Badminton rule dispute

[AllisterBrimble]

Hi

I have recently had an argument with a friend about a shot that he played.
He hit the shuttle around the side of post, 2 feet under the height of the net and the shuttle landed in.

Is this legal?

Thanks in advance
Allister

www.badmintonexeter.co.uk (http://www.badmintonexeter.co.uk/)

[Jinryu]

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/content/view/82/56/1/11/





13. FAULTS

It is a ‘fault’:

13.2 if in play, the shuttle:

13.2.3 fails to pass the net;

That shot is not legal-- even if he accidentally hit a bird that was going out, it has to cross over the net for it to be considered within bounds i beleive. I was looking for a better phrased part of the rules but this was the best I could find.

[Gollum]

The shot is legal. Nothing in the laws contradicts it.

It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.

It's your own fault for hitting the shuttle wide. If your shot had been going in, he could never have passed the post.

[AllisterBrimble]

The shot is legal. Nothing in the laws contradicts it.

It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.

It's your own fault for hitting the shuttle wide. If your shot had been going in, he could never have passed the post.


That's two different answers on this forum now. Anyone else??

[silentheart]

That's two different answers on this forum now. Anyone else??

It is legal. It is also legal for all other sports uses a net to devide the court.

[txyu]

two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal? :eek:

Who would argue that?

Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point

[Neil Nicholls]

Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point
errrrr :confused:
if it's obviously out, then it doesn't come any cheaper than not hitting it and letting it land out

[silentheart]

two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal? :eek:

Who would argue that?

Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point

1) why he hitting it if it is out? it is his point already. it is not a cheap point. what if the shuttle does not land inside of the line? it become your point.
2) why do you give up a point just because the other person does not know the rule?
3) anything that does not specificly defined as fault in the rule book is legal untill ibf change the rule (s-serve is a good example).

[txyu]

it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

and that's legal?

Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

Am I interpreting this original post wrong?

[Quan]

i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.

[Neil Nicholls]

it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point
...
and that's legal?
yep


Am I interpreting this original post wrong?
I don't think so

[bigredlemon]

What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?

[DarthHowie]

i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.

off-topic:
His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).

on-topic:
I'd count the point, but why would your opponent hit it in the first place if it was clearly wide and out (that's the only way i can see this shot being pulled off)?

[AllisterBrimble]

To clarify, it went at the angle you showed in the diagram but at 1 or 2 feet below net height.

Allister


it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

and that's legal?

Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

Am I interpreting this original post wrong?

[silentheart]

What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?

No, this is a fault and you know it. This is a totally different subject.

[txyu]

off-topic:
His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).

on-topic:
I'd count the point, but why would your opponent hit it in the first place if it was clearly wide and out (that's the only way i can see this shot being pulled off)?

There are times, you just don't know where you are on court and are just running and swinging...I exaggerated my explanation to make sure I was clear on my interpretation of things

[Neil Nicholls]

What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?
13.2.2
It is a fault if in play the shuttle passes through or under the net

[LazyBuddy]

It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.


Even if it's clearly below the net height? :eek:

[txyu]

I guess it's interpretation of the rules then

I think although it passed the side of the net, it still is "under" the net

What if it was inside the poles? (some gyms the poles are 2-3 feet away from the sidelines)
Does pole location determine the length of the "net" and how this shot is interpreted?

[ribroy]

I would be quite happy for an opponent to hit one of my shots that is obviously out of bounds - thus giving me another chance to win the point.

I think that if the off court shot was a foul - net posts would continue much higher to spot "around the net fouls".

2.2 Where it is not practical to have posts on the side lines, some method must be used to indicate the position of the side lines where they must pass under the net, e.g., by the use of thin posts or strips of material 11/2" (40mm)wide,fixed to the side lines and rising vertically to the net cord

[Gollum]

This exact topic was discussed at my coach part 1 course. The instructors -- these are people who teach coaches, don't forget -- were clear about the issue: it is legal. You can hit it round the side.

It barely matters anyway. In this situation, the shot is obviously out. His judgement was poor :rolleyes:

[stan_bischof]

Hi

I have recently had an argument with a friend about a shot that he played.
He hit the shuttle around the side of post, 2 feet under the height of the net and the shuttle landed in.

Is this legal?


It is legal- always has been. Also legal if it bounces off the post.

Stan

[sac_man]

The shot was perfectly legal !!!
as far as I am concern as long as the birdie does not touch the ground the play is still on.

[Joseph]

off-topic:
His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).


Actually it was called out when kaido did it while playing badminton...you can track down the episode number and watch it again to see for yourself. While playing tennis, they called it in, but during episode when he played badminton they called it out. ;)

[RealMad]

The shot is legal. The net does not represent a never-ending barrier dividing each half of the court.

Btw, the shot is legal in tennis as well. Especially now, with players looking to hit the ball at very acute angles, I've had more than one opportunity to squeeze a shot around the post but below net level. It's actually easier in tennis, even though the net extends past either side of the court.

