to be taught.

[carlol]

long thread... nice read... it taught me a lot about this rule which i never really agonized over since with the people i play with, we usually almost always play to 17 in the case of a 14-14 score.

I'd have to agree with papa smurf and badmonte on this one. Rules are rules and in this case of ambiguity, the rules would've sided with mndtrck's girls if i were to make a decision on it. It looks clear that their opponents were the sneaky ones who were hoping to break the serve and finish the game at 15 and then decided to try to get a technicality bail them out of their choice after they lost.
:)

[Neil Nicholls]

The other problem with the solution you guys came up with, is making a team replay a point. No matter what sport it is, you will NEVER see a team have to replay an event.

Replaying points is common in badminton. It is called a "Let".
e.g. Service Court Errors.
But if the game continues beyond the point that is in dispute, it is too late.


The correct way to call the score would have been.
"14 match point all"

[Neil Nicholls]

It is the Umpire's job to call the scores.
Laws - RTCO (Recommendations to Court Officials)
3.3 During the match the umpire shall record and call the score

everyone seems happy that the players should perform this function when there is no umpire

part of the same law
3.3.6 "Game Point" (or "match point", where applicable) should be called in each game and for each side on the first occasion that a side reaches 14 or 16 (10 or 12 in women's singles)
these calls should always immediately follow the serving side's score and precede the receiving side's score.

everyone seems happy that the players should perform this function when there is no umpire


part of the same law
3.3.7 when the scores are first level on game point/match point, ask the receiver "Are you setting?" ...

Are we all happy that the players should perform this function when there is no umpire?

[Loopy]

Sorry Badmonte, I don't agree with you.
Rule 7.5 states that the set is determined by mndtrks opponent. Continuing play without knowing how much to set violates this rules (even if in ancient times, it was defaulted to be set to 15 as kwun says, now the rules are different).
Second, reading this thread, I didn't even knew what "Point 14" meant before someone explained it.
Third, the girls getting to serve last said "Point 14", as if THEY were the one who decided to which point to set. But it is the opponent to decide FIRST, and not to be SUGGESTED forcefully to which point to set.
Fourth, when you're in the heat of a match, and someone is getting ready to serve, of course, by reflex, you'll get ready to receive...
I agree with the ruling made.

On another matter, winning by all means necessary with low level tricks is unsportsman like.

[Papa Smurf]

Third, the girls getting to serve last said "Point 14", as if THEY were the one who decided to which point to set. But it is the opponent to decide FIRST, and not to be SUGGESTED forcefully to which point to set.
Fourth, when you're in the heat of a match, and someone is getting ready to serve, of course, by reflex, you'll get ready to receive...
I agree with the ruling made.

On another matter, winning by all means necessary with low level tricks is unsportsman like.If you read the original post again, it says they tied the game.... Waited for the opponent, they didnt say anything...then held up the bird said..'point-14'. Then the opponents got ready to return the serve. To me that says that they're ok with the decision. Think of it as "would you like to set?" and "would you like to play to 15". "point-14" would refer to "would you like to play to 15". (Over in the westcoast, "point" is very commonly used to signify "matchpoint". When i was playing back in 1998, thats how we did it and nobody ever had a problem with it. So for this situation we should assume the other girls knew what point-14 meant.) Back to my point.....Both questions can be consider as leading the opponent. But ULTIMATELY it is the opponent's agreeing or disagreeing, that is the decision process itself. If you told me to shoot someone, and i did it, when i goto court i cannot say that i did it because you told me to. mndtrks girls didnt force them to play to 15. They presented an option, and the other girls took it. If anyone reading this entry still isnt persuaded.... Go out and punch your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever... then tell them the reason why you did it, is because i told you to. See what happens then.

