User Tag List

Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LastLast
Results 375 to 391 of 405
  1. #375
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,724
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    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.
    Thanks for your explanation, CantSmashThis. As always, it is clear and helps clear up any misconceptions.

    How about this one? Do you think 13.4.4 should have been invoked here?

    Last edited by cobalt; 12-20-2011 at 10:12 PM.

  2. #376
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    Thanks for your explanation, CantSmashThis. As always, it is clear and helps clear up any misconceptions.

    How about this one? Do you think 13.4.4 could have been invoked here?

    On this one it is quite hard to tell. And can be argued by both sides on this. But slowly replaying this, it looks like it would be a fault because his racket was up at the net before Taufik was given a chance to play the shot. But this all happens quickly. There is no "holding and waiting at the net" in this scenario. If Taufik was allowed his shot attempt FOLLOWED by Lin Dan's attempt to return, then that would be legal. But it shows like Lin Dan didn't give Taufik his full chance to make his shot before attempting to block the shot. (He had his racket up at the net 1st for a split second, then attempted to return the shot. If he did not have his racket up for that half a second, and just attempted to return, then it would be legal)

    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.

  3. #377
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,770
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Wink I would have faulted Lin Dan

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    How about this one? Do you think 13.4.4 should have been invoked here?

    .
    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.
    .

  4. #378
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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 10:39 PM.

  5. #379
    Regular Member nokh88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    8,606
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    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.
    .
    Maybe different levels of umpire knowledge.

  6. #380
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    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?
    Like stated before, Wang Yihan is not allowed to have all options available. Yes, she can make another shot, but by seeing the racket there, it could also have caused her to hesitate. Plus, like I said before, SN is taking away WYH's best choice of shot. If she chose to cross, or hesitates and is forced to clear, SN is more capable of staying in the rally, as opposed to WYH doing a straight net kill. And sometimes it is hard to smash the shuttle into open space. Players get hit in games all the time, you can't tell the player to hit into an open space next time.

    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 10:52 PM.

  7. #381
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,770
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb Another example: Obstruction of sight of the shuttlecock when serving

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    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?
    .
    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; 12-20-2011 at 11:04 PM.

  8. #382
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    Like stated before, Wang Yihan is not allowed to have all options available. Yes, she can make another shot, but by seeing the racket there, it could also have caused her to hesitate. Plus, like I said before, SN is taking away WYH's best choice of shot. If she chose to cross, or hesitates and is forced to clear, SN is more capable of staying in the rally, as opposed to WYH doing a straight net kill. And sometimes it is hard to smash the shuttle into open space. Players get hit in games all the time, you can't tell the player to hit into an open space next time.

    As an umpire myself, if I were to see that happen in a match, I will not hesitate to immediately call a fault there.
    Isn't it to be expected that opponents would try to limit each other's options to force a more favorable outcome? Some can argue that that was not the best choice by WYH seeing SN directly in front of her. Or WYH herself knew that she could earn a simple point by doing just what she has done and expect the umpire to call fault for an obstruction?

    Maybe umpires should reconsider this particular law in greater detail and not call "obstruction" automatically.

  9. #383
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    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.
    .
    As I have said that was your opinion which differed from mine according to what I saw from the pics.

    Giving another example of obstruction which is entirely unrelated is not the point here.

  10. #384
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    Isn't it to be expected that opponents would try to limit each other's options to force a more favorable outcome? Some can argue that that was not the best choice by WYH seeing SN directly in front of her. Or WYH herself knew that she could earn a simple point by doing just what she has done and expect the umpire to call fault for an obstruction?

    Maybe umpires should reconsider this particular law in greater detail and not call "obstruction" automatically.
    So you're saying it's completely legal, during a tight net exchange, that I can leave my racket up at the net anytime? What it seems like you are saying to me is that, in that case, I can argue I was not attempting to obstruct the opponent, I am attempting to limit their choice of shots and that my opponent can play another shot. They do not have to kill the shuttle and clash with my racket. They can attempt to cross drop it, or even clear it.

