View Poll Results: IN or OUT?
- 84. You may not vote on this poll
Thread: IN or OUT?
09-21-2004, 06:47 PM #86
If were to become the line judge for this game and for that call, I'll say IN.
If I were to do the judging from that still capture, I'll say it's OUT. Or IN. Or OUT. Or IN. Or OUT.
Of course, you won't expect me to say one thing and change my mind later, no? And definitely, not "I don't know". Especially not in a match like this.
If it is so easy to discern, why is there an almost balanced split of vote on BF, not a big 78:3 towards IN for example? To make things worst, we actually have more time and a closer look at it than the line judge himself.
Big debate, big debate. Keep em' coming!
09-21-2004, 06:48 PM #87Originally Posted by cooler
09-21-2004, 07:13 PM #88
Well, the linejudge saw the shuttle landed whereas the rest of us had this still picture of the shuttle still in the air to speculate. I don't see why you should belittle linejudges in this matter. For me, the only thing relevant with this poll is whether the shuttle hits the line or not... all other issues are extraneous and moot. It's 'in' according to the linejudge and that's the answer to the poll.
Originally Posted by cooler
09-21-2004, 07:47 PM #89
You can't tell!!!
In or Out is just your opinion. But u can't tell, u can't predict before it lands. In many games i watched, it seems totally in but it's out, or vice versa, this is because the camera angle can really fool u.
09-21-2004, 08:17 PM #90Originally Posted by cooler
1. Umpire can always remove Line Judge (in cosulatation with Referee, 2.3)
2. IBF is still trialling rule change whereby Umpire can overrule Line Judge.
Tournmanet can elect to use "IBF Experimental Overrule" amendment.
Sorry can remember the details on this one, a friend is going to E-mail me that,
later today. This was used at 2004 Australian International.
09-21-2004, 08:58 PM #91Originally Posted by jump_smash
Line judges are located where they are on the court for the obvious reasons: to be the third eye of the umpire in places where he/she cannot see.
Use this 'IN or OUT' example and you will see that an umpire may not be able to see any better than the line judge could.
I'd prefer a third official with video like football's fourth official for ambiguous calls, but some are actually against it because it ruins the 'drama' and 'romance' of football. Would that happen in badminton? Still, this can be a problem by itself - as in 'IN or OUT', what if the call is way too close?
09-22-2004, 01:43 AM #92
I don't think it is good for the game that the umpire can overrule the linejudge. It is obvious that the umpire isn't placed so he can judge the impact...
09-22-2004, 02:45 AM #93
From a physical location point of view, I agree that the LJ should be in a much better position to see whether the shuttle touches the line or not, especially when the shot is to the baseline or at a spot much further away from the umpire than the LJ.
But sometimes the LJ is caught 'sleeping' or not paying attention and he refused to admit it by signalling 'unsighted'. We have also seen some LJs are biased in favour of their countrymen to the detriment of the opponent. If he makes a wrong decision which is followed up by the aggrieved player's protest and if the umpire is near enough to witness the shot, eg shuttle lands on or outside of the sidelines nearer to the umpire's chair, and agrees with the player, then I suppose the umpire can overrule the LJ. This sort of instances should be quite rare, I must admit.
Of course, in a case like this the LJ may have to be changed, here again it is up to the umpire's discretion. Or a protest for a change of the LJ can be channeled to the Referee by the player's manager, I believe.
09-23-2004, 10:50 PM #94
Here is a close up in Grayscale
We can see that there is a gap between the feathers and the line.
We can also see a shadow underneath the shuttle which indicates that it is still airborne.
My gut reaction is out, however if you go by the definition that it is 'in' if it touches any part of the line...part of the shadow touches the fringe of the line....
The call could go eitherway, I think the poll reflects this nicely
09-24-2004, 03:09 AM #95Originally Posted by seven
I have seen matches on TV where a linejudge has called IN when the shuttle looked out even to people watching the TV. The TV broadcast then shows a slow motion replay from a better angle and shows that the shuttle was easily 6 inches out.
This is the sort of gross error that an umpire should be able to overrule.
09-24-2004, 03:35 AM #96Originally Posted by cooler
09-24-2004, 10:33 AM #97
Haven't been here in a few weeks, so I haven't bothered reading through all the posts.
Clearly, the shuttle is OUT, because the tip of the cork is out. When the shuttle cork first contacts the ground, the rally is over. In this case, the tip of the cork is pretty much in the middle. Just because the outer radii of the cork is "on/over" the line doesn't matter because the rally is over when that tiny point on the cork hits outside the floor.
I was at a camp once, and the coach spent a good ten minutes on this. He demonstrated using a shuttle whether it is in or out, base on where the first contact of the cork is. Another situation is when the shuttle is on a nearly horizontal flight path, and looks like it catches the baseline, when really it is OUT.
Granted, most people will call this in in friendly/non-competitive matches.
09-24-2004, 11:02 AM #98Originally Posted by Phil
As i have said most line judges were given 2 minute crash course. Being Cooler and wasn't satisfied, i actually went created various scenarios of shuttlecock making contact with surface AT VERY CLOSE VISUAL DISTANCE. I had examined the cork contact position at various landing contact angles at close visual range. On pure technical base, the first molecule of the cork cover touches the first molecule of the wood or rubber mat floor, the rally is over.
Mag, i bet no umpires with full knowlege of IBF rule went through the visual training or investigation like i have. Knowing the IBF rule doesnt help in this case because no umpire or line judge can microscopically see the contact point. The only way to make the right call is to understand and to have seen these situation beforehand so that in real situation, a right call can be made (in an instance too)through understanding because there is no way anybody could actually see the exact contact point, expecially given the distance, angle of sight and shadow which all hinder visual clarity.
My call remains unchange, EZ and out. Easy because in my mind i know the answer already for those circumstances.
As of writing, 52.38% line calls from BC members are, imo, incorrect even under close visual with zoom and freeze frame photo LOL So, what make a line judge making a better call (IN) live during the actual game huh?
Last edited by cooler; 09-24-2004 at 11:16 AM.
09-24-2004, 11:20 AM #99
i got timeouted.
I want to edit my statement
Mag, i bet umpires with full knowlege of IBF rules, 99% of them haven't went through the visual training or investigation like i have. Now, let see, hmm, how many line judges know all the IBF rules
Last edited by cooler; 09-24-2004 at 11:31 AM.
09-24-2004, 12:25 PM #100
cooler, you know wise men admit their mistakes! (so why not be wise on this one... )
Anyway, I won't argue about this, I think it is pointless!
09-24-2004, 03:19 PM #101Originally Posted by seven
if u read more of my posts, u would find i do admit mistakes when situation warranted but i dont back off if i think my claims stand. Here are links to all my oops. Go check them out if you want.
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...searchid=93630 I have admitted lots of oops so i must be a wise man. Thank you Seven.
I will continue to make line calls based on my above judgement. If you don't like it, you better report me to the IBF and our canadian badminton assocation because i'm such a bad line judge. I triple dare you.
Last edited by cooler; 09-24-2004 at 03:24 PM.
09-25-2004, 06:53 AM #102
Sorry if I offended you, I was NOT saying that "you are not wise" in general, just saying that you could be wise in this particular case!
If I don't want to argue about this, it is not that I have no (good) points, it is
1/ that the subject isn't worth it
2/ that I don't think you would change your mind, whatever my arguments
My time on Earth being limited , I won't lose time on such trivial discussions!