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!

What fault is it? Receiver fault?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by pascal123, Dec 30, 2008.

  1. pascal123

    pascal123 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    china
    Hi guys,

    I have been watching the AE 2004 match between Lin Dan and Peter Gade on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljfW1upDYLM&feature=related .

    From 3:43, Peter served, then after a few strokes, the rally halted. What happened? Seems to be Lin Dan committing some fault, but what fault is it?

    There was a slow motion playback a few seconds later, but I still couldn't figure it out.

    Anyone could help?

    Thanks
     
  2. derekcai

    derekcai Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    singapore
    I dont spot anything either, i guess its because he "moved" before the serve was struck as deemed by the umpire. I replayed it a couble of dozen times and dont see anything though....
     
  3. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,584
    Likes Received:
    292
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    Yes it appeared that LD moved in before PG served. I heard it from the commentator. :cool:
     
  4. Oldhand

    Oldhand Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    120
    Occupation:
    Broadcast Systems Integration
    Location:
    Asia
    Loh's right.
    The Dutch umpire says 'Fault Receiver'.
     
  5. bad_fanatic

    bad_fanatic Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Day dream about being a Pro Badminton Player
    Location:
    CA
    They called it receiver fault, but I think it's a bit harsh. In the first set, they also called service fault on Lin Dan as well.
     
  6. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Badminton Laws state that the receiver is not permitted to move before the Service

    .
    :D:D:D This shows that Lin Dan is super fast, and with great anticipation too.

    IMHO, this rule might need to be changed later (in years to come). With PG's experience, if LD moves first in one direction, then PG should place his shot to the opposite direction. :):):)

    Anyway, at this moment, our Badminton Laws state that the receiver is not permitted to move before a player executes his/her Service.
    .
     
  7. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    u should check the video first before commenting. From my angle, even in slow-motion (3:53), i didn't see LD moving forward at all prior to PG contacting the shuttle.
     
  8. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    No advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the Service

    .
    My comment was meant for this rule to be changed later (in years to come).

    IMHO, there is no advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the server makes contact with the shuttle.
    .
     
  9. pascal123

    pascal123 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    china
    Luckily, at that time, lin dan was already leading by 14-5. One point misjudged didn't cost him the match.

    Sigh...I always think this kind of milisecond movement and those milimeter judgement of calling the shuttle out or in are not to be judged by human eyes. Though these errors are not seriously undermining the fair play, it would be better to make things more precise and accurate, thus even fairer play. Just see how many calls got overruled by challenges from the players in tennis. Hopefully, this kind of technology would be used in badminton in the future, at least for determining whether the shuttles are in or out.
     
  10. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    there is nothing wrong wif the rule. It just wasn't applied properly. I dont see this rule would be changed in my lifetime.
     
  11. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,584
    Likes Received:
    292
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    I believe what you meant was "no advantage to the receiver".

    The experienced receiver can take advantage of the situation if he has the option to move ahead of the serve. Already, a tall and imposing receiver bending forward with this racket raised to take the service, can cause some jitters to the server who tries to serve as 'perfectly' low as possible with the risk of the shuttle not crossing the net.

    And many good receivers are so quick that they can kill the service at the net. Give them the option of moving first and they can even anticipate the serve better to kill the bird. :eek:
     
  12. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,496
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    Very difficult to judge.

    Imagine this scenario:

    The receiver moves before the shuttle is struck. Umpire calls fault..
    The server does a fault serve (due to last second adjustments, seeing that his opponent moved). Service judge calls fault.

    So which fault is binding?
     
  13. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    If there is no advantage to the receiver, then it should be OK

    .
    Loh ... Thank you for correcting my typo.

    I agree with you what you say "a tall and imposing receiver bending forward with this racket raised to take the service can cause some jitters to the server who tries to serve as 'perfectly' low as possible". To some server, it is a distraction.

    It is up to the server to remain not distracted and not to feel intimidated by the receiver.
    I am saying that the server should learn how to take advantage of the situation if the receiver is committed to a certain stance/movement.

    Remember that incident at the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games at Melbourne:
    A receiver was bending forward with his racket raised to prepare to take the service. The server elected to perform a Shooting/Drive Service. The whole thing came to a stop when the receiver claimed that 'that Shooting/Drive Service' should be faulted.

    IMHO, if there is no clear disadvantage biased to just one side, then we shouldn't disallow it. This will allow our Badminton to further develop.
    .
     
    #13 chris-ccc, Dec 30, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2008
  14. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Faults for both the server and the receiver?

    .
    Hahaha ... Are you saying that service judge is calling faults for both the server and the receiver? In that case, shouldn't it be called a 'Let"?
    .
     
  15. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,496
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    No, both umpire and service judge would probably call fault at about the same time.

    I am assuming the umpire's eyes must be on the receiver at most times ..... service judge will tackle the server.
     
  16. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    It should be a 'LET', if no disadvantage is suffered by either side

    .
    In this case, IMHO, it should be a 'LET'.

    If both receiver and server have committed faults simultaneously, we have no choice but to say "Let's play it again".
    .
     
  17. Flashtastic

    Flashtastic Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    leamington spa
    Either a let or might i suggest that the receiver must have faulted first as he has to move before the strike of the shuttle. It is only a fault by the server when they hit the shuttle and so therefore although only by a millisecond or 2 the receiver committed the first fault.

    Also just for clarification what is deemed a movement before the serve. I'm guessing its when the receiver moves his/her foot
     
  18. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    It's a let.

    Although your logic makes sense, your conclusion is incorrect. There is a specific rule to deal with this situation:

    That's correct:

    In other words, you must not lift or drag a foot.
     
    #18 Gollum, Dec 31, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2008
  19. Erik L.

    Erik L. Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    professor
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    To answer Abedeng's question, when an umpire calls a receiver fault and the service judge calls a service fault in the same rally, this is a let. There have been serveral attempts to make the Laws distinguish between a detectable and non detectable sequence of events but such attempt have until now remained unsucessfuland probably rightly so.
     
  20. Erik L.

    Erik L. Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    professor
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I looked at the video and I can't see anything wrong.
     

Share This Page