hitting the the net with my racket but very late, do they get the point?

you suggest there about it being not clear that it was below but being clear that it touched.

though in the situation I described in the original post, to add some more details, it was such that the reverse was true in sense that,

it was absolutely clear to anybody that it was below the net. the shuttle was not dropping quickly, we could all see its vertical position as I was running to it late, my racket as flat as a pancake. Nobody would say the shuttle was above the net or not falling. No umpire or player would not notice as it was so significantly below the net. Even if it was a net shot hit late it'd be obvious, but this was a floating drop, the flight was very visible.

it was unclear to me, which side of the net it was on but significantly, also it would've been unclear to me, and perhaps to others, whether it hit the net. Possibly the shuttlecock brushed the net on the way down. Though perhaps it'd have even been hard to say for an umpire as it was so incredibly tight..

But it being below the net was not a close call.

And if you want to say that you can measure that it hit the net 'cos that's a contact point, but you can't measure that it is clearly below it, well, i'd say you can.. Just like you can say an object is falling by seeing the distance between two points, so too you can see if it's below the net Maybe -sometimes- you can't, though i've never seen nor perhaps can I imagine such a situation. I'm sure if the shuttlecock were above the net and somebody ran in and jabbed the net and then hte shuttlecock dropped below the net, then anybody watching, whose view isn't blocked out by the player himself, would see he struck too early.

And anyhow, surely a fair thing would be to say that if we can all see that it was below the net, it was "measurable" from our eyes that it was below the net, it was clear to all of us because the margin was pretty wide, then then it doesn't seem fair for a rule to assume "nope, we don't know that it was below the net".. especially to say "nope, we don't know that it was below the net unless it touched the net". If anything that's the reverse of the reality regarding what we know and what we do not know, for that situation. A fair rule would say that if it was unclear whether it's below the net then play a let. The philosophy of the rule shouldn't assume that it's not clear if it's below the net / it shouldn't assume that it's not clear it's below the net unless it touches the net. e.g. and what if it's not clear that it touches the net. It avoids the fact that the reverse can be true. That it's unclear that it ever touched / brushed the net and clear that it was below the net.

And if you want to say it's the point in time aspect, well, not when you're deciding if a shuttle is falling. That is measured between 2 points. And we can do it. And the rule takes into account that we an do it.

 

http://system.bwf.website/documents...- Laws of Badminton - June 2016 Revised 2.pdf

13. FAULTS
It shall be a ‘fault’:
13.1 if a service is not correct (Law 9.1);
...
13.3 if in play, the shuttle:
13.3.1 lands outside the boundaries of the court (i.e. not on or within the boundary lines);
13.3.2 fails to pass over the net;
13.3.3 touches the ceiling or side walls;
..
13.4 if, in play, a player:
13.4.1 touches the net or its supports with racket, person or dress;

--
15. SHUTTLE NOT IN PLAY
A shuttle is not in play when:
15.1 it strikes the net or post and starts to fall towards the surface of the court on the striker’s side of the net;
15.2 it hits the surface of the court; or
15.3 a ‘fault’ or a ‘let’ has occurred.
--


You write "when the shuttle fell below the net on the striker side and you hit the net, no fault." <-- that's your interpretation of 13.3.2 though perhaps one might say that a shuttle that is falling and below the net tape, hasn't yet failed to pass over the net.

Anyhow, so ok you're saying it's my point.. Then you write "if you hit the shuttle on the opponent side, fault by you."

Well, I did both. The shuttle fell below the net on the strikers side I hit the net the net hit the shuttle on the oppoents side. Fault by who based on what you said?!

You might say, then they faulted first, / they faulted making the shuttle out of play so I didn't fault.when my shuttle hit the net ok That seems to be your interpretation of 13.3.2 though..


Relevant/Related ones are 13.3.2 and 15.1

Well, if I hit the net and the net hit the shuttle then i've hit the net and the shuttle when the shuttle was on the opponent's side..