[DinkAlot]

Hmmmm, interesting dialogue here. Learn something new everyday. :)

*bookmarked*

[other]

The shot was perfectly legal !!!
as far as I am concern as long as the birdie does not touch the ground the play is still on.

unless it hits something or somebody:crying:

[sac_man]

unless it hits something or somebody:crying:
is still legal , if no one saw it ! :crying:

[Arief]

it's illegal.
the shuttle must pass the area above the net. some more in this case, it was 2 feet under the net, no way it can be considered in.

a bit off topic, but in volleybal, the same thing applies. you can hit the ball wherever but it must cross the area above the net only...

[hcyong]

it's illegal.
the shuttle must pass the area above the net. some more in this case, it was 2 feet under the net, no way it can be considered in.

a bit off topic, but in volleybal, the same thing applies. you can hit the ball wherever but it must cross the area above the net only...

In volleyball, there is a pole going straight up at each end of the net. In badminton, there isn't. Because you get to hit the ball 3 times, they have to come up with that rule. It is clear-cut.

In tennis, you can hit the ball after a bounce, therefore the ball can be well wide of the court. Therefore, the understanding of this rule is very important.

In contrast, this rule is not that important in badminton. If the shuttle is landing clearly out, then the point should be yours anyway. If you still want to hit it, you're just giving your opponent another chance. Unless you are talking about very strong draft, which will eventually blow the shuttle in, in which case you should not be playing there.

[Jinryu]

Ho ho ho, I concede then, I'm at fault-- no way so many BCers could be wrong. :oIntersting though!

[john10235]

My opinion: UNLESS the shuttle passes through the red area AND lands INSIDE the court, it is a fault.

[other]

This exact topic was discussed at my coach part 1 course. The instructors -- these are people who teach coaches, don't forget -- were clear about the issue: it is legal. You can hit it round the side.

It barely matters anyway. In this situation, the shot is obviously out. His judgement was poor :rolleyes:

the net (in optimum conditions and equipment) such as ibf international events is exactly where its supposed to be. meaning that u don't "extend" where the net would be in your imagination when determining legal/illegal shots. the net is placed so there becuase there is usually no need to hit shots that are as far to the sides, and so the net doesnt extend from one end of the sports hall to the other (like some of you are imagining it to do). if u hit it around the net, u must have done it from a position that was "out" and we'd assume that most people have better judgement.

the rule says going under or through "the net" is illegal, not "a line at the height of the net extending between the two sides of the court". also consider that the net is higher at the sides than at the middle. which height would u use as your imaginary height?

the point is that it counts, but it would probably never be seen in a proper competitive match so more exact rules haven't been made (such as for the S serve), but one should still try to follow the common interpretation of the rules. anybody want to ask JR about his take?

[DinkAlot]

Man, I'm getting a headache. :p If I was in this situation and couldn't come to an agreement, I would just play the point over. :)

[RealMad]

My opinion: UNLESS the shuttle passes through the red area AND lands INSIDE the court, it is a fault.

This is all moot since the rule is that you can indeed hit a shot wide of the posts into the opposing half without clearing net height.

But John's statement cannot be implemented as you will never be able to measure if the shuttle cleared the net, wide of the post. Two feet over the net or two feet under, if there's no tape, who's to say if it cleared?

[fast3r]

[on-topic] The shot is legal if the net posts are placed directly above the lines of the court. I know this for a fact because a few weeks ago, 4 of our courts were out of action for a day because the net posts (which are placed inside holes drilled into the ground, [apparently this is because these net posts are international regulations, so we have these so the club can hold international tournaments]) had to be moved 1 inch so that they were directly above the lines, for the sake of this very law.

[off topic] The process invovled removing the planks of wood around the holes, extensive drilling, taking out metal holders placed into the ground filling in the existing holes, drilling new holes, replacing the wood around the holes, placing the net posts in the new holes which is more complicated than it looks

[tinkerbella122]

This is sort of like hitting a shot when it's clearly out isn't it :rolleyes: ? ; it is legal if it goes over, from your side of the net to the your opponents. Although it's rather a dumb shot to hit, it is perfectly legal.

[fast3r]

This is sort of like hitting a shot when it's clearly out isn't it :rolleyes: ? ; it is legal if it goes over, from your side of the net to the your opponents. Although it's rather a dumb shot to hit, it is perfectly legal.

thats exactly what it is:D

[jerby]

It is legal. It is also legal for all other sports uses a net to devide the court.
nope, not i volleybal :cool:

[Natrificial]

Like its been said... u can curve it around the post (and lower than the post) in tennis and its legal... I've done it before.

I'm sure theres a fluke where u can curve a legal shot thats been hit to you, not just ones that are going out, around the net in badminton (with the help of a brisk draft)



The shot is legal. The net does not represent a never-ending barrier dividing each half of the court.

Btw, the shot is legal in tennis as well. Especially now, with players looking to hit the ball at very acute angles, I've had more than one opportunity to squeeze a shot around the post but below net level. It's actually easier in tennis, even though the net extends past either side of the court.

[kwun]

this has been discussed before. and it is perfectly legal. many people want to have their own views of what is legal or not, but the definitive source is always the official rules so any discussion on legality should have cited the relevant clauses in the rules, in this case:



It is a ‘fault’:

13.2 if in play, the shuttle:
13.2.2 passes through or under the net;

13.2.3 fails to pass the net;

13.2.6 touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;



and that's it. the net is what is physically there, there are no mention of imaginary net extensions in the laws so the shuttle going through the sides is not illegal.

