Results 375 to 391 of 405
12-20-2011, 11:01 PM #375
12-20-2011, 11:17 PM #376
But as an umpire, this all happens within a split second. Most likely the point will end before the umpire has his final decision since he has to quickly process it. This can technically go either way depending how the umpire sees it. This is different than SN's positioning her racket there. But if it can be clearly shown that what I explained in the above paragraph was done, then there shall be no fault. Taufik must be given his full chance to play his shot, then Lin Dan can attempt to block his shot. With correct anticipation, this still can be done, I have seen it done before, but of course is quite hard.
I type this out as what comes to mind, as how much it makes sense to you the reader, I'm not quite sure, so feel free to ask for me to further explain this if you wish.
12-20-2011, 11:25 PM #377
I would have faulted Lin Dan
Another good example (at the 28th second of the video).
I would have faulted Lin Dan.
Although Taufik Hidayat did not complain; I can believe that if Lin Dan had not stick up his racket-head, Taufik would have done a better stroke to keep the shuttlecock in.
Lucky for Lin Dan that I wasn't the umpire.
12-20-2011, 11:27 PM #378
Badminton is neither squash nor soccer. Each has its own rules.
In badminton it is not unusual to find opposing players standing directly opposite each other at close quarters. Some elect to challenge net duels and anything that goes an inch or so higher than the net may be attacked or smashed at.
The receiver may choose to cover his face for protection and if the shuttle should hit his strings and bounce back to the other side without a response, it becomes an unexpected lucky return for him.
Now it seems the question of obstruction comes in because SN is obstructing WYH from making a legal stroke. IMO the pictures did not confirm that.
So it is a question of opinion. The umpire seemed to rule it as an obstruction according to the laws. I see it otherwise. And despite attempts to say that WYH is restricted to that killing shot at that time, it must be fair to say that she actually has other options like net crossing. SN did what was natural in such a situation and that is to protect her face with the hope that WYH's shot would hit her racket and bounce back into play. And her hope came true but the umpire saw it otherwise. WYH could have smashed the shuttle in the open space and not directly at SN.
Sure, it is commonplace that a situation like this has more often than not been called a fault. And unfortunately the "victim" normally accepts his fate (even our friend extreme) and people just attribute it to "obstruction".
But is it really obstruction in every case? Especially when one is playing in his own court and did not invade the opposition? The umpire has to make a decision in a split second and does not have the luxury of hindsight or a replay of the scene in slow motion. So often line calls were wrongly made because of this.
Last edited by Loh; 12-20-2011 at 11:39 PM.
12-20-2011, 11:32 PM #379
12-20-2011, 11:42 PM #380
If not obstruction, then distraction, causing the player to hesitate in that instance. If someone holds their racket at the net, and you see it, don't tell me you won't hesitate, and will immediately know what to do. It's natural instinct to most.
The photo clearly shows that Saina is still very close to the net. And I would believe you would have your racket near your face to protect your face. Otherwise I can have my racket right at the net and then claim I am blocking the shuttle from going over the net so that it won't hit my face.
As an umpire myself, if I were to see that happen in a match, I will not hesitate to immediately call a fault there.
"Especially when one is playing in his own court and did not invade the opposition? The umpire has to make a decision in a split second and does not have the luxury of hindsight or a replay of the scene in slow motion. So often line calls were wrongly made because of this. "
I did not watch the video, but as others were saying and how Ian White put it, the fact that she held it there, did not attempt a swing, and to me does not attempt to block her face in the picture, CLEARLY shows that she was attempting an obstruction. With the video cobalt posted, I said, yes in the fact that it happens so quickly, that can be argued both ways since it happens in a split second. But in this case, there was no attempt to return, there does not seem like she is protecting her face, it shows to me that she is obstructing.
Last edited by CantSmashThis; 12-20-2011 at 11:52 PM.
12-20-2011, 11:52 PM #381
Another example: Obstruction of sight of the shuttlecock when serving
Yes, it is an obstruction (which prevented WYH's swiping stroke).
Laws are laws - They should be as clear and simple as stated.
Here is another example: Obstruction of sight of the shuttlecock when serving;
When serving with a partner positioned in front (as mostly played in Mixed Doubles), the receiver can complain that the shuttlecock is unsighted before the Service stroke commences. The umpire will then tell the front player (of the serving side) not block the sight of the shuttlecock.