The shuttle was falling below the net tape and was below the net tape. and the net was hit by the racket at a time when the shuttlecock was falling and was below the net tape. (and it's not clear whether the shuttle touched the net or not, so suppose it didn't, but was just close to the net as it came down).

Anyhow, I see from your interpretation of 13.3.2 that the point goes to me. The striker hit it, the shuttle was in play, then when it fell below the net tape, it's perhaps reasonable to say that 13.3.2 comes into affect, the shuttle failed to pass over the net tape at which point they have faulted and the shuttle is then not in play. So if I come running in and hit the net it's not even a fault. (and anyhow they did a fault before I did that).

The annoying thing about 13.3.2 though is it doesn't say that the shuttle is falling and below the net tape and won't pass over the net.. So a person could say that the shuttlecock hasn't yet failed to pass over the net.

The closest I can find to that is 15. SHUTTLE NOT IN PLAY A shuttle is not in play when:
15.1. it strikes the net or post and starts to fall towards the surface of the court on the striker’s side of the net;

In this case it was falling towards the surface but hadn't necessarily struck the net it was close to the net as it fell. So I can't apply 15.1, and the question mark is what qualifies for 13.3.2 as 13.3.2 doesn't say it will fail to pass over the net, but that it has failed to pass over the net.

They might have 15.1 there as one case where the shuttle hasn't failed to pas over the net but is still considered out of play.. And that would suggest that if it didn't hit the net then it might still be in play.

Another example would be suppose a shuttlecock is strick and is rising, nobody would say the shuttlecock has failed to pass over the net, but that might be the case even when it's falling, even if everybody agrees it wouldn't be passing over the net, it's ambiguous at what point it fails. There's no rule that says that if it's falling and below the net tape then it has failed to pass over the net. The closest is 15.1 which has not only the condition of falling and below the net tape, but also of the shuttle touching the net.

13.3.2 seems ambiguous to me. And perhaps if the laws aren't meant to repeat themselves, then 15.1 suggests that your interpretation of it is incorrect. (because there'd be no need for 15.1 with your interpretation of 13.3.2

 

English is my first language and Juneau's English seems to be pretty good and maybe his first language too.

I don't see why you think that "failed to pass over the net" means crossed the net but not over it.. and isn't more open to other ways it can fail to pass over the net, such as falling short or going sideways, or falling and below the tape.

Even if you want to put the emphasis on Over, so as to say that if it goes under then it failed the rule, then it's also the case that if it was Short, then it failed the rule. I don't see why you presume that the rule is talking about going past the net..

Logically if for example, you fail to fasten your seat belt, then that includes not doing your seat belt at all.. and not even attempting to put the seat belt on.

If somebody says, "fasten the lid on the bottle so it doesn't go all over the place" and you take the lid and throw it in the dustbin, and the drink goes all over the place, then you can't say that you didn't breach that rule because the rule presumes that the lid is on the bottle and you put the lid in the dustbin not on the bottle. There's nothing in the rule that presumes that. Not in the English of it anyway, which is what you refer to.

Likewise here.. Nothing in the English of that rule that presumes that. So I don't see where you get that from.. (though your interpretation of 13.3.2 might be correct if that interpretation makes more sense in light of the other rules e.g. in avoiding repetition or if without it the rules wouldn't be complete).. but you can't make that case just based on the English of that rule.

 

I see that link says "In particular, Law 13.3.2, which previously stated that it is a fault if, in play, the shuttle fails to pass over the net between the net posts, has had "between the net posts" removed. This will please those who saw the "between the posts" as literally between the actual physical posts, which would mean that no shot is technically legal. "


That last sentence above sounds really bizarre to me. What net posts is it talking about if not the 'actual physical ones'?!

