# Thread: NEW: Fixed Height Experiment for Service

1. Originally Posted by V1lau
If something is judged isn't that going to be subjective?

Lets be fair, we both have 2 points to compare, my idea has the top of the net and the service point and the fixed point rule has the set height line and service point. Unless a computer is doing all the evaluation work I would say we're at the exact same place with a service judge having to determine the relative positions of the 2 points.

At that moment I think we are at draw, then if I introduce language I think will obligate the server to serve lower therefore more likely not to fault then i think i have to upper hand. If the language is exclusive to the fixed height rule then it would have the upper hand. I have other reasons why I prefer my suggestion to the fixed point, but that is another discussion.

I think if the criteria for slightly subjective is comparing one imaginary point and another real point then I don't see how that is better and more objective than having to compare 2 real points?
You don't have two points to compare. Your whole argument is based on that, and it is not true, you have told us and that is what we are trying to tell you.
You don't have the top of the net you have serve from "obviously under" or "obviously upward", that is not a point to compare, that does not exist that point, nobody knows where that point is, that point is an imagination, that point is not an identifiable point, that point could mean different thing to different people, that point is not quantifiable erm I am out of ways to put it.

On another note Just because it is Judged does not in anyway make a difference to whether the written rule is objective or not.

2. Originally Posted by craigandy
You don't have two points to compare. Your whole argument is based on that, and it is not true, you have told us and that is what we are trying to tell you.
If I am telling you to serve in an upward direction, then by default the top of the net is a point in the evaluation because you can not serve up without being below the the net, i really don't see how you're not seeing that. The service point is a given in a service situation. No matter how much you need them not to exist to prove your argument, they do! The points are not questionable only the evaluation of the relative position of the points is questionable, which we both have the service judge subjectively determining.

As I have pointed out repeatedly the "obvious" is only to shift the burden of proof and put pressure on the server to serve lower! Whether it does that or not is just a guess on my part and unimportant at the moment. I've already tried to show you why I think it is necessary language to include with regards to the limitations of human perception and judgement.

Because you want to interpret "obvious" counter to the way I intended and have explained, is why we have gone in circles. Look if I omitted the word obvious would you still have a problem with subjectivity of the rule "the serve must be hit in a upward direction"?

Originally Posted by craigandy
On another note Just because it is Judged does not in anyway make a difference to whether the written rule is objective or not.
Again I didn't the argue the written rule is objective or not, only that the judgment is, unless a robot is making the judgement.

3. Originally Posted by V1lau
Devil in your ear. I didn't make that statement.
Yes you did - it's a direct verbatim quote.

4. Originally Posted by V1lau
I've already tried to show you why I think it is necessary language to include with regards to the limitations of human perception and judgement.
You don't understand that you are fundamentally not helping. You are just making a 'fuzzy' rule as I alluded to with my baseball analogies. Yes, you can try to eliminate human error with technology. Changing the rule as you suggest does not eliminate human error, it just builds it into the game by guaranteeing that the human can never be wrong due to the inherent subjectiveness of the rule.

Because you want to interpret "obvious" counter to the way I intended and have explained, is why we have gone in circles. No, we go around in circles because you want to make up your own interpretation despite us demonstrating the actual meaning of your words.
Look if I omitted the word obvious would you still have a problem with subjectivity of the rule "the serve must be hit in a upward direction"? No problem. The rule is not subjective

Again I didn't the argue the written rule is objective or not, only that the judgment is, unless a robot is making the judgement. The judgement is not subjective. The judgement is right or wrong for a given objective decision.

It seems you do not understand the definition(s) of the words you use to put your argument across with
replies in-line.

5. Originally Posted by V1lau
If I am telling you to serve in an upward direction, then by default the top of the net is a point in the evaluation because you can not serve up without being below the the net, i really don't see how you're not seeing that.
This is insanity, It was me who told you that, look back through.

Originally Posted by V1lau
The service point is a given in a service situation. No matter how much you need them not to exist to prove your argument, they do! The points are not questionable only the evaluation of the relative position of the points is questionable, which we both have the service judge subjectively determining.
It is not a given point in your rule. If you reckon it is where is it then tell me? "Obviously below the net"- how many cm from the ground is this?

Originally Posted by V1lau
As I have pointed out repeatedly the "obvious" is only to shift the burden of proof and put pressure on the server to serve lower! Whether it does that or not is just a guess on my part and unimportant at the moment. I've already tried to show you why I think it is necessary language to include with regards to the limitations of human perception and judgement.
It doesn't shift the burden of proof on the server for all the reasons we have told you. How can you say it is unimportant at the moment. It is the whole basis of your rule and the reason it has been shot down. It is crucial.

