Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

2011 Super Series Finals: Day 5 (Finals Day) - Sun 18 Dec

Discussion in 'Super Series Final 2011' started by chris-ccc, Dec 17, 2011.

  1. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Another example: Obstruction of sight of the shuttlecock when serving

    .
    Yes, it is an obstruction (which prevented WYH's swiping stroke).

    Laws are laws - They should be as clear and simple as stated.

    Here is another example: Obstruction of sight of the shuttlecock when serving;

    When serving with a partner positioned in front (as mostly played in Mixed Doubles), the receiver can complain that the shuttlecock is unsighted before the Service stroke commences. The umpire will then tell the front player (of the serving side) not block the sight of the shuttlecock.

    The server cannot argue back to the receiver that the receiver should stand elsewhere (where the shuttlecock can be seen).

    I have done a course in umpiring; If I am wrong in my posts (as posted so far), then I would inform our Badminton Australia umpiring instructors (under BWF's governance) that I have been taught wrongly. :(:(:(

    Laws are made to be fair for both sides of the net; And hope that no loop-holes can be found.
    .
     
    #381 chris-ccc, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  2. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,844
    Likes Received:
    337
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Isn't it to be expected that opponents would try to limit each other's options to force a more favorable outcome? Some can argue that that was not the best choice by WYH seeing SN directly in front of her. Or WYH herself knew that she could earn a simple point by doing just what she has done and expect the umpire to call fault for an obstruction?

    Maybe umpires should reconsider this particular law in greater detail and not call "obstruction" automatically.
     
  3. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,844
    Likes Received:
    337
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    As I have said that was your opinion which differed from mine according to what I saw from the pics.

    Giving another example of obstruction which is entirely unrelated is not the point here.
     
  4. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    So you're saying it's completely legal, during a tight net exchange, that I can leave my racket up at the net anytime? What it seems like you are saying to me is that, in that case, I can argue I was not attempting to obstruct the opponent, I am attempting to limit their choice of shots and that my opponent can play another shot. They do not have to kill the shuttle and clash with my racket. They can attempt to cross drop it, or even clear it.

    You cannot break the rule, and claim that you were only attempting to limit your opponent's choice of shot. I do not see what is there to reconsider.
     
  5. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE

    .
    Sorry, for me I just follow the Laws of Badminton. The example was to comment that laws are laws (whether good or not).

    If I think the laws are wrong, I would have sent a letter to BWF, for them to reconsider.

    Saina's blocking of the shuttlecock can be legal under this condition (as I have stated in this post);

    .
     
  6. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    I can see where you're trying to go with this, Loh. But consider: you can limit (or make difficult) you opponent's options in play when it is your turn to hit the bird. So you make your play in the best possible way you can, to limit your opponent's choices. When you make your play. That is the key.

    If however, you make an action close up to the bird in such a way that it "limits" the opponent's choice of play not when it is your turn to make the play but his, and thereby cause him/her to instinctively change/adapt/reconsider/ or be plain distracted by your action, then it is an obstruction.

    Make sense? :)
     
  7. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,844
    Likes Received:
    337
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Don't get me wrong. The Badminton Laws are there to regulate the game and make it fair and transparent to everybody.

    It is the interpretation of the law by umpires that will affect the outcome. And a wrong outcome will be unfair to the player who lost the point.

    Umpires come in different standards and experience. They could also be distracted/obstructed by ongoing events on and around the court. They have to make split second decisions, even wrong ones.

    The scenerio painted out in this case seems to confirm that it is an "obstruction" automatically and no further questions asked. My question is "must it necessarily be true"?
     
  8. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,844
    Likes Received:
    337
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    "When it is your turn to hit the bird" - not quite true because you can also limit your opponent's options by where and how you stand waiting for his response.

    The net is the demarcation line. So long as you are on your side of the net and not invade your opponent's side, I see nothing wrong how close or far away you stand from the net, but just make sure you don't touch it. ;)
     
  9. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Although a professional competition, it is first and foremost a sport. Which is why there are "umpires" and "referees." No judge and jury. That also implies that the officials may be called upon to use considered discretion in borderline cases. Obviously this will always rouse a hornet's nest among fans and followers, but for the players themselves for the most part, they take it mostly in their stride. Why? Because they know it all evens out, and again, for the most part, the better player wins. In this way, players, officials and coaches, indeed all of those directly involved, have upheld the spirit of sportsmanship in the game.

