User Tag List

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    berlin
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Shuttlecock from other fields flies in your field.

    So when playing it sometimes happens that the shuttle from a different field enters our field. If that happens, is it allowed to interrupt the play and if yes by whom?
    In a league game (without umpire) that happened and the 2nd shuttle landed on my oppenents side. I interrupted the game and my oppenent said only he is allowed to interrupt the game, because the shuttle landed on his side.

    Form my point of view it doesn't matter where the shuttle is landing. It is a clear distraction to me and I should be able to interrupt the game. Couldn't find any rules that confirm opinion.

  2. #2
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    14. LETS

    14.1 ‘Let’ shall be called by the umpire, or by a player (if there is no umpire), to halt play

    14.2 It shall be a ‘let”, if:
    14.2.7 any unforeseen or accidental situation has occurred.

    Rules say by a player not a specific player just any player, so there it is covered by the rules.

    Guy was being an complete idiot, maybe next time you can stay quiet and he will slip on it and break his leg

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your opponent doesn't have the right to say that to you because sometimes, a foreign object may land on their side of the court and only you or your partner could've seen that. Had you not have stopped the play, they might have injured themselves so they should be thanking you instead.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brunei Darussalam
    Posts
    1,638
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Any sides can interrupt it. You are doing the right thing here

  5. #5
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,483
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conosen View Post
    So when playing it sometimes happens that the shuttle from a different field enters our field. If that happens, is it allowed to interrupt the play and if yes by whom?
    In a league game (without umpire) that happened and the 2nd shuttle landed on my oppenents side. I interrupted the game and my oppenent said only he is allowed to interrupt the game, because the shuttle landed on his side.

    Form my point of view it doesn't matter where the shuttle is landing. It is a clear distraction to me and I should be able to interrupt the game. Couldn't find any rules that confirm opinion.
    your opponent is wrong, anytime a shuttle flies from other courts into your court, you are allow to call it and stop play because it could very well distract you too! you are correct that it doesn't really matter where the shuttle landed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    272
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only case where this might be potentially irritating to your opponent is if the shuttle flies into their rear court as they are playing a net kill/ clearly about to win the point. They could argue that the shuttle flying into their rear court had no impact on the outcome of the rally as they were about to win the point anyway (such as the opponent hitting the shuttle on a course out the court when the let is called).

    During the course of a normal rally then either side can call it although again depending on who thinks they are in charge of the rally they might complain a bit.

    I have been in a few situations where the opponent will call a let if the rally is not going their way for whatever reason (undone shoe lace, the light flickering, shuttle breaking/ slowing down a lot) but complain no end when you call a let for them serving when you were still walking towards the service box. But that's another problem :-p

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cal Central
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's your opportunity to take a lead in matters of safety - make those house-rules. This way, everyone knows what happens, and you dont waste time in conferences especially when court-time and availability is at a premium.

    Ask this the next time such a situation arise: Should we continue to play and then let you roll off the shuttle? Or have you hit the fellow who came to retrieve his/her shuttle? What is more important - winning that rally, or going home safe?

    In a club-game, with no umpire or any other person, opponent safety is more critical than distraction. Probably best to focus on this aspect than any rules or letter of the laws of the game.

  8. #8
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheels04 View Post
    Ask this the next time such a situation arise: Should we continue to play and then let you roll off the shuttle? Or have you hit the fellow who came to retrieve his/her shuttle? What is more important - winning that rally, or going home safe?
    If it is my own safety, definitely winning the rally is more important that's why so many players carry injuries

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    865
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sevex View Post
    The only case where this might be potentially irritating to your opponent is if the shuttle flies into their rear court as they are playing a net kill/ clearly about to win the point. They could argue that the shuttle flying into their rear court had no impact on the outcome of the rally as they were about to win the point anyway (such as the opponent hitting the shuttle on a course out the court when the let is called).

    During the course of a normal rally then either side can call it although again depending on who thinks they are in charge of the rally they might complain a bit.
    With an umpire, I've seen where a player goes up for a net kill and then all of a sudden a shuttle flies in from an adjacent court and lands on the court and the player points at it and the umpire calls a let. Or, in the motion of smashing a winner, a shuttle crosses the umpire's eye and the umpire calls a let. In both situations, the player was about to win the point, but anything can happen, and especially if the player gets distracted, then a let has to be called. Of course, there will then be the arguments, but that's how it is. Shuttle flies on, I get distracted, you can't claim it is impossible for me to return your net kill, cause it's still possible.

  10. #10
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,915
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    With an umpire, I've seen where a player goes up for a net kill and then all of a sudden a shuttle flies in from an adjacent court and lands on the court and the player points at it and the umpire calls a let. Or, in the motion of smashing a winner, a shuttle crosses the umpire's eye and the umpire calls a let. In both situations, the player was about to win the point, but anything can happen, and especially if the player gets distracted, then a let has to be called. Of course, there will then be the arguments, but that's how it is. Shuttle flies on, I get distracted, you can't claim it is impossible for me to return your net kill, cause it's still possible.
    how about shuttle flies in, the umpire gets distracted, thus unable to make a fair call on the legality of the net kill? is that a considering or do we assume umpires has one thousand eyes?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cal Central
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sevex View Post
    The only case where this might be potentially irritating to your opponent is if the shuttle flies into their rear court as they are playing a net kill/ clearly about to win the point. They could argue that the shuttle flying into their rear court had no impact on the outcome of the rally as they were about to win the point anyway (such as the opponent hitting the shuttle on a course out the court when the let is called).

    During the course of a normal rally then either side can call it although again depending on who thinks they are in charge of the rally they might complain a bit.

    I have been in a few situations where the opponent will call a let if the rally is not going their way for whatever reason (undone shoe lace, the light flickering, shuttle breaking/ slowing down a lot) but complain no end when you call a let for them serving when you were still walking towards the service box. But that's another problem :-p
    In a tournament setting, with umpire and regulations and stuff, this situation is covered in the Section 2 of the Laws, see 3.5 of the recommendations to technical officials:

    3.5.2 A shuttle invading from an adjacent court shall not automatically be considered a “let”. A “let” shall not be called if, in the opinion of the umpire, such invasion:
    3.5.2.1 has gone unnoticed by the players; or
    3.5.2.2 has not obstructed or distracted the players.

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    With an umpire, I've seen where a player goes up for a net kill and then all of a sudden a shuttle flies in from an adjacent court and lands on the court and the player points at it and the umpire calls a let. Or, in the motion of smashing a winner, a shuttle crosses the umpire's eye and the umpire calls a let. In both situations, the player was about to win the point, but anything can happen, and especially if the player gets distracted, then a let has to be called. Of course, there will then be the arguments, but that's how it is. Shuttle flies on, I get distracted, you can't claim it is impossible for me to return your net kill, cause it's still possible.
    Addressing first, the slight deviation of the OP-thread: In this case, an umpire who is worth his/her clipboard and scoring device must ask him/herself this question - is this player's point genuine? Why did I not see that shuttle [suddenly] land in that area of the court? In other words, what was I watching? And why do I need to have a player bring that to my attention? And why am I being distracted with a shuttle crossing my eye?

    One of the ways for a player to gain a tiniest bit of advantage is to influence the umpire. One of the things that an umpire does is to calmly and clearly explain the basis of his/her action, whichever way is the most effective. In this case, it could be something on the lines of "[I saw ] shuttle land[ed] in back court, no distraction [obstruction]," or words to that effect. Such a ruling is precisely why there is the umpire, to adjudicate, arbitrate, situations, situations that have basis in law and are recommended practices. There is no reason for an umpire to say, "that's how it is," or worse "I got distracted," and call a let.

    Consider the situation here - player argues s/he became distracted with shuttle in back court when going for a net kill. I hear you ask, how does an umpire handle this? You asked, didn't you? If I am on the hot seat, I tell player, "I understand what you say. Shuttle in back court, you play front court, in my opinion, not a distraction, not a safety issue." May also add if required "You noticed after you lost the rally. I know what is going on here." If s/he continues to not play, then I bring the 4-tonne wt on his/her head, also called the book of laws (see above). What is the umpire doing here? First showing empathy by listening to the player point of view. Then addressing the situation with fact. Then giving the ruling preface by "in my opinion" which is the recommendation. Now, the player can continue to argue, or start waving racquet, as many other players at elite level do to call the referee. Start counting, you addressed the player concern with proper ruling when there was no distraction or safety issue. That's 1. Now the player argues and delays the play, that's 2. Pretty soon, the umpire will have adequate reason(s) to warn, or fault the player. And if I am a player, then now that I have had that 8 or 10 seconds of break, I will get on the task of winning the next rally, which is my primary aim anyway.

    A good umpire will wait just that tiny bit more before making the decision to call or not call let. A great umpire will additionally be unobtrusive, but not invisible, and never gutless.
    Last edited by 2wheels04; 12-09-2013 at 06:37 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A great umpire will just call let. Who is to say what the player is looking at, what the player has seen in his peripheral vision to put him off defending a net kill. Dealing with two shuttles on a court is not part of the game of badminton hence the rule, instant let, no ifs or buts. That recommendations thing to technical officials is ridiculous.
    Last edited by craigandy; 12-09-2013 at 07:24 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheels04 View Post
    3.5.2 A shuttle invading from an adjacent court shall not automatically be considered a “let”. A “let” shall not be called if, in the opinion of the umpire, such invasion:
    3.5.2.1 has gone unnoticed by the players; or
    3.5.2.2 has not obstructed or distracted the players.
    In the case of 3.5.2.1 If the player says he has noticed it then you(umpire) would have to take his word for it therefore there should never be an argument in this situation. How is it even vaguely possible for an umpire to possibly tell if a player has noticed the shuttle or not. Does he look longingly into their eyes for the answer? really some of the stuff BWF make up is just a disgrace. Why be so obtuse?

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
  •