User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 35 to 51 of 77
  1. #35
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Regarding situation #4:
    Firstly, the initial point of contact (as mentioned in 13.3) is the only thing that is possible to judge by human eye. In other words, this is what is used in practise --- just like the definition of "waist" (lowest rib) and "undue delay" (5 seconds) when serving, none of which are specified in the rule book.

    Secondly, the exception in 13.4.2 refers to the whole of 13.3, thus it is indeed the initial point of contact that is the key. You seem to think that the exception applies only to the part that's parenthesized.

    ---

    13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the strikerís side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

    13.4.2 invades an opponentís court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;
    Last edited by Mag; 05-06-2005 at 04:59 AM.

  2. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    LuckyTown
    Posts
    777
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    Regarding situation #4:
    Firstly, the initial point of contact (as mentioned in 13.3) is the only thing that is possible to judge by human eye. In other words, this is what is used in practise --- just like the definition of "waist" (lowest rib) and "undue delay" (5 seconds) when serving, none of which are specified in the rule book.

    Secondly, the exception in 13.4.2 refers to the whole of 13.3, thus it is indeed the initial point of contact that is the key. You seem to think that the exception applies only to the part that's parenthesized.

    ---

    13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the strikerís side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

    13.4.2 invades an opponentís court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;
    So situation #4 is therefore illegal?
    Good call Mag.

  3. #37
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting interpretation of my post.

    NO -- Initial point of contact is on striker's side of net, so #4 is legal.

  4. #38
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    Interesting interpretation of my post.
    NO -- Initial point of contact is on striker's side of net, so #4 is legal.
    but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle, so the shuttle is no longer in play because a fault has occured, so where you hit the shuttle is irrelevant.

    13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.

  5. #39
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
    /.../13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.
    So please tell us exactly which part of 13.3 that says so.

    It is a mystery to me how you guys read the rules.

  6. #40
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,194
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE=Neil Nicholls]but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle,

    Not necessarily. This is normally a single stroke when the two events (invasion and contact), happen simultaneously. Like tapping downwards close to the net.
    Last edited by Loh; 05-07-2005 at 10:33 AM.

  7. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what if, because of my unique technique or style, a big portion of my racket invade the opponent's plane BUT i still make the shuttle contact on my side first? If by your interpretation, some racket invasion is allow as long as shuttle contact made on my side first, i can really abuse this rule because i can change my stroke style (with lot of racket invasion) and meet shuttle contact on my side criteria

  8. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE=Loh]
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
    but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle,

    Not necessarily. This is normally a single stroke when the two events (invasion and contact), happen simultaneously. Like tapping downwards close to the net.
    I agree with Cooler on his point. Also, it is impossible to have invasion and contact occur simultaneously in physics. Only situation come close to what you describe is to have racquet exactly lined up above the net and block the shot without any motion. I just want to say that most of the time this will be called legal because no ref has the eyes good enough to call this illegal during a play. Just like tennis, you must not play the shot to argue the point. During a match, not a lot of people are welling to do that. In spirit of rule, I still think it is illegal. In real situation, if you can get to the shot, play on as it is legal. If you can not get to the shot, it is a nice shot and you should concede because the person most likely did not intend to cross over to start with. Unless there is a video judge during the match, this is all just an argument. Badminton is a gentalmen/ladies' game...

  9. #43
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE=silentheart]
    Quote Originally Posted by Loh

    I agree with Cooler on his point. Also, it is impossible to have invasion and contact occur simultaneously in physics. Only situation come close to what you describe is to have racquet exactly lined up above the net and block the shot without any motion. I just want to say that most of the time this will be called legal because no ref has the eyes good enough to call this illegal during a play. Just like tennis, you must not play the shot to argue the point. During a match, not a lot of people are welling to do that. In spirit of rule, I still think it is illegal. In real situation, if you can get to the shot, play on as it is legal. If you can not get to the shot, it is a nice shot and you should concede because the person most likely did not intend to cross over to start with. Unless there is a video judge during the match, this is all just an argument. Badminton is a gentalmen/ladies' game...
    yes, that's where i'm coming from.
    I'm not trying to overrule umpire or judges, i'm just stating the spirit of the rule.Because badminton is a very technical game, fraction of a second or a few mm (or sq. mm) difference can make you win or lose a point. If invasion of a striker racket over opponent area before striking shuttle is allow, the by-law should clarify that.

    Personally i think for the interest of the game, if my opponent make a nice tight hail mary return, i shouldn't be allowed to invade his/her side of area for a net kill but rather forces me to make a lift or a less dangerous straight drive return instead, not a net tap shot downward just because i can reach my racket over and tap it down. This would extends the rally and make the game more exciting. This concept also reduce miscalls on striker's racket versus shuttle touching the net on those super tight tap shot/net kill.
    Last edited by cooler; 05-07-2005 at 02:34 PM.

