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. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    Juneau, you wrote
    "Translating your situation, when the shuttle fell below the net on the striker side and you hit the net, no fault."

    Do you still think this? I think it's a reasonable interpretation of failed to pass over the net.

    Though some here might think that failed to pass over the net means it has to have passed the net but not over the net, e.g. it passed under the net or something. I don't yet see a compelling reason to think that.

    One poster posts the law in german, which has the word "over" underlined.. and he might've suggested that the reason why "over" is underlined is to pass the net, and then fail to pass over the net.. but I don't see the basis for that.

    So I think your understanding makes sense.. logically. / doesn't fall based on those arguments.

    One argument that might be put to you re your interpretation, is who is to say that it has failed.. some may say that even though we know 100% it's going to fail, it hasn't failed until it has hit the floor.. .(in which case, even if it's falling on the strikers side, and won't make it over the net, it hasn't yet failed to go over the net).. Really though, for it to go over the net when it's going down on the strikers side, could be as impossible as it going over the net after hitting the floor, so one could say it failed before it hit the floor.

    So I think your understanding/interpretation of the rule seems very reasonable.to me.
     
    #61 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  2. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Norway
    I am not taking it seriously because you are trying to define an undefined. No, I am not into computer sciency stuff, but I can see faulty logic...

    It is impossible to make a shot over the net between the [actual] net posts. Therefore discussing a failure making such a shot does not make any sense. It is as undefinable as trying to devide by zero, that's why I said it, not because I was been rude...

    It is also incorrect to say that the posts are higher than the net - the posts are 1.55m and the net is also 1.55m over the double side lines by the rules...
     
    phihag likes this.
  3. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Norway
    Please, don't spread misinformation, you were told by at least one qualified umpire (@phihag) that this is not correct...
     
  4. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    so giving you the benefit of the doubt, i.e., that you want to have this discussion. and since you've finally given me some info as to your issue, I'll elaborate now that you've given me something to go with..

    Suppose a rule book Call it Rule Book X says these three lines,
    X1. you commit a fault by doing A.
    X2. You commit a fault by doing B
    X3. You commit a fault by doing C.

    A is possible. B is impossible. C is possible.

    It is true to say that lines X1 and X3 have an effect on the match, but line X2, has no effect on the match.

    Do you agree with that, or not?

    Suppose now it's different.. we have Rule Book Y.. Rule book Y has these three lines.

    Y1. You commit a fault by failing to do A
    Y2. You commit a fault by failing to do B
    Y3. You commit a fault by failing to do C

    And again.

    A is possible. B is impossible. C is possible.

    Do you agree that with Rule Book Y, every shot is a fault.

    I'll make it even easier.

    If I say to you that you get £100 if you eat that giant rock in one gulp. It's not a nonsense to discuss that in so far as to say that you'll end up not getting that £100.

    If I say to you that you get £100 for failing to eat that giant rock in one gulp. It's not a nonsense to discuss that in so far as to say that you will definitely fail to do that so you will definitely get £100. If it was one million pound reward for failing to eat a giant rock in one go, I don't think you'll turn around to me and say you don't get your million pound, because the task was impossible so failure to do the task is a nonsense. You'd be right to say the rule says that you get your million pounds.

    Do you agree with that so far?
     
    #64 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  5. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    All these accusations you make against me.. Firstly, it's the first time i've heard that he's a qualified umpire(had I known I might've added the words to the poster whose view I find reasonable "i'm sure you're wrong 'cos this qualified umpire says otherwise.. but I think what you say sounds reasonable"(would that be better?). And secondly, I'm not stating some definitive conclusion.. i'm no expert, and wasn't saying that anybody is right or wrong. I even made an argument in favour of the conclusion of the qualified umpire, as well as an argument against I'm just enquiring as to the reasons for one thing being correct or incorrect, that's all. And another poster here has stated what seems from the standpoint of reason, to be a reasonable point. Am I not allowed to say that? And anyhow, this isn't the middle of a match, and i'm asking here about the law and reasons.. I'd have thought that is understood. So when Juneau states his view i'm entitled to consider it on its merits.. and not be bullied into silence for doing it. People are welcome to decide arguments either on their merits or just based on who is an umpire. And i'm not even saying an umpire is wrong. I'm just questioning and not dismissively dismissing other peoples' views, that's all. You keep bringing all this drama into the thread.. to distract things.
     
    #65 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  6. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Norway
    Your "B" is not impossible - it does not make any sense. If you make a program "umpire", then when it gets to rule Y2, it would look like:
    next you see on your screen:
     
    #66 stradrider, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  7. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    Maybe if you programmed it like that(in the sense of, with division by zero), then it won't compile at all in many languages, but would in some, in particular, one doesn't have to look far - javascript can handle division by zero with no error and no exception, just a value of infinity that it can do some things with, you can test for it for example. So your own web browser can handle that kind of logic even with your unnecessary analogy of division by zero, within the analogy of a computer program.

    And there are ways to program such an "umpire", following rulebook X or Y, where it would run in any or almost any language.

    we are talking about a condition that would always be false, and that is easy to program..

