User Tag List

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LastLast
Results 358 to 374 of 405
  1. #358
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,844
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    No, I don't think 13.4.4 covers it. Ian specifically mentioned not making a shot/stroke. No where in the law says you can't just put your racket up to block, as long as it doesn't obstruct your opponent's racket path.

    On the side view slow mo replay, Saina's racket was practically 6 inches away from the net. There's no way WYH's net kill stroke would bring her racket that far into Saina's side. And if WYH's racket never hit Saina's racket, how is there an obstruction in the first place?
    Could it be distraction then?

    Maybe someone could ask the Malaysian umpire what the reason was for SN's fault.

  2. #359
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,655
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow It has been discussed

    Quote Originally Posted by suetyan View Post
    I need someone to explain to me on this. Is that kind of volleyball blocking considered as a fault in badminton? I don't know it until yesterday.
    .
    The answer from cobalt is correct;

    13. FAULTS
    It shall be a "fault":
    13.4 if, in play, a player:
    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.

    It has been discussed in this thread (click on it);
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ng-distraction

    Many players seldom have long follow-through of their racket-heads over the net. But not for me; My racket-head can go 2 feet horizontally over the net into my opponent's space.

    When Saina held her racket-head up about 6 inches away from the net, and if I were WYH, I wouldn't even play the stroke. I would tell the umpire that he must call a fault against Saina. And then, I would show the umpire (after the rally) how I would have followed-through my racket-head to clash with Saina's racket.
    .
    Last edited by chris-ccc; 12-19-2011 at 10:15 AM.

  3. #360
    Regular Member suetyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Akihabara
    Posts
    8,035
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    The answer from cobalt is correct;

    13. FAULTS
    It shall be a "fault":
    13.4 if, in play, a player:
    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.

    It has been discussed in this thread (click on it);
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ng-distraction

    Many players seldom have long follow-through of their racket-heads over the net. But not for me; My racket-head can go 2 feet horizontally over the net into my opponent's space.

    When Saina held her racket-head up about 6 inches away from the net, and if I were WYH, I wouldn't even play the stroke. I would tell the umpire that he must call a fault against Saina. And then, I would show the umpire (after the rally) how I would have followed-through my racket-head to clash with Saina's racket.
    .
    ah, thanks chris@ccc for the link. That's help a lot.

  4. #361
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,844
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    The answer from cobalt is correct;

    13. FAULTS
    It shall be a "fault":
    13.4 if, in play, a player:
    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.It has been discussed in this thread (click on it);
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ng-distraction

    Many players seldom have long follow-through of their racket-heads over the net. But not for me; My racket-head can go 2 feet horizontally over the net into my opponent's space.

    When Saina held her racket-head up about 6 inches away from the net, and if I were WYH, I wouldn't even play the stroke. I would tell the umpire that he must call a fault against Saina. And then, I would show the umpire (after the rally) how I would have followed-through my racket-head to clash with Saina's racket.
    .
    A very difficult and doubtful decision going by the laws.

    The Umpire has to establish whether WYH's stroke would carry over the net into the opponent's (SN) space. This could be verified by the slow motion video action of WYH's stroke.

    SN moves into position to anticipate WYH's shot. With her racket held high she is facing WYH directly but from a distance divided by the net. How far is this distance deemed necessary to avoid an "obstruction" fault? It seems to be the distance that the striker's normal stroke would carry over the net without hitting it.

    WYH has a choice to make a cross-court net instead of a lift or a push down the line and avoid hitting into SN's racket. Indeed this the decision by one umpire I know who considers such a scenario not a fault against the receiver, ie. SN. Then SN should win the point instead of being faulted.
    Last edited by Loh; 12-19-2011 at 09:02 PM.

  5. #362
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,665
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just took a second look at the video, after watching it live the other day. My first impression was that it was a geniune, attempted block anticipating the net-kill from WYH. Now here is the transcription of the commentary immediately after Goh faults Saina and Saina objects.

    IW: Too slow, that drop! WYH able to take it early.
    GC: Well, Saina Nehwal has been called a fault by Goh See Yang of Malaysia.
    (Slow-mo review plays...)
    IW: Yeah, she didn't play a shot with it. She just put her racquet there. That's a fault.

    I watched the same slow-mo review and it appeared to me that although Saina brought her racquet up, she held back momentarily to allow WYH to commit to her shot, before she began the forward motion of the push/block.