    My (uncalled for) 2c. :D
     
  10. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    I mean, if the rule stated there must be a collision to be called an obstruction, players could easily do so. Most choose not to do so because they can destroy their racket (for non-professional players who don't have sponsorships) or they can accidentally harm their opponent. This causes a hesitation, and it is why a fault is called before the completion of a stroke. There shouldn't be consequences to what happens after the player does end up swinging. That's why in this case there should not be this can happen that can happen. Anything can happen, but as us umpires, we don't want things to end up horribly.

    Let's say these players weren't sponsored. It's a $200 racket right there. Your opponent puts their racket up. Would you want to have the players to clash racket? In that case, you would call a fault. I don't think umpires would want to have it be fully played out where the clash must happen in order to call a fault.

    I totally understand that there are cases where there are questions that come into play. But to me, in this case, it is a CLEAR violation. Us umpires must make it clear to the players that in this case. Otherwise, we would have to stop each match in a case by case situation and carefully think things out or have players argue everytime whether or not that was an obstruction or not. That just causes delays and more hassles as an umpire. I'm not saying that everything the umpire says is absolutely correct like you have stated, but we must make a fine point between CLEARLY on why this is or is not a fault to the player to understand. I have stated why I say this is a fault. If a referee were to be called in this match, the referee would stick with the umipre's call.

    But in your sense, you can technically argue any little thing that is not clearly defined in the rule book then.
     
  11. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    .
    I am going for my Badminton now. :):):)

    Will be back to read more comments about this matter/topic later.

    You'll never know; From this discussion we, BCers, might come up with a new recommendation (to be sent to BWF to reconsider). :D:D:D
    .
     
  12. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    If I stand right up near you and suddenly raise my hand toward your face, will you not flinch?

    The flinch, even a teeny-weeny flinch, is enough for a player to mishit the shuttle, or do something he never intended to. Did I not then, unfairly influence the flow of play?
     
  13. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    I think in his sense, technically, you have not limited your opponent shots by where and how you stand. You can be standing waiting for a smash, that does not mean that your opponent will not smash. You can stand at the back of the court waiting for a clear. Your opponent can clear if they want to. It is not the smartest thing to do, but there is nothing impeding their way to clear that time.
     
  14. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    Exactly what I have been trying to point out by saying there is hesitation by the player making the shot.
     
  15. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,844
    Likes Received:
    337
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    That's the spirit man!

    And I thank CST for his last comment. :)
     
  16. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,844
    Likes Received:
    337
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Of course if it very close you will be affected but not necessarily stumped into inaction. As CST said it could result in a clash of rackets and perhaps tempers. :D:D:D
     
  17. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    297
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    thanks cantsmashthis for coming in to clear things up :)

    makes perfect sense now

    if saina was a foot further back, she probably wouldn't have been faulted
     
  18. suetyan

    suetyan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    8,469
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    Japan/Singapore
    But I am wondering, do the players know that, actually that kind of blocking is illegal in badminton? Like what LD (from the video) and Saina (from the picture) did. If they had known about it, why do they still put their rackets up before their opponents hit a stroke? If they had known that it is illegal, they should know they will not be awarded a point even though the shuttle 'luckily' hit their rackets and bounce back to their opponents' side. So, what for they still put their rackets up?

    Or is it because they thought that is actually legal so they raise their rackets up and try for some luck?
     
  19. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    I'm not quite sure, but it could be instinct to protect themselves. I guess for pros, that's how they may protect themself.

    As for me, I'd cower down into a ball.
     
  20. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    .
    Question: Why do they still put their rackets up before their opponents hit a stroke?

    Like CantSmashThis has replied; it could be the instinct to protect themselves.

    For me as a coach, I tell my trainees/charges it's illegal to do that. I am sure that qualified coaches would have told their charges the same.

    When we players enter tournaments, we need to know the Laws of Badminton; then we can understand how umpires make their calls.

    It's silly for players and umpires (and tournament referee) to bring out the book of Laws of Badminton during the match to settle the dispute. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Anyway, it's good that this issue/matter has now been informed for our BC members.

    As I have said before, when I see a player holding up his/her racket at the net (when I am at the net to reply the shot), I wouldn't even do my over-the-net stroke (since he/she is obstructing my stroke). And explain to him/her that he/she cannot do that.
    .
     
    #400 chris-ccc, Dec 21, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011

Share This Page