[kwun]

Like its been said... u can curve it around the post (and lower than the post) in tennis and its legal... I've done it before.

I'm sure theres a fluke where u can curve a legal shot thats been hit to you, not just ones that are going out, around the net in badminton (with the help of a brisk draft)

it is possible to curve the shuttle without the help of any wind. the error margin is very very small though. i believe Taufik has done it once in one of the all england with a crazy rearcourt-to-rearcout backhand that curved back into the court and lands right on the sideline.

[tinkerbella122]

this has been discussed before. and it is perfectly legal. many people want to have their own views of what is legal or not, but the definitive source is always the official rules so any discussion on legality should have cited the relevant clauses in the rules, in this case:

It is a ‘fault’:

13.2 if in play, the shuttle:
13.2.2 passes through or under the net;

13.2.3 fails to pass the net;

13.2.6 touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;


and that's it. the net is what is physically there, there are no mention of imaginary net extensions in the laws so the shuttle going through the sides is not illegal.

Thanks for clearing this up kwun :)

[AllisterBrimble]

hehe, never did I think my message would have caused so much trouble :p
I now owe my friend a bottle of wine as he bet me a bottle he was right about the shot being legal. :crying:

Next week he loses 15-0 though :)

[__Lam]

i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.

hehehe... so im not the only one who watches prince of tennis on bf... anyways why would someone do that? its already there point, why waste energy to hit a cheap shot that could potentially be returned?

[egibooga]

the shots LEGAL. period.

[keith_aquino]

What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?

Nope, it's a fault.

13.2.2 It is a fault if in play the shuttle: Passes through or under the net

[__Lam]

two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal? :eek:

Who would argue that?

Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point

how would it be a cheap point if it was already their point but they risked the shot to have a chance of being out or returned? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[__Lam]

it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

and that's legal?

Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

Am I interpreting this original post wrong?

why shouldnt it be legal, the guy hitting it was already his point, he just waste energy and give you a chance to return it or give you the point if its out.

[CWB001]

Nope, it's a fault.

13.2.2 It is a fault if in play the shuttle: Passes through or under the net

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how a shuttle passing around the net is "passing through or under the net?

As has been explained several times on this thread (with quotes of the relevant law), the shot was bizarre but perfectly legal.

[taneepak]

The two posts holding the net are placed directly above the lines. In addition the two sides of the net are secured flush with the two sides of the net, so that a shuttle will not pass through any gap between the sides of the net and the posts.
I believe that a shuttle that crosses over the net between the two posts, even if hit from outside the court, is legal. However, in the unlikely situation where the shuttle, hit from outside the court, takes a line of flight that is obviously higher than the net but appears to be marginally outside the sideline but lands on the line, then it will probably be judged in. This may be subject to the umpire and/or linesman's ruling.
A shuttle that is taken 1-2' off the ground from outside the side court, and it goes around, not over, the net is a fault.

[kwun]

A shuttle that is taken 1-2' off the ground from outside the side court, and it goes around, not over, the net is a fault.

you should read the whole thread. a shot that goes around and not touching the net/pole/other objects is NOT a fault.

[taneepak]

you should read the whole thread. a shot that goes around and not touching the net/pole/other objects is NOT a fault.

What about taking a net tumble that falls down vertically within 1 inch from the net at one foot above the floor-which means it is at least 4' below the net-but outside the court and then just push the shuttle around the outside post at a height of one foot into the opponents's court? :confused:

[CWB001]

What about taking a net tumble that falls down vertically within 1 inch from the net at one foot above the floor-which means it is at least 4' below the net-but outside the court and then just push the shuttle around the outside post at a height of one foot into the opponents's court? :confused:

If you could achieve that without a carry and without touching the net or post it would not be a fault. It contravenes no law at all.

The height of the shuttle below the net is not an issue as long as it does not go through or under the net and does not touch something outside the court (such as the net or post on the adjacent court or a judge's chair).

Again, you would have to question the sanity of trying it when you have already won the point by virtue of the shuttle being about to land out.

A shuttle that bounces off the top of the post and lands in is also not a fault. I've seen this happen several times.

[kwun]

What about taking a net tumble that falls down vertically within 1 inch from the net at one foot above the floor-which means it is at least 4' below the net-but outside the court and then just push the shuttle around the outside post at a height of one foot into the opponents's court? :confused:

that's is up for debate. and the issue is whether the pole is an object within the court's boundary or outside the boundary.

however, this question has nothing to do with your original incorrect assertion:



A shuttle that is taken 1-2' off the ground from outside the side court, and it goes around, not over, the net is a fault.

[CWB001]

that's is up for debate. and the issue is whether the pole is an object within the court's boundary or outside the boundary.

however, this question has nothing to do with your original incorrect assertion:

The debate is easily dealt with:

There is no issue at all if the shuttle does not touch the post.