    You can say if(3==4) { }

    you can say

    boolean overnet=true;
    boolean undernet=!overnet;

    if(overnet && undernet) { ....... }

    if(! (overnet || undernet)) { .......}

    if(!overnet && !undernet) {.....}

    So it can compile and run without error, without your division by zero analogy... (and if you insist on using your division by zero analogy then it can work in some languages, in theory and in practise - javascript being an example in practise and you don't have to look beyond your web browser as an example of something that can handle it)

    And that's even putting aside any examples using natural deduction or the kind of undisputed elementary deduction that analytical philosophers know well (and that even a good lawyer should know well).

    And anyhow, . an even better analogy is a real life one. So, as I said to you, and you haven't addressed it. Here's another one. If somebody said to you that you have 5 minutes to try to make a circle that is a square, and if you fail to do it, then you get a million dollars, would you say you can't fail it because the task doesn't make sense, and then insist that you don't get your million dollar prize.
     
    #67 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  8. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    17,122
    Likes Received:
    304
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    @ralphz

    Why don't you take the umpire's qualification?

    I mean, you can argue ad nauseum on badmintoncentral but it won't change the rule. You may be better satisfied by putting the effort into umpiring. You definitely have the interest and that is an important quality to have.
     
  9. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    I'm not entirely sure exactly what that sentence means but Why are you viewing this as a personal attack like an umpire is not genuine. I'm not denying that he is an umpire. And i'm not saying that an umpire is wrong. You aren't understanding me at all.

    What I am saying is that if I hear an opinion different to what an umpire here has said, and on viewing the opinion on what I understand to be its merits, it sounds reasonable to me, then do you really think I should not be allowed to say that it sounds reasonable to me, if I think it sounds reasonable to me.

    If I had to take a bet on who was right, i'd probably bet that the umpire is right.. (another reason why I think you don't understand what i'm writing 'cos that's certainly not denying an umpire their qualification - like I can even do that or would want to - I don't do that or want to do that and i'm not doing that), But i'm not dismissing every other opinion and ignoring every other reason that might support another opinion, and that seems to be what you want me to do.
     
    #69 ralphz, Dec 27, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  10. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    17,122
    Likes Received:
    304
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    What makes you think it is a personal attack?

    I wrote you have the interest and therefore it is worthwhile considering taking an umpiring qualification. Is it something you do not want to do?
     
  11. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    no that's not a personal attack, but I thought it was when you said that I was taking somebody's qualifications (though i'm still not quite sure exactly what taking somebody's qualifications means)
     
  12. jole73

    jole73 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Home
    Oh dear, it's not so hard...

    translation
    know the rules of badminton -> apply for a license -> take a test -> become an umpire
    /translation
     
  13. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    So you're talking about me getting my own qualification, not "taking somebody elses"(whatever the latter would mean). And what if I don't plan to do do either? I'm not making an argument from authority if I say an opinion sounds reasonable to me, If I had to bet, i'd bet on the umpire being right, and i'm not saying he's wrong, so I don't see why me saying that an opinion somebody gives, sounds reasonable to me, and why that should be treated like something I must not do.

    I know a few doctors.. some of them are happy to discuss something with me on the subject of medicine, one isn't.. The ones that are will just discuss it, and the one that isn't just dismissively says "why don't you become a doctor", by which he means he doesn't want to have the discussion. But I tend to discuss it with those that are happy to discuss it with me. Them and I understand that one doesn't have to be a doctor to discuss medicine.
     
    #73 ralphz, Dec 28, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  14. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Germany
    You are right, my statements on that matter where incomplete if not incorrect. I myself vehemently argued in a prior thread for this interpretation. However, the BUAofE article convinced me that at least under current laws, this zone (yellow in my original picture) is allowed. In practice, I am sure glad that the halls I umpire in have virtually no wind so that these shots are always out. I will discuss these shots at my next tournament though - thanks for pointing it out!
     
  15. jole73

    jole73 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Home
    I'm not, I was just helping out with the translation (and, at the same time, wondering why that was even necessary).

    Is it no longer required to take a driving/driver's license (not: take away!) if you want to steer a car on public roads?
     
  16. jole73

    jole73 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Home
    And anything else wouldn't make much sense, if you ask me. How can an umpire (let alone a line judge) decide if a clear crossing the net is flying 1 cm more to the left or to the right? Seems quite impossible to me.
     
  17. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Germany
    When unsure, there thankfully is RTTO §4.4 (Do not call a fault(..) if a doubt arises in your mind(..)). However, shots around the netposts below net height are most definitely faults, so you still have to decide whether it went 1cm more up or down.

    I'm curious why you'd mention line judges; they (officially) just deal with in/out and have no responsibilities to call faults; how are they involved?
     
  18. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    17,122
    Likes Received:
    304
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Taking an umpiring qualification (=gaining the qualification) is much more feasible than becoming a doctor.
     
  19. jole73

    jole73 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Home
    Sure, but neglectible due to expected sample size. ;)

    Oh, I didn't want to involve line judges in decisions beyond their responsibilities. I was just asking myself who would technically be able to follow the path of the shuttle.
     
    phihag likes this.
  20. ralphz

    ralphz Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    london
    Do they have a bunch of (or any) lawyers that write or read through the laws before they are published?

    Are any lawyers involved at any point in the formation or publication of these laws? And if so i'm curious if any put their name to it as lawyers?
     

Share This Page