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!

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

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by ralphz, Dec 6, 2016.

  1. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    104
    Location:
    Germany
    No, unfortunately I am unaware of any website with a full archive. Even the Internet Archive Wayback Machine did not archive the pre-2016 BWF pages. There is, however, this website I already linked to before. But it has only copies every couple of years, even when laws were updated more frequently.
     
  2. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    Pre 2015 rules had two separate laws for when the shuttle failed to pass the net:
    We disagree here with @phihag on one thing: I believe that before "between the net posts" wording, it was not allowed for the shuttle to pass outside the net posts line even above the net (that is how I was tought). It also was always in effect only at the moment the shuttle passes the net.

    Than in 2015, to simplify and remove redundancy (when passing under the net, the shuttle also fails to pass over the net), it was merged and changed into "13.3.2 fails to pass over the net between the netposts". Than, in 2016 it was shortened to simple "fails to pass over the net". I was told "between the posts" was added to replace "passes through or under the net" and also accentuate that it's a fault when shuttle passes outside the posts and it was later removed as it was still confusing.

    According to certified umpires I discussed the rule with, all of these changes where done in an attempt to clarify the rule, but it was never meant to change it. It always supposed to be a fault when shuttle passes the plane of the net in any other place than above the net.

    I understand what you @ralphz trying to say. You wish that the shuttle would be out of play the moment it falls below the net height. Whether you would like it because of genuine belief that it would be better this way, or ether because of your wishful interpretation in order to justify your lost point - that is not how current rules work and it would not be possible to enforce it even if changed the way you want it..
     
    #42 stradrider, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  3. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    ok so, for reference , the three revisions..

    Phase A (thought/under)
    document from 2006 (The pre 2015 rule.. 13.3.2 says under the net)
    http://www.worldbadminton.com/rules/documents/ibflaws2006a.pdf
    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. passes through or under the net;
    13.3.3. fails to pass over the net;
    13.3.4. touches the ceiling or side walls;

    Phase B (fails to pass over or between)
    document read in april 2016
    (Some time maybe in 2015, before May, they changed it to this). Adding the text "between the netposts".
    http://web.archive.org/web/20160313205208/http://buaofe.org.uk/Laws/LawsofBadminton.aspx
    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 between the netposts;
    13.3.3 touches the ceiling or side walls;

    Phase C (fails to pass over)
    document read in dec 2016 (has the words "between the netposts" highlighted and crossed out). Some time around May 2016.
    http://buaofe.org.uk/Laws/LawsofBadminton.aspx
    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;
     
  4. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    No, "I wish" would be a childish thing to say. I never said that or "tried" to say that! An earlier poster (juneau), thought it was the case. I wasn't convinced(though granted it'd have been beneficial for me if it were correct), and others didn't agree with him either. I'm not taking his position!
     
    #44 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  5. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    I am sorry, I am not English native speaker and writing in English takes me quite a bit of an effort. I also unable to avoid some silly mistakes from the get go and have to correct it later. I never meant to make an emphasis on "You wish"...
     
  6. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    However it does seem that this very long thread is all about you trying to prove that your fault was not a fault. THAT would be a bit childish, don't you agree? ;)
     
  7. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    Looking at the statement

    "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. "

    Part of that sounds completely wrong to me.

    The following part of it makes sense to me

    Let's say somebody defines over the net between the net posts as imagining the net posts run vertically indefinitely, then fine it makes sense. No doubt that's what is intended. I suppose they were worried that somebody might think "over the net" might mean above and outside the net So they wanted to indicate that they meant above and not outside, so they said over the net and between the net posts.

    However, and here is where it stops making sense to me.. Let's suppose somebody interpreted it as between the net posts without them extending upwards indefinitely. Putting aside the fact that the net posts go very slightly over the net.. Let's pretend for simplicitys take, that the net posts go as high as the net tape.

    If we interpret "between the net posts" as not extending up indefinitely, then we must agree that it is absolutely impossible for anything to be both over the net, and between the net posts.
    Under that interpretation, 13.3.2 is saying that it's a fault if this impossible thing happens.

    13.3.2 would then be saying that it's a fault if it's simultaneously over the net, and below the top of the net. i.e. an impossible condition.

    Of course, the impossible thing won't happen, so under that interpretation, a fault based on that occuring, won't happen.

    That article is saying that those who interpret "between the posts" as between the actual posts (i.e. not going up indefinitely). so it's talking about those that say it's a fault if it goes over the net and between the 'actual' posts.. It says it "would mean that no shot is technically legal. " i.e. that every shot is illegal.

    Almost the opposite is true

    13.3.2 under the ridiculous definition of over the net while also between the "actual" net posts, Is not making any particular shot illegal. Yet the article is saying it'd make every shot illegal.

