User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 38
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    manila
    Posts
    1,117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    as fidget quotes the bwf rules, you can only stand within the line boundaries when preparing to serve or receive

    however, once the serve has started, then you can stand anywhere and do anything you want, including triple backflips and jumping jacks on the lines, outside the lines, ... as a matter of fact you can even run over to the other side of the court, as long as you don't impede his stroke and movement!
    gymnast slash badminton player. I'd love to see LD or LCW do this.

  2. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    930
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexh View Post
    If the opponent just played a net kill that you had no chance of returning, then a competent umpire won't take you seriously. It happens a lot in professional matches, especially men's singles, and I've never seen it called as a fault (as long as the player's body didn't actually touch any part of the net).
    In that particular case, most likely the net kill already completes before you are distracted. But let's say a player dives or does something where their foot crosses the bottom of the net, you can technically go up to the umpire and say you were looking at your opponent and were distracted in that case and you weren't paying attention to the next shot, which constitutes a fault.

  3. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    407
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    In that particular case, most likely the net kill already completes before you are distracted. But let's say a player dives or does something where their foot crosses the bottom of the net, you can technically go up to the umpire and say you were looking at your opponent and were distracted in that case and you weren't paying attention to the next shot, which constitutes a fault.
    OK, I see your point. But I've never actually seen anyone dive under the net.

  4. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,095
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexh View Post
    OK, I see your point. But I've never actually seen anyone dive under the net.
    vittinghus vs lcw iirc.

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,095
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  6. #23
    Regular Member nokh88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    9,045
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexh View Post
    OK, I see your point. But I've never actually seen anyone dive under the net.
    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    vittinghus vs lcw iirc.
    Therefore, can LCW stop to play the final shot and say that Vittinghus distracted him?

  7. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,095
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LCW can try. Whether the umpire agrees that LCW can be distracted from back/midcourt is another thing.

    And in this case, the umpire should have called fault earlier because vittinghus headbutts the net!

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,990
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nokh88 View Post
    Therefore, can LCW stop to play the final shot and say that Vittinghus distracted him?
    Somewhat distracting for sure, but not illegally interfering with LCW's shot a-way in the back court.

    I can't believe LCW could complete that last shot, considering he should have been laughing his butt off.
    He laughed more on this occasion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlKbPK9X4gQ

  9. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    407
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    And in this case, the umpire should have called fault earlier because vittinghus headbutts the net!
    Probably neither LCW nor the umpire wanted to stop the point--they were hoping to get a fourth dive out of Vittinguis ;-)

    Thanks for posting this clip!

  10. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    930
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, the shot is away from LCW, but it is considered distracting if it catches your attention, then you can claim you were hesitant to make your next shot since that short second it caught your attention, it messed up your timing. So you can argue for your point in that scenario. (I think it'd be more towards your favor if you didn't return the next shot and tell the umpire you were distracted compared to you messed up the shot and then go up to the umpire and claim you were distracted)

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    930
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Of course I tell you this, but I think the integrity of it all is not to do it. Just saying it can be done, but that's just taking advantage of loop holes in the rules. I'm not condoning this matter, just putting it out there :P

  12. #29
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What part could you argue distracted you? It was just a dive, he came under the net which he is entitled to if opponent don't need that space. I think you would be a crap umpire to agree that a simple dive is distracting. Distractions have to be more deliberate like shouting when opponent goes to hit shot, or waving your racket about when they play net shot or other deliberate moves. Could you apply/argue rule (13.4.5 deliberately distracts an opponent by any action such as shouting or making gestures) if he dives anywhere else on his own side. I don't think so. If you were allowed to be automatically distracted by folk invading your court then none of the invading rules would be legal, as standard.

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    930
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, because that rule specifically states "shouting or making gestures", which I don't categorize diving under. While the other rule states "13.4.3 invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted"

    So from what you're saying, it'd be impossible to distract just by going under the net correct? Since he's neither shouting nor making gestures. Why did they include distracting into that specific rule then? Why not just leave it as obstruct? From what you are saying, there is no way you can be distracted from just going under the net unless they do something more deliberate, which is already covered by the other rule, regardless of where the opponent is on the court.

  14. #31
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    So from what you're saying, it'd be impossible to distract just by going under the net correct? Since he's neither shouting nor making gestures. Why did they include distracting into that specific rule then? Why not just leave it as obstruct? From what you are saying, there is no way you can be distracted from just going under the net unless they do something more deliberate, which is already covered by the other rule, regardless of where the opponent is on the court.
    That's almost exactly what i think. Except i still think you can distract coming through if you are close enough to the player yet not obstructing so worth stating it in rule. The player maybe worried about if guy is not going to stop before hitting him or the shuttle and therefore takes his eye of the shuttle, then i reckon he can protest. If there is distance like in the LCW v HKV then no chance.

  15. #32
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    No, because that rule specifically states "shouting or making gestures",
    Incorrect it says "such as" not specifically.

  16. #33
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,508
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wakin75x View Post
    Hi all,

    May I know is there a rule say that the player he or she can't change the racket to the other hand when playing the game? And in single and double game, the player got 1 leg stand on outside the court and receive the shuttle is it a fault or out?

    Thx.
    just played with someone who can use either hand to play, it was more awkward for his partner since his reach is so wide with both sides being his forehand. it was very intersting that for us, all we needed to do was to drive the shots where the flight of the shuttle was flat and quick, that gives him less time to decide which hand to use. more so than not, we usually catch him doing a backhand which is weak because he'd always tried to practice with a forehand instead. very interesting game i must say.

  17. #34
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ipoh
    Posts
    1,167
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gundamzaku View Post
    just played with someone who can use either hand to play, it was more awkward for his partner since his reach is so wide with both sides being his forehand. it was very intersting that for us, all we needed to do was to drive the shots where the flight of the shuttle was flat and quick, that gives him less time to decide which hand to use. more so than not, we usually catch him doing a backhand which is weak because he'd always tried to practice with a forehand instead. very interesting game i must say.
    Would you be so kind to upload the video of this double-forehanded player and give the link pls..

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

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
  •