If it does touch the post, law 13.2.6 is relevant:

"It is a fault if in play, the shuttle touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;"

The post is part of the equipment of the court and not, therefore, outside the immediate surroundings of the court.

It is never a fault, therefore, if the shuttle hits the post as long as it ends up in, even if the post is outside the line (which it shouldn't be in a properley set up court).

So there is not really much of a debate, is there?

[kwun]

The debate is easily dealt with:

There is no issue at all if the shuttle does not touch the post.

If it does touch the post, law 13.2.6 is relevant:

"It is a fault if in play, the shuttle touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;"

The post is part of the equipment of the court and not, therefore, outside the immediate surroundings of the court.

It is never a fault, therefore, if the shuttle hits the post as long as it ends up in, even if the post is outside the line (which it shouldn't be in a properley set up court).

So there is not really much of a debate, is there?

CWB, i agree with your explanation.

[Arief]

interesting debate... anyone here is/are official IBF umpires/linesman? :D

[taneepak]

that's is up for debate. and the issue is whether the pole is an object within the court's boundary or outside the boundary.

however, this question has nothing to do with your original incorrect assertion:

Both cases are obviously hit around the outside post from a height that is many feet below the net and the flight of the shuttle never went above 1 foot.
The rule says it is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net. The words 'fail to pass the net' can include the shuttle landing on the net without going over (blocked by the net) or the shuttle not going over the net. The net area is bounded by the net and posts. A shuttle that went around the post at 1-2' height on it's entire flight, would probably have great difficulty claiming that it passed the net. Pass means to go beyond. I don't think going around quite fits. To make it legal the definition of pass must include around (a more stringent one here) in addition to over or beyond.
There are some not run-of-the-mill points in badminton that are open to dispute. What happens if the shuttle goes round the post into the court, well below tape height all the way, as well as well above tape height from the moment it was hit to the moment it crossed the tape, as the case here? Or if the server misses the shuttle all together? Or if the receiver's partner intercepts the service before the the receiver is even ready?
The umpire is the sole arbiter but a player may appeal if he or she feels the umpired has erred in his interpretation of the law.

[CWB001]

Both cases are obviously hit around the outside post from a height that is many feet below the net and the flight of the shuttle never went above 1 foot.
The rule says it is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net. The words 'fail to pass the net' can include the shuttle landing on the net without going over (blocked by the net) or the shuttle not going over the net. The net area is bounded by the net and posts. A shuttle that went around the post at 1-2' height on it's entire flight, would probably have great difficulty claiming that it passed the net. Pass means to go beyond. I don't think going around quite fits. To make it legal the definition of pass must include around (a more stringent one here) in addition to over or beyond.
There are some not run-of-the-mill points in badminton that are open to dispute. What happens if the shuttle goes round the post into the court, well below tape height all the way, as well as well above tape height from the moment it was hit to the moment it crossed the tape, as the case here? Or if the server misses the shuttle all together? Or if the receiver's partner intercepts the service before the the receiver is even ready?
The umpire is the sole arbiter but a player may appeal if he or she feels the umpired has erred in his interpretation of the law.

You really need to actually read the laws. They do not say what you assume they say, and are quite clear on all the points you mention, with no ambiguity.

It is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net (law 13.2.3) but this is intended to cover the situation when the shuttle hits the net on the striker's own side and does not get to the other side.

The law does not restrict the meaning of "pass" to "pass over".

Clearly if the shuttle goes through, around, under or over it passes the net and is not a fault under 13.2.3. The law relevant to the original question is 13.2.6 which makes it a fault to go under or through the net. Which makes going around or over OK because neither is made a fault elsewhere in the laws.

If the server misses the shuttle while attempting to strike it, it is a fault under law 9.3 which unambiguously states "it is a 'fault' if the server, in attempting to serve, misses the shuttle".

On your last point two clauses come into effect.

Law 9.6 states "the server shall not serve before the receiver is ready, but the receiver shall be considered to have been ready if a return of service is attempted".

Note that it says "a return of service is attempted" - not "a valid return of service is made" or "the receiver attempts to return service". This is deliberate and means that the receiver's partner, in (insanely) attempting to return service makes the service valid.

Law 11.2 states "only the receiver shall return the service; should the shuttle touch or be hit by the receiver's partner, it shall be a fault and the serving side scores a point".

So the receiver's partner then completes the disaster by causing the fault after making the service valid while his partner is not ready.

This also means that a server could actually try aiming to hit the receiver's partner. If he succeeds because the receiver's partner does not get out of the way (even though the shuttle would otherwise have landed in the wrong court) he gains a point. Of course this will not succeed against many players.

It also means that a service receiver should check that his partner is not tying up his shoelaces when he gets ready to receive because the readiness of his partner is not necessary for a valid serve and an unready partner could lead to an easy point to the serving team.

The same applies to the server and his partner, of course.

I believe it is incumbent on every player to actually read the laws and fully understand their nuances before playing seriously.

