User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 18 to 28 of 28
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Without any doubt: This rule is ambiguous! A lot of judgement involved on the side of the umpire. Everyone judges certain situations in one way or the other, some situations might not even be clear in slomo.

    The question is: Is this rule in any way critical/detrimental for the sport itself? I think it isn't! It's a rule that is very rarely needed (how often do we see such points? Once every 10 matches? How many of them are judges correctly? 80%? Makes one wrong decision every 50 matches or so (numbers are random, but you guys got my point!?)). It's nothing we should care about!

    Just to give another example of ambiguous rules: Soccer. What constitutes a "foul" is never clear. It can't be defined perfectly. Some refs are more strict, others let the players almost kill themselfes.
    How many wrong decisions do we have per game? 3? 5? 10?

    I think the net-blocking rule is not perfect, but good enough. And I've yet to see a better alternative...

  2. #19
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not to bring up another ambiguous rule or two, like the service and receiver fault rules, but when there're several combined perceived erroneous judgment calls in a game that are perceived erroneous by players and spectators, then that really throws fairness in the sport out the window.

  3. #20
    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 |_Footwork_| View Post
    How many of them are judges correctly? 80%? Makes one wrong decision every 50 matches or so (numbers are random, but you guys got my point!?)).
    The point I think is basically who knows how many are judged correctly. Nobody can define the rule.

  4. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    The point I think is basically who knows how many are judged correctly. Nobody can define the rule.
    Nobody knows how many fouls happen in soccer! Because it's up to the umpire's judgement all the time.

    The discussion is purely academical, it has absolutely no relevance for the sport.

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,786
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BWF now has slow motion camera. I think they can use it for challenges of umpire's decisions (eg, fault).

  6. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Citizen of The World
    Posts
    14,345
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I supposed this rule is subjective and up to the discretion of the umpire concerned to enforce it. Perhaps it's better to have the tournament referee review it on slow-motion camera and pass judgement as best he could. Or let the player appeal to the tournament referee if he thinks the umpire's decision/indecision is questionable, just like referring to Hawk-Eye except that there is still the subjective element.

    It's true such an infringement is rare but should it happen at crucial moments, then the consequences will be very unpleasant for the player feeling hard done by as it can change the course of the match or its final outcome. Imagine it happening at matchpoint(s) during the WC Final or Olympic Gold Medal match.

  7. #24
    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 |_Footwork_| View Post
    Nobody knows how many fouls happen in soccer! Because it's up to the umpire's judgement all the time.

    The discussion is purely academical, it has absolutely no relevance for the sport.
    I am pretty sure soccer refs have a solid understanding of the foul rule, the rule is quite descriptive, but yes the Ref has to make the call but they are all making the call based on the same idea.
    This net blocking rule not only has to be judged but the rule itself is not understandable. Why don't they just make it if blocked within a rackets length of shuttle contact, easy change, better rule, more importantly something that has a starting point to be judged the same by everyone.
    Last edited by craigandy; 06-25-2014 at 06:11 AM.

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, watching soccer, I don't have the impression that all refs have the same understanding of what constitutes a foul. Not even close...

    Your idea with "one racket length" is def better than the current wording. It's more precise. That's fine!

    Anyway: Will it lead to better judgement? I don't think so. Honestly, I think it's easier to judge whether a player is obstructed (you have a feeling for that!) that to judge "one racket length"...

    Furthermore:
    Is this issue important for the sport in any way? Important enough to change the rule?Not really. It's such a minor rule, with such little importance. There are more important issues in badminton.

  9. #26
    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 |_Footwork_| View Post
    Furthermore:
    Is this issue important for the sport in any way? Important enough to change the rule?Not really. It's such a minor rule, with such little importance. There are more important issues in badminton.
    Lol, I didn't know we had to concentrate all our powers on only the most important issues in badminton. You are probably right though, they will just leave it to as a rubbish rule no need to change it too difficult.

    BTW surely a measurement would be better to go off than a "feeling"
    Last edited by craigandy; 06-26-2014 at 11:13 AM.

  10. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BWF is just about to ruin the game with a new scoring system! That's an important issue...

    (I do agree with you, that the current rule is ambiguous (at least), I wouldn't be against a change according to your wording or something alike. That would be fine! Still, I don't bother that much...)

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever001 View Post
    Hi all,

    Is it allowed to raise racket for blocking the net kill?

    Ex: I played the net kill, my friend raised the racket. The shuttle bounced back to my court.
    Isn't the answer very simple?

    1. Yes it is allowed unless the racket raised obstruct the opponent's racket in any way.

    2. Blocking with a static racket is perfectly okay.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

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
  •