    The logic seems to be almost completely backwards.
     
  8. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    no, and that is not the discussion at all. and i've never had such a bias.

    and we're currently discussing something related that came up.
     
  9. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    Are you just trolling than, as @phihag suggested? :) I don't understand why it's so difficult. The rule was not written clearly enough and that is why it was changed already a few times. Seems they need to keep trying. Saying that, we do understand what it actually means, even though there is small discrepancy between mine and @phihag's interpretation.
     
  10. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    I don't think you understand what i'm saying at all(especially considering that you thought this was a discussion about something completely different), and what i'm talking about is a point of logic and the english language, and you're saying english isn't your first language, and it's a lot of english to have to comprehend, so you can't really comment on it.
     
  11. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    Yup, as I thought, you are trolling... I am outta here... :)
     
  12. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    No, i'm not trolling.. I could accuse you of trolling for saying the discussion is about something that it wasn't.
     
  13. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    Ok, let's not make it into a drama and shake hands in peace than? :).

    So... what's the problem again in simple words? I mean, surely you don't think that "between the posts" means actually between the posts, do you? ;)
    Don't you find it plausible that the wording of the rule was a problem to begin with, and the changes were done to improve it? You said yourself that it did not make any sense, right?
     
  14. juneau-AK

    juneau-AK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Juneau
    To get back on track, consider this screen-grab below; it is likely closest to the OP-inquiry that I could find.

    2016-12-27 (1)-sm.png
    The shuttle was struck by player in red (left of net) and is clearly above the net. It is not over the net yet.
    If the opponent, player in yellow, hits the shuttle at this time, it is fault on yellow.

    Why? It must be hit on his side of the net. The shuttle has not come over the net to his side.

    Once the shuttle drops below the net level on the striker side of net, and then the player in yellow strikes the shuttle or net or both, it takes an alert umpire to make correct decision.

    (note: there was a net exchange prior to this shot, if anyone is interested, the highlights are from a recent CBSL clash)
     
  15. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    The problem might not be one that interests or suits you. What words have I used that are not simple? I have used simple words. The logic is not so simple. It may be that you'd have to have a computer science background(covering first order logic), or mathematical training in first order logic, or a lawyer type mind(helpful when reading laws or discussions of laws), or just somebody with the right kind of analytical thinking that sees these things, to understand the logic of what I wrote. You could always quote the exact sentence I wrote that is not clear to you, but otherwise don't worry about it. I really think that if you have to ask me what the problem is, (and you aren't really pinpointing where your issue with what I wrote is), then the problem is not for you!. Don't worry about it!
     
    #55 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  16. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    However, stradrider, Juneau's recent post brings us back to an earlier point in the discussion that does interest you. Juneau is the poster that I think(if I understood him correctly from his earlier post), took the view that the point was mine - something you and phihag would disagree with, and that is something that might interest you!
     
  17. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    When you say below the net level, do you mean below the net tape?

    And when you say (if the player in yellow eg me, strikes the shuttle or net or both after it is below the net tape).. then "it takes an alert umpire to make correct decision" What correct decision do you mean? And if you mean the decision that it's the yellow player's point e.g. my point.. Then.. Well, you said that in an earlier post, and there were some replies to you. What did you make of those replies?
     
    #57 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  18. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    Now, you are been totally rude. You are the one who was trying to "devide by zero" the whole post 47, don't put it on me...
     
  19. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    The shuttle is in play here until it hits the floor. Any fault Chen Long does before that is a fault ;)
     
  20. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    london
    You were being rude by accusing me of being a troll - which I could've accused you of being(as mentioned). And you're being rude now by sarcastically saying that I was trying to divide by zero, when no numerical arithmetic was involved. I'm not complaining about you being rude. I'd much rather we could just have an honest conversation.. i'm not trying to be rude by suggesting that perhaps you don't have a computer science background or a background in analytical philosophy or first order logic. If you do really care about the problem then you're welcome to quote what sentence I wrote that you don't understand. But you can't expect me to keep rewriting everything when I have no idea what it is that you don't understand because you don't tell me, you don't quote the sentence I wrote that you don't understand. That isn't fair or helpful to either of us, and I really think that the fact that you just sarcastically and inaccurately and dismissively referred to my recent question as trying to divide by zero, just makes my point that you don't care about it. So i'm really doing you a favour by suggesting that you don't worry about it(but as i've said, you're welcome to concern yourself with it, just quote the sentence I wrote that you don't understand, and i'd be happy to explain it) . And i'm being considerate of you by pointing you to an aspect of the thread that has interested you and that you are familiar with, that has come up just now.
    And @stradider please let's not do these dramas. It's a big distraction.
     
    #60 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016

Share This Page