[DinkAlot]

Dang, after all these posts trying to explain this dispute, I go back to what I originally said, just replay the point. :p :D

[CWB001]

Dang, after all these posts trying to explain this dispute, I go back to what I originally said, just replay the point. :p :D

But there would be no need - the player that hit the shuttle from the adjacent court was lucky enough to win the point. Why would they want to give that up? :confused:

The others have no complaint because they had hit miles out anyway!!! :D

[taneepak]

The debate is easily dealt with:

There is no issue at all if the shuttle does not touch the post.

If it does touch the post, law 13.2.6 is relevant:

"It is a fault if in play, the shuttle touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;"

The post is part of the equipment of the court and not, therefore, outside the immediate surroundings of the court.

It is never a fault, therefore, if the shuttle hits the post as long as it ends up in, even if the post is outside the line (which it shouldn't be in a properley set up court).

So there is not really much of a debate, is there?

I have no problem about the shuttle touching the post.
The crux of the problem here is the intent and definition of 'fails to pass the net'. I contend that the meaning of pass the net is to go beyond. If the shuttle obviously passes over the net, it is legal. Going under the net is being negated by another law that makes it a fault, and also by the inapproriate use of the word beyond, which has more legitamacy with a shuttle over the net rather than under the net. A shuttle that goes around the post way below the tape on it's entire fight path will be hardpressed to claim that it went beyond or 'pass the net', given that the net area is well understood. It would be a different story if the outside areas of the post are considered as part of the net, which they are not.

[kwun]

Both cases are obviously hit around the outside post from a height that is many feet below the net and the flight of the shuttle never went above 1 foot.
The rule says it is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net. The words 'fail to pass the net' can include the shuttle landing on the net without going over (blocked by the net) or the shuttle not going over the net. The net area is bounded by the net and posts. A shuttle that went around the post at 1-2' height on it's entire flight, would probably have great difficulty claiming that it passed the net. Pass means to go beyond. I don't think going around quite fits. To make it legal the definition of pass must include around (a more stringent one here) in addition to over or beyond.

we need to state the meaning of these 4 terms:

pass
go beyond
go around
go over

you are right that:

- pass is the same as go beyond

but you are incorrect that you assume go beyond can only be achieved by go over.

go beyond can be achieved by going around as well.



There are some not run-of-the-mill points in badminton that are open to dispute. What happens if the shuttle goes round the post into the court, well below tape height all the way, as well as well above tape height from the moment it was hit to the moment it crossed the tape, as the case here? Or if the server misses the shuttle all together? Or if the receiver's partner intercepts the service before the the receiver is even ready?
The umpire is the sole arbiter but a player may appeal if he or she feels the umpired has erred in his interpretation of the law.

as explained by CWB001, these are not open to dispute, they are all clearly stated in The Laws of Badminton. the laws are quite a wonderful piece of work and one can learn a lot about badminton from it. i suggest you read the laws from front to back for you own education and benefit. here is some links to it for your convenience:

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/content/view/82/56/

or:

http://www.worldbadminton.net/Portal/documents/laws2002.pdf

[kwun]

I have no problem about the shuttle touching the post.
The crux of the problem here is the intent and definition of 'fails to pass the net'. I contend that the meaning of pass the net is to go beyond. If the shuttle obviously passes over the net, it is legal. Going under the net is being negated by another law that makes it a fault, and also by the inapproriate use of the word beyond, which has more legitamacy with a shuttle over the net rather than under the net. A shuttle that goes around the post way below the tape on it's entire fight path will be hardpressed to claim that it went beyond or 'pass the net', given that the net area is well understood. It would be a different story if the outside areas of the post are considered as part of the net, which they are not.

you are trying to re-define the work "pass" here. pass doesn't only mean go over, it can be go around as well.

eg. if you are driving, how do you pass the car in front of you? i hope you don't drive over it... ;)

there is no need to re-define the english language for the sake of badminton, badminton laws is written with the current English definition.

[Loh]

I agree with Kwun that this situation has been brought up and discussed at length before and the conclusion, with reference to the Laws (which Kwun and others have now revisited) and in consultation with international badminton umpires, was that it is a legal shot.

It was also pertinent that Gollum shared his experience on the issue with us and I agree with him as well.

I'm thankful that both Kwun and CWB001 have even made the discussion more interesting, in reply to your equally thought-provoking points, and their arguments seem to substantiate the verdict much better.

But whoever is able to play such seemingly uncharactistic shots deserves to win the point. ;)

[Gollum]

For heaven's sake, it's really very simple!

Read The Laws.

Or as we say in the computer biz,

Read The F**king Manual

[DinkAlot]

For heaven's sake, it's really very simple!

Read The Laws.

Or as we say in the computer biz,

Read The F**king Manual

No we don't, we say, "RTFM YFF".

w00t! :D :p

[keith_aquino]

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how a shuttle passing around the net is "passing through or under the net?

As has been explained several times on this thread (with quotes of the relevant law), the shot was bizarre but perfectly legal.

If you've read my reply to the bigredlemon, he was not talking about what if the shuttle passes through the net. He was not asking if it's legal if it goes around the net. Please read the posts comprehensively before replying. :)

Thanks,
Keith

[CWB001]

I am so sorry, you are quite right... :crying:

...except when you said


he was not talking about what if the shuttle passes through the net.
Keith

because he was talking about the shuttle going through the net. :)

[keith_aquino]

I am so sorry, you are quite right... :crying:

...except when you said



because he was talking about the shuttle going through the net. :)

Oops, caught guilty :o

[taneepak]

When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?

