I can't find anything in the rulebook about this

[tonten]

Originally posted by Cheung
Tonten. Surprised you asked this question. Obvioulsy you have not been to many tournaments. I was shouting my head off at this years HK Open for one match whilst another match was going on simultaneously. Do you think it is reasonable for the 2nd match to be stopped or points replayed because a crowd of people are cheering/applauding for the next court?

If you allow distractions to affect you, you are losing the game. Perhaps you are already losing and looking for excuses.

bah... there's a reason why I prefer no cheering. There are usually 6 games going on at the same time and a large crowd watching. There are only two-four coaches moderating the entire gym and we are usually on the courts, watching and judging the games.

Parts of the audience may be cheering for one court, parts of them may be cheering for another.

But other parts of the audience may be deliberately distracting the players, by clapping their hands right before a player serves, or an audience member yells OUT!!! while a player is receiving a serve when it is not really out to distract him.

5 years back, this exact inccident happened. The coach from the opposing school had already warned the audience not to yell, shout, or anything like that. While the coaches were busy judging the other games, it happened. Someone yelled something on purpose to distract one of our players and she twisted her ankle.

That game could have determined if we won or lost. Although her ankle was swelling, she continued to played, knowing that we are not allowed to substitute any players into the game after 5 minutes into a match, or else we forfeit it.



It's really hard to catch people doing things in the audience whe there are so little people to watch them. Heck, there are even troublemakers in my school. They come to the games and start throwing things into the court and pieces of paper at our players just to cause trouble (This happened last year, but they got in trouble for doing so. I was lucky that I had someone to watch the audience).


heh I have never been to any tournaments =(

[tonten]

Oh and an update on the gym floor thing. I asked my atheletic director about it and he says that nothing can be done about it because all the schools are under the same contract or whatever, and that they have the same people waxing the floors and cleaning the floors every year. The qualitiy of a gym in a Vancouver public school should reflect the qualities of all the other vancouver public school gyms.


Quotes to me, "You just gotta suck it up"

hehe

[Cheung]

Originally posted by tonten
bah... there's a reason why I prefer no cheering. There are usually 6 games going on at the same time and a large crowd watching. There are only two-four coaches moderating the entire gym and we are usually on the courts, watching and judging the games.

Parts of the audience may be cheering for one court, parts of them may be cheering for another.

But other parts of the audience may be deliberately distracting the players, by clapping their hands right before a player serves, or an audience member yells OUT!!! while a player is receiving a serve when it is not really out to distract him.

5 years back, this exact inccident happened. The coach from the opposing school had already warned the audience not to yell, shout, or anything like that. While the coaches were busy judging the other games, it happened. Someone yelled something on purpose to distract one of our players and she twisted her ankle.

That game could have determined if we won or lost. Although her ankle was swelling, she continued to played, knowing that we are not allowed to substitute any players into the game after 5 minutes into a match, or else we forfeit it.



It's really hard to catch people doing things in the audience whe there are so little people to watch them. Heck, there are even troublemakers in my school. They come to the games and start throwing things into the court and pieces of paper at our players just to cause trouble (This happened last year, but they got in trouble for doing so. I was lucky that I had someone to watch the audience).

As was mentioned in another thread, you have to be mentally tougher to withstand the distractions...or even use them to your advantage (motivate you to do better). A line can be drawn so whilst heckling would be acceptable, anything personal abuse would get the person who said it thrown out. Same as throwing things on court, that's dangerous so the person is asking for themselves to be thrown out.

It's part of the game to be mentally tougher; remind your team to be mentally tough to distractions and only focus on their game. Not events around them.....even it is personal abuse. The sweetest satisfaction is to win, and let those people know you knew their dsitraction tactics but were prepared for them

Once I played a team match being the last pair on court (doubles). The opposing team were really loud even clapping to some of our mistakes. I responded by shouting very aggresively after winning each point (trying to out shout the opponents audience). My partner was a bit worried about my shouting (rather like Camilla but with a deeper voice). As it happened, with all the shouting, our opponents felt the pressure and cracked! We won the game.

I know the opposing team from before and know that they are a noisy lot. I don't hold any hard feelings towards them for it Just managed to develop a tactic that time that worked!!! It won't work all the time so you have to devise other strategies that may help you. Some people like to remain cool, calm and collected in the face of distractions - makes it obvious you are superior.

[Loh]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cooler
[B]last question first, if the shuttle hit the pole and bounce in, it is lost of serve or point by the hitting side.