    Now that I notice that hold, it's quite debatable whether it was actually a fault or not, in my mind. However, I also recognise that the umpire does not have the benefit of hindsight and needs to make a call in real-time, and there is no appeals/review system. So, whatever's happened, has happened.

  6. #363
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,323
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    cobalt, what a coincidence!

    i was just looking at it again too!

    14-12 saina vs wang g1 at around the 3:00 hr mark of the bwf youtube video

    yeah, looks like a possible obstruction was called, as wyh with her super long arms would have hit sn's racket if she hadn't shortened her stroke

    so 13.4.4 applied in this case, as you had stated

    so if sn had her racket 1 foot back, she wouldn't have been called
    Last edited by visor; 12-19-2011 at 09:58 PM.

  7. #364
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,844
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "IW: Yeah, she didn't play a shot with it. She just put her racquet there. That's a fault."

    Why is putting a racket up considered a fault?

    Is there anything in the Badminton Laws that said so that the shuttle must be struck by the receiver before it could be considered a point won?

  8. #365
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,323
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^^^ nah, iw didn't know what he's talking about... there's no such law as he stated... because of what he said, that's what got us confused

    but if you listen to the umpire tell sn, he called her for "blocking", meaning obstructing wyh's stroke

  9. #366
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,665
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    "IW: Yeah, she didn't play a shot with it. She just put her racquet there. That's a fault."

    Why is putting a racket up considered a fault?

    Is there anything in the Badminton Laws that said so that the shuttle must be struck by the receiver before it could be considered a point won?
    I suppose that's the reason why you see most of the MS players in similar circumstances move well away from the net to counter a net-kill, or crouch low with the racquet held above and behind their head in preparation for an attempted return. IN either case, they would ensure that A) their body was away from the net to allow for freedom of movement, and B) the racquet position was away from the net to ensure no fault can be called.

    Go to 3:01:35 to watch it unfold. The girls were lucky not to have clashed racquets, that's for sure!

  10. #367
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,844
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    ^^^ nah, iw didn't know what he's talking about... there's no such law as he stated... because of what he said, that's what got us confused

    but if you listen to the umpire tell sn, he called her for "blocking", meaning obstructing wyh's stroke
    Good.

    So it could only mean that in the umpire's considered view, SN is obstructing WYH's stroke execution as her stroke would have crossed some distance over the net had it not been "obstructed" by SN's upheld racket. Now this last point is debatable.

    Debatable because SN rushed in to block in anticipation.
    Debatable because WYH, on seeing SN moving in, could have used the net cross or other shots. WYH has an option not to hit directly into SN's racket.

    In most cases one would expect a player to hit the shuttle away from his opponent where the latter will find difficulty in retrieving.
    Last edited by Loh; 12-19-2011 at 10:10 PM.

  11. #368
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,655
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Here is a clearer photo of the incidence. As for me (if an umpire), I would have faulted Saina Nehwal even before Wang Yihan commenced her stroke.
    .
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  12. #369
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,655
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Here is another photo (although not as clear - but showing how close Saina is to the net) of the incidence.

    Again, for me (if an umpire), I would have faulted Saina Nehwal even before Wang Yihan commenced her stroke.
    .
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  13. #370
    Regular Member extremenanopowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SG. Go for NCAP-L2 certified coach.
    Posts
    11,724
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was in saina position a few times. Was faulted. So, I just moved on.

  14. #371
    Regular Member volcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,507
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by extremenanopowe View Post
    I was in saina position a few times. Was faulted. So, I just moved on.
    Good on ya mate

  15. #372
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,844
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    Here is another photo (although not as clear - but showing how close Saina is to the net) of the incidence.

    Again, for me (if an umpire), I would have faulted Saina Nehwal even before Wang Yihan commenced her stroke.
    .
    I'm completely surprised by your second remark. I think if you were the umpire you would have done a great injustice to SN

    The first picture is misleading but the second is clearer as it shows the position of the players relative to the net.
    WYH seemed to have completed her stroke and nowhere can it be said that SN was obstructing her.

  16. #373
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,655
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb An umpire needs to follow the laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    I'm completely surprised by your second remark. I think if you were the umpire you would have done a great injustice to SN

    The first picture is misleading but the second is clearer as it shows the position of the players relative to the net.
    WYH seemed to have completed her stroke and nowhere can it be said that SN was obstructing her.
    .
    Comment: I'm completely surprised by your second remark. I think if you were the umpire you would have done a great injustice to SN.