[CWB001]

When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?

Well, think about it.

How many times have you seen a player return a net tumble that would have landed out (probably it would have to be very far outt, too) by sending it outside the post? Almost certainly never.

How about a net tumble that would have landed in? Here a very, very bent sharp-angled banana shot is required and I bet you've seen even fewer of those.

I''d be willing to bet my annual income against £10 that you couldn't perform such a shot if you tried it all day from my feeds. You'll probably go your entire badminton career and never see it.

The reason, I suspect, that around-the-post shots are not faults is that it would be virtually impossible to judge (from an umpire's chair, or the player's position) whether they were outside the post or above the line of the net, if close to either. So for the extremely rare case that arises (and almost always for a shot that should have been left to fall out) the complications are just not worth it. It is much better to have a completely clear law that is easy to assimilate than to have too much to argue about.

The only other option is to make obsolete all the world's badminton equipment by having a vertical extension to the post. This would be just plain silly.

So why worry about it? The law is clear about what happens even if the number of occurences are few and far between.

By the same token the serve law talks about the racquet head being discernably below the hand at the moment of impact, so if the judge cannot see it whether it is below then it is a clear fault. Or should be!!!

[taneepak]

A net tumble on the extreme side can tumble 1"-2" outside the post. Say you take it 6 inches from the floor. In case 1 your reply goes under the net in between the posts. In case 2 you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post. One is a fault, the other is a perfectly legal. Is the law in this case implemented because of administrative/expediency reason? I think it kind of looks strange.

[CWB001]

A net tumble on the extreme side can tumble 1"-2" outside the post. Say you take it 6 inches from the floor. In case 1 your reply goes under the net in between the posts. In case 2 you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post. One is a fault, the other is a perfectly legal. Is the law in this case implemented because of administrative/expediency reason? I think it kind of looks strange.

1. If you return a shot that is 2" out you are not very sensible and the point is moot. Remember 2" outside the post is 2" outside the line.

2. If you are taking net tumbles that low you need to move a lot faster. You'll break a lot of racquets and give away a lot of points otherwise.

3. This

you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post.

is not a "just tap it" situation. If it was going to land in then the shot is practically impossible, as I said before. If it was going to land out then you already have the point - why return it?

I'd be interested to hear how many net tumbles you take 6" from the floor, laning in, that you manage to return by "tapping it around the post" over the course of the coming season. If it is more than zero I'll eat my racquet.

It is hardly a case of administrative expediency. More a case of a law that is easy to understand and implement on court, that has the right effect in all sensibly likely situations.

[DinkAlot]

Die thread, die. ;)

Oh, S4MadMan was here. :p :D

[fast3r]

I've just thought of something. If you were playing with umpires, service judges etc this shot would not be possible because it would hit the umpire's chair:rolleyes:

[coops241180]

I've just thought of something. If you were playing with umpires, service judges etc this shot would not be possible because it would hit the umpire's chair:rolleyes:

what a fantastic thread sealing post. :)

however...

just on taneepak's note..
1. why hit it if it was out..
2. if it was close enough to the line for you to bottle it and try to return it then it is surely to close to the post to hit it round it. (width of the shuttle etc... )
3. if you do manage it and hit it like you say, does the 'underneath the net' clause come into effect since at 6" above the floor your are clearly below the tape, altho outside the post? i think the definition of under the net needs to be cleared up. I'm qutie happy to take it that under the net means under the net which is between the posts, but i'm not sure. part of me thinks that under the net defines a particular height for an imaginary line. who knows! :)

good thread.. can't believe it's legal but you guys are right.. the clause which you'd expect to deal with it seems to clearly omit around the net. obviously it was omitted because it's impossible to bend a shot (without a draft... hmmm surprised nobody tried it at the WC if the draft was as bad as suggested)

lol - i'm gonna try it next monday, the hall i play at has particularly bad air conditioning on one court.. will certainly work :D

Coops

[CWB001]

i think the definition of under the net needs to be cleared up. I'm qutie happy to take it that under the net means under the net which is between the posts, but i'm not sure. part of me thinks that under the net defines a particular height for an imaginary line. who knows! :)

Coops

Yes, under the net means literally that - under the net, which is between the posts. There are no imaginary lines to be taken into account.

As to "who knows" - well, anyone who has read the laws.

Opposite the umpire's chair, of course, is the service judge's chair. But more inhibiting than that, for a top quality player, is the point that they do not want to be seen going for a shot that is obviously miles out anyway.

[Gollum]

When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?

Nothing wrong with that law. It makes perfect sense -- the only way to gain advantage is if your opponent's net tumble is going out. In that case, why bother? Just let it go out.

If you think you can get it around the edge of the post, then maybe you should think about leaving it :D

[wood_22_chuck]

No, no ... but I MUST win!

-dave

[simplicity]

Even if it's clearly below the net height? :eek:

no its not below

[jdcastro]

Yes, under the net means literally that - under the net, which is between the posts. There are no imaginary lines to be taken into account.