In service, if this happens, I agree that the server loses his service assuming the shuttle falls short of the opponent's service line, but not when during a rally - the striker wins the point.

I also agree that there seems to be no IBF rule on floor conditions. Under normal circumstances the hosting team is supposed to ensure adequate safety of playing conditions. However, in this particular case, whilst the hosts have no problem with the floor as they have been practising on it, the visitors are not used to it and suffer as a result. Unless one team is appreciably superior than the other, the home team naturally has home court advantage. The visitors can take revenge when they become hosts and enjoy the same advantage as any home team.

The other argument is that all players are playing under the same "inadequate" conditions. although in practice, the hosts always have the advantage. As suggested, a neutral venue can reduce or eliminate the number of complaints from both teams.

[cooler]

i thought this type of call was resolved from this thread, let revisit that thread



http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/sho...highlight=post

BF is a motherlode of badminton goodies

[Loh]

Originally posted by cooler
i thought this type of call was resolved from this thread, let revisit that thread



http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/sho...highlight=post

BF is a motherlode of badminton goodies

Many thanks Cooler for referring me to the old thread on this subject. Unfortunately I joined the Forum only last year and was unable to participate in your interesting discussion.

After reading all the posts, it looks like there was still no conclusive answer to your question. You brought the matter up to one head umpire who gave you the negative answer based on certain assumptions like in most social games the posts are erected 'outside' the court, ie. boundary lines; the poles are higher, etc.

But we need something official, ie. IBF Laws, so that there is no dispute. An umpire is supposed to ensure that court equipment, ie. court measurements, net and posts heights, etc, are in order according to official standards, before he starts the match. If he still allows the match to proceed without the standard requirements, then he has to use his own discretion as regards questions on umpiring. In golf, there is such as thing called "home or house" rules which allows decisions to be made contrary to international standards e.g. when social rounds are played amongst friends in one's own club.

IBF Law #1 sets out the requirements regarding Court & Court Equipment. Rule 1.5 states: "The posts shall be placed in the doubles side lines as in Diagram A, irrespective of whether singles or doubles is being played."

The word "posts" is emphasized to indicate that they are part of the court and within the boundary lines, not outside.

And when Kwum brought out Rule 15.2, it reaffirms the decision that a shuttle which strikes the pole (or post) and "falls into the receiver's court" during a rally, is called "IN". It is not a fault, unless during service the shuttles falls short of the receiver's service line as it will be the case under normal service situations. As much as the net forms part of the court, the posts too are also a part.

Even when a shuttle is struck and travels outside the boundary lines (incl. the post) but falls within the receiver's court, it is still counted as IN.

Please convince me I'm wrong.

[badrad]

Originally posted by Loh
Many thanks Cooler for referring me to the old thread on this subject. Unfortunately I joined the Forum only last year and was unable to participate in your interesting discussion.

After reading all the posts, it looks like there was still no conclusive answer to your question. You brought the matter up to one head umpire who gave you the negative answer based on certain assumptions like in most social games the posts are erected 'outside' the court, ie. boundary lines; the poles are higher, etc.

But we need something official, ie. IBF Laws, so that there is no dispute. An umpire is supposed to ensure that court equipment, ie. court measurements, net and posts heights, etc, are in order according to official standards, before he starts the match. If he still allows the match to proceed without the standard requirements, then he has to use his own discretion as regards questions on umpiring. In golf, there is such as thing called "home or house" rules which allows decisions to be made contrary to international standards e.g. when social rounds are played amongst friends in one's own club.

IBF Law #1 sets out the requirements regarding Court & Court Equipment. Rule 1.5 states: "The posts shall be placed in the doubles side lines as in Diagram A, irrespective of whether singles or doubles is being played."

The word "posts" is emphasized to indicate that they are part of the court and within the boundary lines, not outside.

And when Kwum brought out Rule 15.2, it reaffirms the decision that a shuttle which strikes the pole (or post) and "falls into the receiver's court" during a rally, is called "IN". It is not a fault, unless during service the shuttles falls short of the receiver's service line as it will be the case under normal service situations. As much as the net forms part of the court, the posts too are also a part.

Even when a shuttle is struck and travels outside the boundary lines (incl. the post) but falls within the receiver's court, it is still counted as IN.