Also, where is the emphasis on "over"? Are you getting the emphasis on over, from this interesting paragraph that takes into account that some argue that the umpire cannot know if the shuttle passed over the net or just appeared to pass over the net " It [removing the words 'between the posts'] will also please those who argued that, from the umpire's perspective at the side of the court in line with the net, it would be totally impossible to know or judge whether a shuttle that appears to pass over the net near the sideline actually passed between the posts or over the post or outside the post."

Also it seems that the rule could do with two words missing. "but passes". So it should read "It is a fault if in play the shuttle fails to pass over the net but passes between the net posts".

The rules weren't originally in some other language and then somebody attempted to translate them into English, or were they? Also, who was responsible for writing these laws?

 

Thanks.

When you're saying the emphasis was on "over", and you show it with an image with the word uber (German for over), underlined..

Are you saying that in the German rules the word is underlined, or did you add the underline in yourself?

Also your picture still doesn't explain in English, where it says 'This will please those who saw the "between the posts" as literally between the actual physical posts'.
Could you state in english words, what net posts it is talking about, if not the actual physical ones? Do you mean that they were saying imagining the posts extended upwards indefinitely? (I guess that might be an answer I can glean from your picture, looking at the yellow area).

And why did they ever, after the words "over the net", have the words "between the net posts" .. If something is not between the net posts, how can it be over the net? If a person were to say that the yellow area(above the net and outside the net posts), is over the net, then ok, so then they'd have to say "between the net posts", but then surely one would absolutely have to say "between the net posts", wouldn't they? And if one would never say that the yellow area (above the net and outside the net posts), is over the net, then there's no reason to state "between the net posts". So either way I see no point to the words "between the net posts". (and besides, I don't see how that would change any emphasis from over to anything else).

 

ok let's call that definition abc of "between the posts"

I can see that would mean the yellow area is excluded.

let's call that definition def of "between the posts".

that's the same thing.

if you're saying "Some people interpreted it as abc, however the intention was def", then aren't you suggesting that abc is not the same as def?

whether you take definition abc or definition def, you're excluding the yellow zone.

also, why in your image did you not mark the net area as a fault?

 

We seem to be having some communication hiccups and seem to be talking past each other. The flow of discussion and a hiccup is hopefully shown here. There isn't a need for more pictures, there is a logical/verbal misunderstanding somewhere.

You said "Some people interpreted between the posts as the area between the posts, i.e. as the roughly 610cm x 155cm area of the net and under. This area is marked blue in my above picture (intersecting with a red area, thus purple in effect)."

I said " let's call that definition abc of "between the posts"

You then gave another definition which I called def, which you suggested was different.

And I said "whether you take definition abc or definition def, you're excluding the yellow zone."

And I asked you why you suggested abc and def were different when both excluded the yellow zone. So, that was a question I was asking you.

And your reply to me, was "The reading of some people (abc) was that the rule meant just the area between the net posts, "

You seem to be just agreeing with what I said. To say just the area between the net posts, means, excluding the red and yellow zone.

And in this post you seem to be repeating your two definitions but not making any difference between them..

You describe def as excluding the red and excluding the yellow.

But can't you see you described abc as excluding the red and yellow as well

So i'm really not seeing your attempt to show/describe the contrast between abc and def.

 

Your newer diagrams look clearer because they don't have multiple colours overlapping, but ultimately this is a verbal question.

Let's forget the diagram you did earlier with overlapping colours. Pretend it doesn't exist, I won't refer to it.

So you have 2 diagrams, one blue one orange. I refer to the one with blue. The one with blue highlight shows "between the posts". I have no problem understanding that "between the posts", would mean the blue in your diagram.


You said (and i'll put asterisks around the word "some" that you used.

"***Some*** people interpreted between the posts as the area between the posts, i.e. as the roughly 610cm x 155cm area.."

What exactly is the other meaning of "between the posts"?

 

Thanks, and is there any link where I can check the laws for any particular date? / see the each update they've done to the laws?