[badmonte]

Sorry Badmonte, I don't agree with you.
Rule 7.5 states that the set is determined by mndtrks opponent. Continuing play without knowing how much to set violates this rules (even if in ancient times, it was defaulted to be set to 15 as kwun says, now the rules are different).
Second, reading this thread, I didn't even knew what "Point 14" meant before someone explained it.
Third, the girls getting to serve last said "Point 14", as if THEY were the one who decided to which point to set. But it is the opponent to decide FIRST, and not to be SUGGESTED forcefully to which point to set.
Fourth, when you're in the heat of a match, and someone is getting ready to serve, of course, by reflex, you'll get ready to receive...
I agree with the ruling made.

On another matter, winning by all means necessary with low level tricks is unsportsman like.

So you would rule to go back and replay from where? The rule says it has to be decided before the next point, because you can't go back. Once a point is played, its played.
As far as "Point 14" with the holding up of the shuttle, I have played badmitnon on the west coast for over 20 years and have never heard of anyone not knowing what that meant.
If someone told me "point 14" and I wanted to set, I would say SET!
The opponents of mndtrks girls knew that they could set, because after they protested. I beleive they were being less than honest and trying to get a double benefit, of winning at 15 if they broke serve, and being able to play to 17 if they didn't.
You and I weren't their so your implying that mndtrks girls were unsportsmanlike, when in fact it could be their opponents who were trying to take advantage of them,by playing both ends of the rule. Why is that ok to you?

Again the fact is the played the point, so you can not go back.

[SteveStanley]

Let's not make this an endless discussion, I think we all have a point here, and the match could go either way. It's just an unfortunate for mndtrks girls to lose the match like this.

For the future and for the love of this sport, if anyone holds a tournament with no umpire, let's make this kind of things very clear in advance, write the rules on paper if needed. This is a very good case and good discussion for everyone.

mndtrks, thanks for sharing with everyone in the forum. :)

[Loopy]

So you would rule to go back and replay from where? The rule says it has to be decided before the next point, because you can't go back. Once a point is played, its played.
As far as "Point 14" with the holding up of the shuttle, I have played badmitnon on the west coast for over 20 years and have never heard of anyone not knowing what that meant.
If someone told me "point 14" and I wanted to set, I would say SET!
The opponents of mndtrks girls knew that they could set, because after they protested. I beleive they were being less than honest and trying to get a double benefit, of winning at 15 if they broke serve, and being able to play to 17 if they didn't.
You and I weren't their so your implying that mndtrks girls were unsportsmanlike, when in fact it could be their opponents who were trying to take advantage of them,by playing both ends of the rule. Why is that ok to you?

Again the fact is the played the point, so you can not go back.
lol...
Let's say you and I are are playing a match. You get to 14 last and say "Match Point". Say what?! What is your right to decide that it is match point? First, it's not for you to take that decision, or to suggest that it is. If you ever said that, then the correct format would be "Match point. Do you agree yes or no?". And not "Match point" and let's play on, because I'd be ready to receive.
And I mentionned the notion of unsportmanlike, but I haven't said who was. As unfair as the ruling was in that school, I still agree by that ruling, because it was the opponent's right. For all we know, we can't make assumptions that they wanted a double benefit.

Papa Smurf, just to clarify some things. The girls waited, got ready to serve, said "Point 14" then immediately served. So how much time does that leave the opponent to agree it is match point when they said "Point 14"?

Anyways, as Steve says, let's leave it like that, we both have our opinions on the matter. And I still suck in badminton :p

[Papa Smurf]

lol...
Let's say you and I are are playing a match. You get to 14 last and say "Match Point". Say what?! What is your right to decide that it is match point? First, it's not for you to take that decision, or to suggest that it is. If you ever said that, then the correct format would be "Match point. Do you agree yes or no?". And not "Match point" and let's play on, because I'd be ready to receive.
And I mentionned the notion of unsportmanlike, but I haven't said who was. As unfair as the ruling was in that school, I still agree by that ruling, because it was the opponent's right. For all we know, we can't make assumptions that they wanted a double benefit.

Papa Smurf, just to clarify some things. The girls waited, got ready to serve, said "Point 14" then immediately served. So how much time does that leave the opponent to agree it is match point when they said "Point 14"?