As to "who knows" - well, anyone who has read the laws.

Opposite the umpire's chair, of course, is the service judge's chair. But more inhibiting than that, for a top quality player, is the point that they do not want to be seen going for a shot that is obviously miles out anyway.
The Laws indeed made no mention of "imaginary lines", but without these how can we define the area "over the net" in:
Law 9.1.8 the flight of the shuttle shall be upwards from the server’s racket to pass over the net so that, if not intercepted, it lands in the receiver’s service court (ie on or within the boundary lines).

[DinkAlot]

No, no ... but I MUST win!

-dave

But what happens if you lose? :p

[taneepak]

Nothing wrong with that law. It makes perfect sense -- the only way to gain advantage is if your opponent's net tumble is going out. In that case, why bother? Just let it go out.

If you think you can get it around the edge of the post, then maybe you should think about leaving it :D

Even top players do play shots that are more than 2 inches out, or more than 2 inches in, simply because they are not always spot on.

[taneepak]

Many years ago the Company that I was with used to bring income tax test cases to challenge the Hong Kong Inland Revenue, for the specific purpose of forcing a clear cut legal definition that makes sense.
Even now in Hong Kong, any man in the street can and does seek a judicial review of an interpretation of a piece of legislation.
The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.

[taneepak]

Many years ago the Company that I was with used to bring income tax test cases to challenge the Hong Kong Inland Revenue, for the specific purpose of forcing a clear cut legal definition that makes sense.
Even now in Hong Kong, any man in the street can and does seek a judicial review of an interpretation of a piece of legislation.
The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the posts is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.

This should be the correct one.

[kwun]

The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.

make sense to you or not, the law is what is written down in Laws of Badminton.

we have already told you your interpretation of the relavent laws is incorrect. i suggest you write to the IBF and file a formal complaint... ;)

[DinkAlot]

make sense to you or not, the law is what is written down in Laws of Badminton.

we have already told you your interpretation of the relavent laws is incorrect. i suggest you write to the IBF and file a formal complaint... ;)

And here's the addy to the IBF... ;) :p

Actually, I'm sure Taneepak has it. :D

[kwun]

The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.

does this make sense to you?

a shuttle that hits the net tape and not roll over is a fault, while a similar one just above the tape gets away scot-free.


imaginary boundaries are bad. physically verifiable boundaries are good.

[libra]

Ok, here's a scenario for you guys to think about...

Defective posts:
The hall I play in has some defective posts in that they have been bent inward towards the court (most probably some overly excited players trying to pull the net too tight).

With the nets bent inward (some tops are actually bent up to 6" from where they ought to be), there is a gap of a few inches on either side of the net for someone to make the kind of 'impossible' shots that people are talking about in this thread.

It doesn't happen often but it has (I've done it myself once) and when my opponent complained that it went around the post I just said ok and gave away the point - no big deal just a social game but if it was a close game in a comp I'm not sure I would give it away that easily.

Thoughts anyone? Oh, and before anyone tells me to fix the posts, I've tried to get the gym people to fix it but they simply can't be bothered to spend the money - them not being badminton players and all.

[taneepak]

does this make sense to you?

a shuttle that hits the net tape and not roll over is a fault, while a similar one just above the tape gets away scot-free.


imaginary boundaries are bad. physically verifiable boundaries are good.

Yes, it does make sense because the latter went over, the former did not. Pushing a shuttle 6" from the floor around the post for a distance of 6", in which the highest height was 6" and the lowest the opposite court floor, is not verifiable? If it is considered not verifiable when the fact is so obvious, then I am inclined to think that the law's intent is to take away any discretion of the umpire, and is to be implememted, warts and all, simply for administrative/expediency reasons.
If the law says a serve must be over the net, does it mean only serves must be over the net and all other shots can be both around the posts and over the net-one for the gender, the other for the goose?
The around the posts interpretation makes sense if the shot is discernably over the net, or even marginally below the tape. Under such a situation, any wind that makes a wide shot curve in, is part of the game. To leave this to the umpire's judgement or discretion will create more problems.
If the law is so interpreted even if it brings an uproar or disbelief from the crowd, then shouldn't there be a law that will allow for any unusual situation, when the strict interpretation looks rather foolish, to redress this?

[kwun]

Yes, it does make sense because the latter went over, the former did not. Pushing a shuttle 6" from the floor around the post for a distance of 6", in which the highest height was 6" and the lowest the opposite court floor, is not verifiable? If it is considered not verifiable when the fact is so obvious, then I am inclined to think that the law's intent is to take away any discretion of the umpire, and is to be implememted, warts and all, simply for administrative/expediency reasons.
If the law says a serve must be over the net, does it mean only serves must be over the net and all other shots can be both around the posts and over the net-one for the gender, the other for the goose?
The around the posts interpretation makes sense if the shot is discernably over the net, or even marginally below the tape. Under such a situation, any wind that makes a wide shot curve in, is part of the game. To leave this to the umpire's judgement or discretion will create more problems.
If the law is so interpreted even if it brings an uproar or disbelief from the crowd, then shouldn't there be a law that will allow for any unusual situation, when the strict interpretation looks rather foolish, to redress this?

there come the flaw of your argument. how much is discernable? how do you measure it? how high up the pole should the boundary be? 3ft? 4ft? 4ft 2inches? how about if 1/2 the shuttle is above while 1/2 is outside the net? who has the best view point to make the decision?

one of the problems with your interpretation is that it cannot be enforced precisely as you rely on imaginary boundary. judging such a boundary will not be accurate and will create even more dispute.