Please convince me I'm wrong.

the assumption that a shuttle striking the post, and landing on the opponents side to be considered IN, is based on the posts being mounted on the doubles line as specified in the rule 1.5.

where the posts are not installed to the specification of the the laws of badminton, it is up to the tournament referees to specify the validity of the post ruling.

it would be prudent for a tournament ref to describes this variances from the rules - along with the declaration of fault obstacles that are in the specific gymnasium (ie. basketball hoops/backboards, dangling ropes and structures, etc).

during recreational play it can be disputed as to whether the post is acceptable. luckily the chances of this happening is rare, especially when posts are mounting further away from the doubles lines.

[kwun]

badrad,

for the case of the pole not errected right above the doubles sideline, can we use the following rule:

it is a fault if the shuttle:

13.2.6 touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;


the only ambiguity now is what is considered "immediate surroundings".

[badrad]

Originally posted by kwun
badrad,

for the case of the pole not errected right above the doubles sideline, can we use the following rule:

it is a fault if the shuttle:

13.2.6 touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;


the only ambiguity now is what is considered "immediate surroundings".

yes, I've seen that definition used before for posts that are mounted away from the doubles lines. immediate surroundings is anything that is outside of the outined dimensions of the court space. there are mechanisms in the laws to allow for gymnasium variances that may inhibit ideal play, but again these must be defined at the beginning of the tournament to eliminate any coufusion or ambiguities.

technically speaking, if law 3.6 is not met, which states that there must be no gap between the net and the post. as well as the height of the post (law 2.1) which is violated with most multi-purpose posts.

in some multi-purpose facilities the gap between the net and the post could be even up to 2 or 3 feet away, with the height of the post being upwards to 8 feet or more to accomodate volleyball setups. in an official capacity, it really is up to the particular tournament organizers/referees to have these identified. experience officials will be able to address these. in many cases where tournaments are less official, it's a matter of common sense.

[badrad]

here's another little gem - be aware that the post must stand vertical from doubles line. in older courts, as the post ages, the tension of the net can cause the post to start bending in. this could be in violation of 2.1. some posts could be bent so far as nearly a 3 or 4 inch variance from the doubles line marking. a 4 inch gap is sufficient for a shuttle to pass without interference by the net, and could still land within the boundaries of the doubles line on the opponents side.

[Loh]

Kwun

The problem here would be whether all participants, including the umpire, consider the posts as "any other object".

For the sake of consistency with IBF Rules, I would include the posts as part of and within, "the immediate surroundings of the court".

If the posts are erected too far outside of the court boundary lines, in practice, the shot will most likely not be able to fall inside the opponent's court, although a freak return can happen.

[Loh]

After reading Badrad' subsequent replies, I agree that ultimately, it is best left to the umpire to set out the "unofficial" rules and have the participants agree in advance, to cater to the unusual circumstances.

That is normally the case with low ceiling height, ceiling structures, pillars and other obstacles which could hinder play.

[tonten]

I may sound paranoid, but I actually have been imagining what if a situation like this happened during my team's finals games.

I don't want to be arguing for hours with the opposing school's coach if the birdy was in or out. Some of the school's polls are on the doubles line. Some of them are father away. It depends on the school and almost all the schools uses some sort of multi purpose poll, which can be used for badminton/vollyball/etc.

And it seems so silly to point out and discuss this matter with the other team's coach beforehand as the chances of it happening are almost zero. I've seen alot of badminton and played alot of badminton and I have never seen this happen.

I feel like there are alot of things the IBF should clear up or update.

[badrad]

Originally posted by tonten
I may sound paranoid, but I actually have been imagining what if a situation like this happened during my team's finals games.

I don't want to be arguing for hours with the opposing school's coach if the birdy was in or out. Some of the school's polls are on the doubles line. Some of them are father away. It depends on the school and almost all the schools uses some sort of multi purpose poll, which can be used for badminton/vollyball/etc.

And it seems so silly to point out and discuss this matter with the other team's coach beforehand as the chances of it happening are almost zero. I've seen alot of badminton and played alot of badminton and I have never seen this happen.

I feel like there are alot of things the IBF should clear up or update.

If you are a visiting team, usually the home coach will address all the kids to clarify any obstacles and what is considered let or faults. As a concerned and informed coach, you should list down a set of standard questions to ask at the beginning of the introduction - or at a pregame coach's meeting. Like anything it is best to clarify and negotiate everything before something happens than after the fact.

Prepare a checklist for yourself, to also include the list of things around the gym of concern. clean floors, posts, net conditions, shuttlecock standard, spectators (no distractions), it is also common for all coach's to agree on these prior to the matches. that's your job to make sure any conditions that you feel could be a problem spot to be raised. experience will help, as you visit more gyms and meet more coaches.