Results 69 to 85 of 90
02-20-2013, 05:43 PM #69
gundamzaku liked this post
02-20-2013, 05:44 PM #70
the nightvision goggles mentioned i read in a book called "No Easy Day" was worth $60,000USD each. the cheap nightvision goggles i've used for CQB with airsoft was only $3000USD. i would be scared to use the $60,000 goggles since it's worth a Mercedes!!!
03-31-2013, 05:54 PM #71
If you want to fix the service point at 1.1m, you would need video replay like it is in Tennis, which has gotten it right. The service judge cannot be expected to be perfect but technology can help. Please install Hawkeye for all lines as well.
As for the debate on whether it advantages on being tall in badminton, because net is fixed at a certain height (who decided anyway) it rewards shorter players on flat drives and tall people on smashes. If you raise the height of the net then tall people would have advantage for sure.
04-05-2013, 09:53 AM #72
Make a line onto the shirts of the players. Every player needs to get measured for that line at the beginning, just like the nets height is measured. This would be easily visible for the service judge. But that might interfere with strange pose some players do or players inventing new awkward pose to get the line on the T-shirt just a little bit higher. Watching Badminton via youtube I would say about 80% of every service struck is against the rules.
04-07-2013, 11:57 AM #73
04-07-2013, 12:32 PM #74
just wondering, where will the service judge sit under the new rule?
04-19-2013, 03:25 AM #75
Our club have tried it several times and it works.
04-19-2013, 02:38 PM #76
I've got a really radical idea. Why dont we leave it up to players to serve at the correct height? If at the end of the match they are found to be serving illegally then they are thrown out of the tournament, fined or the coaches fined. It seems "win at any cost" is becoming more common so instead of badminton tournament organisers having to pay a lot of money for things like hawkeye, which if impemented will slow the game down, or use a fixed height, which will change habits of all players, why not put the onus back on the players?.
Last edited by diverdan; 04-19-2013 at 02:46 PM.
04-19-2013, 06:42 PM #77
On another note, but related to this thread... if anything gets implemented that has serious punishment attached, I can see many of the players taking longer to prepare to serve... in some cases, this might get pretty painful - you could possibly even throw in a quick commercial break there!
visor liked this post
04-20-2013, 01:59 AM #78
Another idea is to have 3 strikes and then you receive a heavier penalty.
Last edited by diverdan; 04-20-2013 at 02:05 AM.
04-22-2013, 06:23 AM #79
05-02-2013, 06:49 AM #80
Furthermore I think that to specify an exact height of service is going to take away the feel that comes with the personal serve height. This would be my main argument against this new rule.
05-02-2013, 08:05 AM #81
9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server’s waist at the instant of being hit by the server’s
racket. The waist shall be considered to be an imaginary line round the body, level with the
lowest part of the server’s bottom rib
how on earth it's good as it based on an "imaginary line" that by definition nobody can see nor verify?
05-02-2013, 08:10 AM #82
at the moment, the servers are at the mercy of the service judge that even the umpire cannot overrule as he or she will not be in the best position to do so.
as bwf is going to try out the video replay for the line calls, may be they should extend that to the services as well.
05-02-2013, 08:13 AM #83
With sufficiently well-designed equipment for service judges, a fixed height should be much easier to judge; and potentially (if badminton had the money for it...) this could perhaps be automated.
But what about club play? How the hell are we going to guess how high 110 cm is, with no service judge and no fixed point of reference?
Using the net for reference doesn't work, because of parallax issues: the apparent height of any net marker on the server's body will change depending on the height of the receiver's eye. And since the receiver's eye is much higher than 110 cm, you get a lot of parallax.
The current waist/elbow reference isn't easy either, but at least you can largely ignore parallax.
05-02-2013, 08:46 AM #84
05-02-2013, 11:07 AM #85
When deciding upon rules, some consideration should be given to amateur play. A system that only works well for 1 in 10,000 players is a poor system.
I suppose there's nothing to prevent them using different rules depending on the officiation available (i.e. club rules don't change, pro rules do).
cobalt liked this post