[CWB001]

Is this Grounghog day? Will this thread never end?

[QUOTE=libra]Ok, here's a scenario for you guys to think about...

Defective posts:
The hall I play in has some defective posts in that they have been bent inward towards the court (most probably some overly excited players trying to pull the net too tight).

With the nets bent inward (some tops are actually bent up to 6" from where they ought to be), there is a gap of a few inches on either side of the net for someone to make the kind of 'impossible' shots that people are talking about in this thread.

QUOTE]

The appendix to the laws dealing with equipment variations says:

Where it is not practicable to have posts on the sidelines, some method shall be used to indicate the position of the sidelines where they pass under the net, eg by the use of thin posts or strips of material 40 mm wide, fixed to the side lines and rising vertically to the net cord.

They obviously hadn't thought of your scenario in particular, but to compy you could attach a thin stick to the post where the bend occurs, long enough to get to net height.

Or find a more professional venue.

Or get your friend to read the laws.

But the shuttle only has to go over the net during a serve (going round is OK at other times), so it shouldn't be a practical problem because you can't exactly serve over the post and expect the shuttle to land within the court, can you.

Taneepak, I think we all think the law is fine and sensible, so you need to take your battle to change them elsewhere. :)

Have you had a session on a court trying to send shots from within the court around the post 6" above the floor yet? I bet I know how many landed in.:rolleyes:

Regards,

Cliff

[taneepak]

Have you had a session on a court trying to send shots from within the court around the post 6" above the floor yet? I bet I know how many landed in.:rolleyes:

Regards,

Cliff


I have returned net shots, both net tumble and cross court, that were 2" out at the height I took the shuttle. I played them because I thought they were in-we all do this, don't we? I have always returned them over the net. I have never ever thought of just tapping them around the post at such low height. That would be cheating. There were some rare occasions when some other players mishit a net tumble and the shuttle went around the post at no more than 6" onto the opponents' court. We never thought that it was a good shot. The opponents would have walked off the court if we insisted it was legal.

[CWB001]

I have returned net shots, both net tumble and cross court, that were 2" out at the height I took the shuttle. I played them because I thought they were in-we all do this, don't we? I have always returned them over the net. I have never ever thought of just tapping them around the post at such low height. That would be impossible.

Corrected. :D

Not totally impossible, flukes can happen. But practically impossible, especially at 6" above the floor, which was the situation you were postulating.

And in that situation, the opposition are not unhappy because they should have lost the point anyway.

Now try hitting returns of shots that were going to land in, around the post.

[taneepak]

Flukes, mishits, even thunderbolts are all legitimate when they get you a point. A point from a mishit is as good and legitimate as any other winning shots.

[CWB001]

Flukes, mishits, even thunderbolts are all legitimate when they get you a point.

No. A thunderbolt would earn a let.

[taneepak]

Corrected. :D

Not totally impossible, flukes can happen. But practically impossible, especially at 6" above the floor, which was the situation you were postulating.

And in that situation, the opposition are not unhappy because they should have lost the point anyway.

If you were the umpire in a tournament and you had the luck to see such a "fluke" shot, how would you rule? You implement the law and look foolish, or you rush to the referee for a consultation?

[CWB001]

If you were the umpire in a tournament and you had the luck to see such a "fluke" shot, how would you rule? You implement the law and look foolish, or you rush to the referee for a consultation?

I'll give you 100/10 for persistence.;)

If I were an umpire in a tournament and saw it, I would look very foolish and lose my umpiring credentials if I did not know and implement the laws. By calling the referee I would be saying "I don't know what to do here - what is the law?"

So I would implement the law and not look foolish.:)

Only people who have not read the laws would disagree - and they would look foolish.:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but there really is no debate. The law is clear and is sensible and fair.

[__Lam]

someone shut this thread down!

[DinkAlot]

someone shut this thread down!

I second the motion. :eek:

[tinkerbella122]

I second the motion. :eek:

I too agree. The answer is practically right infront of you -- just check the laws of badminton. You guys are making things way more complicated than it really is :rolleyes:

[DinkAlot]

You guys are making things way more complicated than it really is :rolleyes:

Ding! "Life is not all black and white but sometimes, many shades of gray." And even if something seems to be black and white for you, just let it go.

I think some people argue for the sake of arguing. Just like some people are not in love. They are in love with the idea of being in love. :p

[__Lam]

Ding! "Life is not all black and white but sometimes, many shades of gray." And even if something seems to be black and white for you, just let it go.

I think some people argue for the sake of arguing. Just like some people are not in love. They are in love with the idea of being in love. :p

awright this is getting off topic, someone shut this down!! shut it downn!!!