    Reply: Well, you should know what I have said about SN (Post #5) in SN's thread (some 5 and a half years ago);

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    I am very happy for Saina Nehwal. I watched her played well at the Commonwealth Games, Melbourne just weeks ago. I told Saina, herself, that she will one day be a World Singles Champion. But I didn't think she believed me. Saina is only 16.
    But here, in this discussion, we are talking about the Laws of Badminton. An umpire needs to follow the laws (regardless who the players are).

    Allow me to give you 2 examples;

    (1) In Soccer, once I see a player intentionally jumps forward towards an opposition player's back from behind (to tackle/clash onto him), I would have blown the whistle before the clash happens. Why? Because a player is not allowed to tackle another from behind.

    (2) In Squash, once I see a player intentionally stands in front of an opposition player (to obstruct a stroke swing), I would have called 'fault' even before the stroke happens. Why? Because a player is not allowed to obstruct another's stroke/swing.

    Law 13.4.4 is similar to the Squash Laws; therefore when I see SN intentionally holds up her racket near the net to obstruct WYH's stroke swing, I would have called 'fault' even before WYH does her stroke.

    Some comment given is - Shouldn't WYH do another stroke swing so that their rackets to not clash? The answer is "NO". SN must allow WYH to do any stroke.

    That's why I posted earlier (Post #359);

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    13. FAULTS
    It shall be a "fault":
    13.4 if, in play, a player:
    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.

    It has been discussed in this thread (click on it);
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ng-distraction

    Many players seldom have long follow-through of their racket-heads over the net. But not for me; My racket-head can go 2 feet horizontally over the net into my opponent's space.

    When Saina held her racket-head up about 6 inches away from the net, and if I were WYH, I wouldn't even play the stroke. I would tell the umpire that he must call a fault against Saina. And then, I would show the umpire (after the rally) how I would have followed-through my racket-head to clash with Saina's racket.
    .
    Last edited by chris-ccc; 12-20-2011 at 12:43 PM.

  17. #374
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let me attempt to shed light on the reasons why that is a fault.

    It is an obstruction to WYH's shot. WYH may have other options, but by seeing that racket there, she hesitates. If I were playing you in a tight net exchange, I do a high shot, but I leave my racket there to block it, would it be fair to you? You would most likely hesitate. That's why there is a fault in that case, with or without you swinging your racket. Like Chris has stated above, she should be allowed to do any shot, not be forced to do another shot. She blocks WYH's chance to kill the shuttle and win the point, yes WYH may end up crossing or lifting, but the rally could still be clearly alive after that, since if she can net kill the shuttle clearly, there is a lower chance of the rally continuing.

    WYH does not need to attempt to swing, she can clearly point out to the umpire that she got obstructed and hesitated to make her shot, throwing her off. (Or she could clearly swing and hit Saina's racket on purpose anyways) So it makes no difference if she does attempt a swing.

    What Ian White meant by having her racket in a stationary position is that she is obstructing that way. It is NOT an obstruction if Wang Yihan attempted a shot and clashed into Saina's racket while Saina shows that she is ATTEMPTING to return the shuttle. In that case, if that does happen in a split second (which is quite hard), I would not fault either side. WYH has attempted a legal shot, Saina attempted a legal return. If Saina's racket clashes into WYH's racket while Saina is attempting a return, I would not fault that either as I have explained in this thread.

    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...47-Obstructing.

    I'm not quite sure if I have made this any more clear for any of you guys. Feel free to keep asking questions and I will try to answer.

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2011 Super Series Finals: Day 3 - Fri 16-Dec
    By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2011
    Replies: 425
    : 12-16-2011, 04:59 PM
  2. 2011 Super Series Finals: Day 2 - Thu 15-Dec
    By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2011
    Replies: 385
    : 12-15-2011, 02:52 PM
  3. 2011 Super Series Finals: Day 1 - Wed 14-Dec
    By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2011
    Replies: 311
    : 12-15-2011, 10:03 AM
  4. 2010 Super Series Finals: Day 5 (Sunday 9-Jan-2011) Finals Day
    By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2010
    Replies: 108
    : 01-10-2011, 06:09 PM
  5. 2010 Super Series Finals: Day 4 (Saturday 8-Jan-2011) Semi-Finals Day
    By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2010
    Replies: 419
    : 01-09-2011, 07:40 AM

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
  •