Dood if all you have is that.....saying point, instead of matchpoint...then you have no argument. Thats not even an issue here. As for how much time passed, i do not know i was not there, i'm just reading the original post. Just read post #1 by mndtrks. Either way, even if i forgot to call set, immediately after the the opponents tied the game. When i hear "Point"....alarms will be going off that 'hey i'm about to lose this game'. Lets take another interpretation from another section of the IBF rules. It says "if you are not ready when the opponent serves, but you attempt to return it, then you are deemed as ready." In otherwords, just because someone serves it, doesnt mean you have to return it, but if you do then that means you are ready.

[Papa Smurf]

Let's not make this an endless discussion, I think we all have a point here, and the match could go either way. It's just an unfortunate for mndtrks girls to lose the match like this.

For the future and for the love of this sport, if anyone holds a tournament with no umpire, let's make this kind of things very clear in advance, write the rules on paper if needed. This is a very good case and good discussion for everyone.

mndtrks, thanks for sharing with everyone in the forum. :)well what else are we going to do? Its just a discussion board afterall. Its nothing personal. Not like i'm going to go from open gym to open gym hunting for people to beat down. We all smurfy here =)

[Neil Nicholls]

Let's say you and I are are playing a match. You get to 14 last and say "Match Point". Say what?! What is your right to decide that it is match point? First, it's not for you to take that decision, or to suggest that it is. If you ever said that, then the correct format would be "Match point. Do you agree yes or no?". And not "Match point" and let's play on, because I'd be ready to receive.
only 5 posts before this I quoted the IBF standard for how to call the score... :rolleyes:

[Loopy]

Dood if all you have is that.....saying point, instead of matchpoint...then you have no argument. Thats not even an issue here. As for how much time passed, i do not know i was not there, i'm just reading the original post. Just read post #1 by mndtrks. Either way, even if i forgot to call set, immediately after the the opponents tied the game. When i hear "Point"....alarms will be going off that 'hey i'm about to lose this game'. Lets take another interpretation from another section of the IBF rules. It says "if you are not ready when the opponent serves, but you attempt to return it, then you are deemed as ready." In otherwords, just because someone serves it, doesnt mean you have to return it, but if you do then that means you are ready.
lolol.... You're running out of argument to prove that a lack of etiquette and sportsmanship is actually legit and a good thing. At least, if you were to win, do it the proper way. :p

[Gollum]

Good grief. What a lot of discussion over such a simple issue.

In games that are not adjudicated, you must expect occasional confusion, and even occasional cheating. Live with it.

You can learn to avoid confusion by taking responsibility. Both sides have a responsibility to avoid disputes by calling the score each point, and ensuring that the option to set is clearly taken or refused by the receiving side. Communication is important.

Failing to accept this basic responsibility is childish. Then again, they were child players in this case (well, teenagers anyway) :rolleyes:

You also must learn to deal with cheating. There is very little you can do if your opponents refuse to acknowledge their violation of the rules. Common violations include illegal drive serves, which put the receivers at a disadvantage. You may choose politely to point out the violation, but you cannot be any more forceful. There is no umpire, so if you can't reach an agreement then you are stuck. Annoying, I know. But what can you do?

I repeat: live with it. It's not that important.

[Loopy]

I repeat: live with it. It's not that important.
Who would die for something like that? :p

[Papa Smurf]

lolol.... You're running out of argument to prove that a lack of etiquette and sportsmanship is actually legit and a good thing. At least, if you were to win, do it the proper way. :p
no no, i'm not saying in order to win you dont need etiquette and sportsmanship. Really, have you been paying attention? The whole time, all i've been doing is trying to find a good ruling, something that if we were able to amend the IBF rule, we could use. Seriously dood read the whole thread. But to save you time, i'll recap, .......Ya know what...its too long, just read the original post.

[Gollum]

Who would die for something like that? :p

Some people in this thread seem to be commited enough to do so ;)