User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SMA
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Actions that look like player is going to catch the shuttle?

    The title isn't exactly apt but I'll try to explain what I mean.

    Is it a fault (or at least a let) if a player makes any such action that show he/she is going to catch the shuttle, but doesn't, and then plays a shot?

    Take this scenario:
    1. Player A hits a low serve towards opponent (Player B)
    2. Player B's body language goes from a ready position to a "casual" one and makes it look like he is going to catch the shuttle with his/her hand
    3. Player B does not actually touch the shuttle with his/her hand but then plays a legal shot with the racket

    What I can gather form the rules:
    It is a fault when a player 13.4.5 deliberately distracts an opponent by any action such as shouting or making gestures

    We all know that at the professional level, players should play until the umpire makes a call. With Player B moving as if he/she is going to catch the shuttle (for whatever reason), wouldn't that be a deliberate distraction?

    But then again, I have not seen such an occurrence at professional level badminton. I have seen it a few times in social games or when professional players are playing socially.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If it's during the game, absolutely not, the game just goes on. Rule 13.4.5 is meant for serious intentional distractions like screaming just before the opponent is hitting. I have never seen it applied during any games. I have never seen it featured in any umpire training materials (apart from being a part of the rules, of course). And it could certainly happen that a player thinks the shuttle is going out (or unreachably in) and suddenly reconsiders, so even if the rule would be applied then it wouldn't be obvious that the player is *deliberately* distracting the opponent.

    Now, in your scenario, the distracting player is the one receiving. That's a special situation because he has to be ready. Player A can simply play on until the umpire calls "Let". Again, there are benign reasons why player B may look relaxed and then suddenly decide (upon not hearing the umpire call a let) to play on, so even here, the question would only be whether it's Play On or Let.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SMA
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What if the receiving wins the point from the supposed distraction? Can the serving player (i.e. Player A) say that he/she was distracted by the receiving player's action? Actually, Player A can say anything they want. But what matters is if an umpire is likely to award a let in that scenario (or in games where there is no umpire - e.g. social games - should a let be played).

    This is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuMEmiFNVsk#t=180
    See how JJS lifted his non-racket arm as if to indicate that he is not ready. I know it's not exactly the same as the scenario I gave above but it's similar. The umpire in the video eventually awarded a let.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,109
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The umpire should not have awarded a let in that JJS example.

    I would say although unconventional, and a bit gamesmanship-ey, there is nothing wrong with pretending to catch the shuttle.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SMA
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    The umpire should not have awarded a let in that JJS example.

    I would say although unconventional, and a bit gamesmanship-ey, there is nothing wrong with pretending to catch the shuttle.
    I would say JJS' action was more like indicating he is not ready. He did raise his hand just when the server hit the shuttle. But we also don't know what JJS subsequently said to the umpire. The umpire was about to award the point to him but played a let after JJS said a few words.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Even if a player is doing it deliberately for whatever reason, I think this is not enough to be a distraction and no professional umpire would/should give a call.

    Now, if a player give a middle finger or pull down his pants in the middle of the game then those kind of things would qualify as distraction.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon.Days View Post
    What if the receiving wins the point from the supposed distraction?
    Then he won a point, fair and square. The serving player should not stop playing until the umpire calls Let.
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon.Days View Post
    Can the serving player (i.e. Player A) say that he/she was distracted by the receiving player's action?
    No, by definition the serving player is ready for the serve. If she thinks the receiving player is not ready, then she should not serve. As soon as the serve has started, the game goes on until the shuttle is on the ground or the umpire calls either Let or Fault.
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon.Days View Post
    This is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuMEmiFNVsk#t=180 (..) The umpire in the video eventually awarded a let.
    That was some excellent umpiring. He decided correctly, but called Let when the receiving player intervened. That's precisely what 1.3 RTTO is about.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon.Days View Post
    By the way, which tournament is this from? It does not look like an official one:
    • The umpire is wearing wrong clothes: Only the pants are black, and even there I spot some white stripes that my referees would probably criticize.
    • The umpire doesn't say anything! Although, in my experience, most people don't listen anyways and just look at the scoreboard.
    • The umpire allows flashes (and the players are apparently used to that!).
    • There is no pause at 11!
    • There are plenty of spectators within the 2m zone around the court.
    • How does the umpire keep track of where which player is, and warnings/injuries/shuttles spent etc.?
    • I don't see any notes. Although of course a normal umpire does not have to handle the scoreboard.
    • There is no post on the umpire's side of the court!?
    • The post at the other side is not straight on the line, or even anywhere close to it.
    • The net is not flush with the post. (Very lenient referee?)
    • The player's stuff is not inside boxes. In fact, there are no boxes at all.
    Last edited by phihag; 10-25-2014 at 03:48 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    SMA
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seems to be a social game. Even if it were part of a tournament, then probably just a non-official one.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •