User Tag List

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Results 137 to 145 of 145
  1. #137
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Same. Cork first always.
    Agree with Visor....physically the shuttle will always lead with the cork in flight. Even tumbles at the net, the final drop path will lead with the cork. Maybe I have too much time on my hands, but I dropped a shuttle 50 times from 3 feet with feather facing the floor and could never get the feather to hit the ground first.....just a basic test but solved my curiosity

  2. #138
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hehe... since you have some time, why not check to see what's the maximum drop height in order for the bird to land on the *feathers*, dropping with the bird feather down ...

  3. #139
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Hehe... since you have some time, why not check to see what's the maximum drop height in order for the bird to land on the *feathers*, dropping with the bird feather down ...
    LOL... great minds think alike.... Yeah, at below 3 feet, you get every third or so shuttle hitting side on. So that being said, the lowest point of the net is around that point so the shuttle will always land cork first.

    Consider that when I drop it, I am holding it perfectly with cork pointing upwards and feathers downwards, but in tumbling shots off the net, any movement will result in the shuttle turning cork down due to its weight distribution. So even at around 2.5 feet, if I don't have it perfectly upside down, it will still hit cork first.....

  4. #140
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ Cool to know... Tks!

  5. #141
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Leighton Buzzard
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For some reason I have faith that BWF will work with Hawkeye and continue to perfect the system and so feel that its a 'done deal' Its here to stay so lets learn to embrace it, I can remember heated discussions about the rally point system ruining the game all those years ago.....yet its now accepted.

    My point is, do we actually need Hawkeye, especially bearing in mind the huge cost per court? Has anybody got information on the number of times challenges have been made.....and how many of those challenges have overturned a decision.

    I have worked courtside for about 20 years and yes, I have seen some horrendous line calls, but I have to say that 99.5% of the call I have seen have been correct when shown on TV or the large screen. So basically are BWF catering for a real need here or just pampering to TV and technology

  6. #142
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,438
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Littlejohn View Post
    For some reason I have faith that BWF will work with Hawkeye and continue to perfect the system and so feel that its a 'done deal' Its here to stay so lets learn to embrace it, I can remember heated discussions about the rally point system ruining the game all those years ago.....yet its now accepted.

    My point is, do we actually need Hawkeye, especially bearing in mind the huge cost per court? Has anybody got information on the number of times challenges have been made.....and how many of those challenges have overturned a decision.

    I have worked courtside for about 20 years and yes, I have seen some horrendous line calls, but I have to say that 99.5% of the call I have seen have been correct when shown on TV or the large screen. So basically are BWF catering for a real need here or just pampering to TV and technology
    even one single bad call at a crucial moment can ruin someone's career for good!
    haven't you just made the case for the hawkeye?
    Last edited by AlanY; 07-01-2014 at 03:06 AM.

  7. #143
    Regular Member speedyJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the Hawk-Eye system is a good thing for the sport.

    The first tests with the thumbs up/ thumbs down weren't really good and it wasn't clear for everyone what the final decision was.

    But now, with the animation of the exact impact point of the cork/shuttle, visible and clearly to understand for everybody, it's a very good thing.

    When the costs of the system are THAT high, then maybe it would be enough to use it at SuperSeries tournaments (and OG, WC, and so on..).

    Especially as a player I think it's nice to know that you have a chance to complain a clearly wrong line call decision.

    Even when there aren't soo many bad line calls, it's sometimes THAT single one what can change a match or is responsible for the win/loss.

  8. #144
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    A vast improvement. And hopefully BWF will listen to Gill's call for 2 challenges per game instead of per match.
    I wonder how it will play out with the 5X11 format. Perhaps 1 call per game?

  9. #145
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Leighton Buzzard
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The point I was trying to make is that is it worth spending 30K+ per court to stop one poor call, especially when there is already an 'over ride' call available to umpires, especially when the accuracy of the system is in doubt. Bring down the cost and improve that accuracy and I will be totally behind the idea, but at the moment I feel their are fasr more pressing areas that could do with an injection of cash of that magnitude

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

Tags for this Thread

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
  •