The server cannot argue back to the receiver that the receiver should stand elsewhere (where the shuttlecock can be seen).
I have done a course in umpiring; If I am wrong in my posts (as posted so far), then I would inform our Badminton Australia umpiring instructors (under BWF's governance) that I have been taught wrongly.
Laws are made to be fair for both sides of the net; And hope that no loop-holes can be found.
Last edited by chris-ccc; 12-21-2011 at 12:04 AM.
12-21-2011, 12:00 AM #382
Maybe umpires should reconsider this particular law in greater detail and not call "obstruction" automatically.
12-21-2011, 12:03 AM #383
12-21-2011, 12:10 AM #384
You cannot break the rule, and claim that you were only attempting to limit your opponent's choice of shot. I do not see what is there to reconsider.
12-21-2011, 12:17 AM #385
You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE
Sorry, for me I just follow the Laws of Badminton. The example was to comment that laws are laws (whether good or not).
If I think the laws are wrong, I would have sent a letter to BWF, for them to reconsider.
Saina's blocking of the shuttlecock can be legal under this condition (as I have stated in this post);
12-21-2011, 12:21 AM #386
If however, you make an action close up to the bird in such a way that it "limits" the opponent's choice of play not when it is your turn to make the play but his, and thereby cause him/her to instinctively change/adapt/reconsider/ or be plain distracted by your action, then it is an obstruction.
12-21-2011, 12:22 AM #387
It is the interpretation of the law by umpires that will affect the outcome. And a wrong outcome will be unfair to the player who lost the point.
Umpires come in different standards and experience. They could also be distracted/obstructed by ongoing events on and around the court. They have to make split second decisions, even wrong ones.
The scenerio painted out in this case seems to confirm that it is an "obstruction" automatically and no further questions asked. My question is "must it necessarily be true"?
12-21-2011, 12:28 AM #388
The net is the demarcation line. So long as you are on your side of the net and not invade your opponent's side, I see nothing wrong how close or far away you stand from the net, but just make sure you don't touch it.
12-21-2011, 12:34 AM #389
My (uncalled for) 2c.
12-21-2011, 12:35 AM #390
I mean, if the rule stated there must be a collision to be called an obstruction, players could easily do so. Most choose not to do so because they can destroy their racket (for non-professional players who don't have sponsorships) or they can accidentally harm their opponent. This causes a hesitation, and it is why a fault is called before the completion of a stroke. There shouldn't be consequences to what happens after the player does end up swinging. That's why in this case there should not be this can happen that can happen. Anything can happen, but as us umpires, we don't want things to end up horribly.
Let's say these players weren't sponsored. It's a $200 racket right there. Your opponent puts their racket up. Would you want to have the players to clash racket? In that case, you would call a fault. I don't think umpires would want to have it be fully played out where the clash must happen in order to call a fault.
I totally understand that there are cases where there are questions that come into play. But to me, in this case, it is a CLEAR violation. Us umpires must make it clear to the players that in this case. Otherwise, we would have to stop each match in a case by case situation and carefully think things out or have players argue everytime whether or not that was an obstruction or not. That just causes delays and more hassles as an umpire. I'm not saying that everything the umpire says is absolutely correct like you have stated, but we must make a fine point between CLEARLY on why this is or is not a fault to the player to understand. I have stated why I say this is a fault. If a referee were to be called in this match, the referee would stick with the umipre's call.
But in your sense, you can technically argue any little thing that is not clearly defined in the rule book then.
12-21-2011, 12:37 AM #391
I am going for my Badminton now.
Will be back to read more comments about this matter/topic later.
You'll never know; From this discussion we, BCers, might come up with a new recommendation (to be sent to BWF to reconsider).
By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2011Replies: 425: 12-16-2011, 05:59 PM
By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2011Replies: 385: 12-15-2011, 03:52 PM
By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2011Replies: 311: 12-15-2011, 11:03 AM
By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2010Replies: 108: 01-10-2011, 07:09 PM
By chris-ccc in forum Super Series Final 2010Replies: 419: 01-09-2011, 08:40 AM