    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.

  11. #385
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,770
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    As I have said that was your opinion which differed from mine according to what I saw from the pics.

    Giving another example of obstruction which is entirely unrelated is not the point here.
    .
    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);

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    Question 1: Can I make no movement with the racket to return a shot?
    Answer: Yes, you can make no movement with the racket to return a shot. It's called 'blocking the shot'. But you must not interfere with your opponent's stroke.

    Question 2: Give an example when 'blocking the shot' can be used.
    Answer: You can block all shots coming at you at anytime if your opponent's stroke is not obstructed by you.
    Example: You are stuck very close to the net and you lifted the shuttlecock high up to the back lines of your opponent's court. Your opponent moved to the back and is going to smash at you. Being stuck very close to the net, and knowing that a smash is coming at you, you raise your racket-head above the net in anticipation of the smash. This happens often and it is a legal block.
    Note: You have not disturbed with the stroke production of your opponent.

    Question 3: Give an example when 'blocking the shot' is considered illegal.
    Answer: 'Blocking the shot' is always legal. It is interfering with your opponent's stroke that is illegal.
    Example: You are stuck very close to the net and you played a net return just over the net to your opponent's court. Your opponent moved in to return your shot. Being stuck very close to the net, and knowing that a return is coming, you raise your racket-head above the net in anticipation. This happens often in play, but now it is an illegal block.
    Note: Here, you have disturbed with the stroke production of your opponent. Your opponent is required to hit the shuttlecock on his/her side of the court, but he/she is allowed to have his/her follow-through of the racket-head over the net to your side of the court. This is what I meant about:

    You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE.
    .

  12. #386
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,724
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    Isn't it to be expected that opponents would try to limit each other's options to force a more favorable outcome? Some can argue that that was not the best choice by WYH seeing SN directly in front of her. Or WYH herself knew that she could earn a simple point by doing just what she has done and expect the umpire to call fault for an obstruction?

    Maybe umpires should reconsider this particular law in greater detail and not call "obstruction" automatically.
    I can see where you're trying to go with this, Loh. But consider: you can limit (or make difficult) you opponent's options in play when it is your turn to hit the bird. So you make your play in the best possible way you can, to limit your opponent's choices. When you make your play. That is the key.

    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.

    Make sense?

  13. #387
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    So you're saying it's completely legal, during a tight net exchange, that I can leave my racket up at the net anytime? What it seems like you are saying to me is that, in that case, I can argue I was not attempting to obstruct the opponent, I am attempting to limit their choice of shots and that my opponent can play another shot. They do not have to kill the shuttle and clash with my racket. They can attempt to cross drop it, or even clear it.

    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.
    Don't get me wrong. The Badminton Laws are there to regulate the game and make it fair and transparent to everybody.

    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"?

  14. #388
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
    I can see where you're trying to go with this, Loh. But consider: you can limit (or make difficult) you opponent's options in play when it is your turn to hit the bird. So you make your play in the best possible way you can, to limit your opponent's choices. When you make your play. That is the key.

    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.

    Make sense?
    "When it is your turn to hit the bird" - not quite true because you can also limit your opponent's options by where and how you stand waiting for his response.

    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.

  15. #389
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,724
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    Don't get me wrong. The Badminton Laws are there to regulate the game and make it fair and transparent to everybody.

    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"?
    Although a professional competition, it is first and foremost a sport. Which is why there are "umpires" and "referees." No judge and jury. That also implies that the officials may be called upon to use considered discretion in borderline cases. Obviously this will always rouse a hornet's nest among fans and followers, but for the players themselves for the most part, they take it mostly in their stride. Why? Because they know it all evens out, and again, for the most part, the better player wins. In this way, players, officials and coaches, indeed all of those directly involved, have upheld the spirit of sportsmanship in the game.

    My (uncalled for) 2c.

  16. #390
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  17. #391
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,770
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    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).
    .

Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 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
  •