  10. #44
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
    13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    So please tell us exactly which part of 13.3 that says so.
    It is a mystery to me how you guys read the rules.
    13.3
    if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

    the bit in bold

    If the two of use walked through a doorway, and I were to follow you, which of us went through first? I can't follow you unless you go first.

  11. #45
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
    but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle,
    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    Not necessarily. This is normally a single stroke when the two events (invasion and contact), happen simultaneously. Like tapping downwards close to the net.
    We are talking about Gollum's situation 4, in which the tip of the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle.

    P.S. I think simultaneous invasion is tough to call if the shuttle is partly on both sides of the net at time of contact. It depends if the whole of the shuttle has to go over the net before the racquet can follow it.

  12. #46
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
    /.../
    13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.
    Somewhere around the word only is your logical somersault. That's not actually what the rule says.

    In any case, surely you don't expect a human umpire to be able to judge a call like that? In case #4 it would be impossible to tell that from a follow-through that continues over the net. If one says that #4 should be illegal, then there is no other option than to prohibit all invasion of the opponent's court space -- including follow-throughs.

  13. #47
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    Somewhere around the word only is your logical somersault. That's not actually what the rule says.

    In any case, surely you don't expect a human umpire to be able to judge a call like that? In case #4 it would be impossible to tell that from a follow-through that continues over the net. If one says that #4 should be illegal, then there is no other option than to prohibit all invasion of the opponent's court space -- including follow-throughs.
    The rules state it clearly:

    13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the strikerís side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);
    13.4.2 invades an opponentís court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;

    From the above, isn't it right if I say

    1. Initial point of contact with the shuttle must be on the striker's side.
    Do you agree?

    2. Racket or person cannot cross over the net.
    Do you agree (not withstanding the exception)?

    Exception to 2: Racket may go over the net following the shuttle, which implies after the stroke, which means after the initial point of contact.
    Do you agree?

    So, if the breach occurs before the initial point of contact, it is a foul. In fact, I don't understand how people can see it any other way.

    Of course, you're right in saying it's hard to judge such instances, but that's not the point of this thread. If we cannot even agree on whether it is legal or not legal based on two little clauses, then how can we even give judgement?

  14. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    Of course, you're right in saying it's hard to judge such instances, but that's not the point of this thread. If we cannot even agree on whether it is legal or not legal based on two little clauses, then how can we even give judgement?
    Precisely! Call a 'LET' it's the only solution to this kind of situations

  15. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    Somewhere around the word only is your logical somersault. That's not actually what the rule says.
    I think it does.
    Can you explain how it is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    In any case, surely you don't expect a human umpire to be able to judge a call like that? In case #4 it would be impossible to tell that from a follow-through that continues over the net.
    I refer you to what I said in post #19
    "But I think it is too hard for the umpire to rule on this, unless cameras and slow-motion replays are used. And that would interfere with the flow of play."

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    If one says that #4 should be illegal, then there is no other option than to prohibit all invasion of the opponent's court space -- including follow-throughs.
    no.
    The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke
    if no other faults are committed.
    What does the word "follow" mean?

    incidentally, I believe it is also legal to have a double hit, where the initial contact is on your side, and the second contact is on the other side of the net, as long as it is a legal double hit i.e. 1 stroke

  16. #50
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ouch. I wish somebody told me I had to read the rule up until the word "follow". Maybe I should go see a doctor, or take a few days off.
    Luckily that wasn't my point though.

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    /.../ Of course, you're right in saying it's hard to judge such instances, but that's not the point of this thread. If we cannot even agree on whether it is legal or not legal based on two little clauses, then how can we even give judgement?
    Unless we're just splitting hairs, isn't that EXACTLY the point? In a sense, it doesn't even matter what the rules say on this, because the only thing that CAN be practically judged by a human is whether the initial point of contact is over the net or not (or whether a player invades opponent's court space or not, you can't judge BOTH). And indeed, that is the interpretation of the rule in practical application in real tournaments, with real umpires (real humans) umpiring. Just think about the consequences of any other interpretations or the rule.

  17. #51
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mag
    Luckily that wasn't my point though.
    I'm not sure I know what your point is then.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Net Kills
    By CkcJsm in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 11
    : 02-26-2009, 08:00 PM
  2. Apple Aperture kills Photoshop...
    By aquaboi in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 10
    : 03-27-2008, 11:36 AM
  3. What kills the shot
    By Jumpalot in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 10
    : 08-04-2005, 07:00 PM
  4. Any drills to help improve net kills?
    By oab729 in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 6
    : 04-22-2005, 11:13 AM
  5. brushes & kills ?
    By Jessica in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 6
    : 12-04-2001, 10:51 AM

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
  •