User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 52 to 68 of 68
  1. #52
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    Craig, please look up what except means. The former clause sets up what is not allowed - the person or the racket to be over the net. There is an exception - the racket may be over the net when part of a follow through, with the shuttle strike happening on strikers side. That is the only interpretation if you understand the words.
    There is an exception - the striker may follow the shuttle over the net, stop ignoring that part and understand the words.
    so if you are to state I can follow the shuttle over with the racket, it can be interpreted that I can follow the shuttle, myself together with the racket over the net.

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,873
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, you are making thongs up. I've written a phd, I know how to be precise with language. You are just wrong.

  3. #54
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    No, you are making thongs up. I've written a phd, I know how to be precise with language. You are just wrong.
    No, to be precise would be to say the racket may follow the shuttle over the net but no part of the striker body may cross the net within the exception. The wording the striker with the racket does not proof your point sorry.

  4. #55
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just to clarify, you think that if I were to play a net kill (forget about the opponent he is off court) and I am holding the racket right up at the cone. I contact the shuttle on my side ok and follow through over the net. My finger also cross over the net line. I also needed to put my feet under the net across the line not touching, since you agree the foot part is legal, you think my finger part of body crossing would get faulted but not my feet part of my body?
    Surely that puts it into perspective.

  5. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,873
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    No, to be precise would be to say the racket may follow the shuttle over the net but no part of the striker body may cross the net within the exception. The wording the striker with the racket does not proof your point sorry.
    yes it does. The only thong mentioned in the exception is the racket. Therefore that is all that's excepted! It's that simple.

    What you wrote above is redundant and explicit. Not precise. The rule already mentions the person may not invade. It doesn't need to be said again in the exception if it is still not allowed.

    Yes, if you net kill and hand follows over the net that is a fault according to the rules.

    Just like flying spaghetti monster isn't mentioned in the exception, it does not mean you are allowed to make it up (interpret) to be in the ruled. Your interpretation is wrong because it relies on you adding information that contradicts the rule as it is written.

    You're basically arguing that 2+2=5 , and I'm saying 'not if 1+1=2'. If you don't agree, you will never be convinced, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding.

  6. #57
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Stop talking about thongs!
    Seems argument has run it's course and the thread is about net blocking so lets get back to that.
    Just accepting what you say anyway, I am still curious as to whether you think that all blocks should be judged on a maximum potential swing of the racket however strange the follow through would have to be(without fingers going over) or to be judged on the most likely guess follow through the player would take?

  7. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,873
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sorry, about thongs! I'm off my phone now, so no more thumb-mash mistakes.

    Just accepting what you say anyway, I am still curious as to whether you think that all blocks should be judged on a maximum potential swing of the racket
    Not maximum per se, but maximum such that the person didn't invade as well. In most cases this is moot anyway because the player is not close enough to reach over the net with a hand.

    I believe this because the rule states 'blocks the player from playing A shot where the shuttle is followed over the net'. This means *any* shot subject to:
    i) racket following the shuttle
    ii) person not invading


    If the rule was meant to only disallow obstruction of the actually played shot then the wording would be different.

  8. #59
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So my point is everyone has a different view of how much follow through would/could have been taken(forget about our off topic discussion), therefore there is no basis on which to make a decision consistently unless an actual clash occurs. Everyone quite rightly has there own idea of what should be called or not as you will see in any thread this comes up in and also during commentary. Some believe for instance that over head net kills only get played with short action so would not be a fault others believe racket could have hit and short action was a reaction therefore fault. The rules do not dismiss either theory being right or wrong. You said the rule was simple, but there is no collective opinion on how it should be judged.

  9. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,873
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    just because people don't understand English is not a reason to give weight to incorrect interpretations. It is not subjective at all. There doesn't need to be a collective opinion, the rules are in black and white.
    Last edited by amleto; 08-09-2014 at 09:02 AM.

  10. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,873
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, but I've got to take this post to town it's just so bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    So my point is everyone has a different view of how much follow through would/could have been taken(forget about our off topic discussion)

    so? Every time a shuttle lands near a line a judgement has to be made. Making judgement calls is nothing new.

    , therefore there is no basis on which to make a decision consistently unless an actual clash occurs.

    incorrect. It's black and white in the rules

    Everyone quite rightly has there own idea of what should be called or not

    Wrong, the rules are the rules, not anyone's arbitrary idea.

    as you will see in any thread this comes up in and also during commentary. Some believe for instance that over head net kills only get played with short action so would not be a fault others believe racket could have hit and short action was a reaction therefore fault.

    Irrelevant, either case is covered in the rules

    The rules do not dismiss either theory being right or wrong.

    Again, wrong.

    You said the rule was simple, but there is no collective opinion on how it should be judged.

    Already commented on 'collective opinion'

    There's only so many ways to dissect 'prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke'. If there exists a legal shot that could have been played, and the striker was prevented from making this shot, then the receiver has 'prevented an opponent from making a legal stroke'.

    Your arguments are based on grammatical folly.
    Last edited by amleto; 08-09-2014 at 09:20 AM.

  11. #62
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Deciding on whether a stroke has been prevented, without knowing if the stroke was completed or not has to be subjective.

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,815
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    oh, no... not again.

  13. #64
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "so? Every time a shuttle lands near a line a judgement has to be made. Making judgement calls is nothing new."

    It is totally different because the shuttle actually hits the ground and there is a line to judge against, This is more like someone catching the the shuttle 6 feet off the ground(if that were allowed) and then the umpire trying to decide whether the shuttle was going to land in or out.

  14. #65
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfPN...&lf=plpp_video

    Ok look at this video 1.50 ish(I know it is a bad angle but just assume they were very close.
    All I want to know since you seem to understand the rule in black and white is to explain this.

    The striker claims he was prevented. Nobody except the striker knows if he had completed his natural stroke and if he was to continue swinging he could have hit the defenders racket(just take that as true even though camera is bad). So does the umpire decide based on whether he would have hit with the full follow through possible before his racket would hit the top of the net or does he decide based on whether his natural stroke looked like it was just going to be a short action so no fault?

    That is what I can't gather.
    Last edited by craigandy; 08-09-2014 at 10:08 AM.

  15. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,873
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are fixating on *the* shot played, but that is not the rule. The rule explicitly mentions *a* shot. Therefore if there is *any* shot that could have been *legally played*, but was obstructed, then it is a fault.

  16. #67
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    You are fixating on *the* shot played, but that is not the rule. The rule explicitly mentions *a* shot. Therefore if there is *any* shot that could have been *legally played*, but was obstructed, then it is a fault.
    so the full follow through that would be physically possible then. this rule get called really badly in that case
    Last edited by craigandy; 08-09-2014 at 11:03 AM.

  17. #68
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,328
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You fellas won't have to bicker... If the rule were changed to require racket clashing for a fault to occur.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

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
  •