[/QUOTE]Because you want to interpret "obvious" counter to the way I intended and have explained, is why we have gone in circles. Look if I omitted the word obvious would you still have a problem with subjectivity of the rule "the serve must be hit in a upward direction"?[/QUOTE]
I am not interpreting "obvious" any which way, I am telling you it is not possible to interpret obvious.
And with regards to your question I already answered that, in fact it was me who suggested for it to be a revised version remember?

6. I'm going to try to go back to basics here:

problem with the current rule - hard to distinguish the contact point for which to call a serve fault (too high).

potential alternative: serve must be hit upwards.
problem according to v1lau: it's not easy to judge between flat and slightly up.
proposed solution1: same rule, but judge can interpret differently. e.g. if judge is not sure shuttle is going up then he must call fault. Judge will only not call a fault when he is sure the shuttle is going upwards.

This just means the judge can 'legally' make mistakes. It has not removed the error of human perception.

proposed solution2: When serving, it is the player's responsibility to satisfy the judge that the shuttle's initial trajectory is upwards.

This practically identical to solution1.

In summary: v1lau, your proposal does not remove human error. It does not fix anything. It just makes the judge infallible.

7. [QUOTE=V1lau;2132157

Look if I omitted the word obvious would you still have a problem with subjectivity of the rule "the serve must be hit in a upward direction"?

.[/QUOTE]

In post #107 2 days ago I told you "fair enough" if no obvious in the rule. You said that was exactly your rule but reverted to using obvious in your rule every time. What is the deal here? for something that should have been a quick thank you for pointing out this can't work as a rule, we are at this point.

There is something fishy going on here. Is there something we should know about you?

8. well well well there's only one way out of this

Tee-Ball stands that fall back into the mat once you hit the serve hahahaha

9. ^ Lol! What's the story behind this?

10. It's a bus lane where the bollards are controlled by radio(?) signal/transmitter on the buses. If you don't have the signal, you're not getting through. Evidently, someone thought they could outsmart the bollards!

11. Originally Posted by craigandy
You should have We have discussed this but everybody serves from a different point in the court take mixed doubles for instance guy serves a long way from where lady does, you would have to blanket the whole first 1/3 of the court in laser.
you just need a pen-sized thing near the service judge. it's not difficult at all. well maybe in MX the lady may be positioned in a way that blocks the laser... but that's almost like having her block the view of the service judge, which doesnt happen much i think.

another way would be to mount a horizontally level camera at 110cm

12. Originally Posted by randomuser
you just need a pen-sized thing near the service judge. it's not difficult at all. well maybe in MX the lady may be positioned in a way that blocks the laser... but that's almost like having her block the view of the service judge, which doesnt happen much i think.

another way would be to mount a horizontally level camera at 110cm

A pen sized thing near the service judge? what do you mean? thanks

If it's lasers on the court I don't think that is gonna work really, probably too off putting and unnecessary.

13. How about putting two sheets of glasses in front of the service judge? Draw red lines on them respectively at 110cm. Will that work?

14. two red strings would work just as well
or maybe one string and some markings on the netpost

Originally Posted by craigandy
A pen sized thing near the service judge? what do you mean? thanks

If it's lasers on the court I don't think that is gonna work really, probably too off putting and unnecessary.
google laser level
it's jsut like a laser pointer but it projects a line.

but yea, i think using a mechanical indicator is simpler

15. Originally Posted by randomuser
two red strings would work just as well
or maybe one string and some markings on the netpost

google laser level
it's jsut like a laser pointer but it projects a line.

but yea, i think using a mechanical indicator is simpler

Haha Why would I need to google laser level, I know what that is I just didn't know what you were referring to with "pen sized thing". Many problems with shining a laser at players, not gonna work.
I don't think the solution is hard as stated before, the serve judges cubicle could be walled at 1.1 meter and just have a chin rest to hunker down on whilst serve is happening, if you see the shuttle contact then fault, this would be accurate and calibrated . A more basic solution is just have a 1.1m stick with a t bar on top, move it about where you want with a (adjustable) chin ledge on the shaft.

All this string, net post markings is gonna require too much eyeballing rather than accuracy as no calibration.

If no calibration you might aswell just keep the current inconsistently judged rule

Page 9 of 9 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•