User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 52 to 68 of 105
  1. #52
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,915
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    A shuttle that is taken 1-2' off the ground from outside the side court, and it goes around, not over, the net is a fault.
    you should read the whole thread. a shot that goes around and not touching the net/pole/other objects is NOT a fault.

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun
    you should read the whole thread. a shot that goes around and not touching the net/pole/other objects is NOT a fault.
    What about taking a net tumble that falls down vertically within 1 inch from the net at one foot above the floor-which means it is at least 4' below the net-but outside the court and then just push the shuttle around the outside post at a height of one foot into the opponents's court?

  3. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    What about taking a net tumble that falls down vertically within 1 inch from the net at one foot above the floor-which means it is at least 4' below the net-but outside the court and then just push the shuttle around the outside post at a height of one foot into the opponents's court?
    If you could achieve that without a carry and without touching the net or post it would not be a fault. It contravenes no law at all.

    The height of the shuttle below the net is not an issue as long as it does not go through or under the net and does not touch something outside the court (such as the net or post on the adjacent court or a judge's chair).

    Again, you would have to question the sanity of trying it when you have already won the point by virtue of the shuttle being about to land out.

    A shuttle that bounces off the top of the post and lands in is also not a fault. I've seen this happen several times.

  4. #55
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,915
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    What about taking a net tumble that falls down vertically within 1 inch from the net at one foot above the floor-which means it is at least 4' below the net-but outside the court and then just push the shuttle around the outside post at a height of one foot into the opponents's court?
    that's is up for debate. and the issue is whether the pole is an object within the court's boundary or outside the boundary.

    however, this question has nothing to do with your original incorrect assertion:

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    A shuttle that is taken 1-2' off the ground from outside the side court, and it goes around, not over, the net is a fault.

  5. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun
    that's is up for debate. and the issue is whether the pole is an object within the court's boundary or outside the boundary.

    however, this question has nothing to do with your original incorrect assertion:
    The debate is easily dealt with:

    There is no issue at all if the shuttle does not touch the post.

    If it does touch the post, law 13.2.6 is relevant:

    "It is a fault if in play, the shuttle touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;"

    The post is part of the equipment of the court and not, therefore, outside the immediate surroundings of the court.

    It is never a fault, therefore, if the shuttle hits the post as long as it ends up in, even if the post is outside the line (which it shouldn't be in a properley set up court).

    So there is not really much of a debate, is there?

  6. #57
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,915
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    The debate is easily dealt with:

    There is no issue at all if the shuttle does not touch the post.

    If it does touch the post, law 13.2.6 is relevant:

    "It is a fault if in play, the shuttle touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;"

    The post is part of the equipment of the court and not, therefore, outside the immediate surroundings of the court.

    It is never a fault, therefore, if the shuttle hits the post as long as it ends up in, even if the post is outside the line (which it shouldn't be in a properley set up court).

    So there is not really much of a debate, is there?
    CWB, i agree with your explanation.

  7. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Indonesia, Beijing
    Posts
    173
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting debate... anyone here is/are official IBF umpires/linesman?

  8. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun
    that's is up for debate. and the issue is whether the pole is an object within the court's boundary or outside the boundary.

    however, this question has nothing to do with your original incorrect assertion:
    Both cases are obviously hit around the outside post from a height that is many feet below the net and the flight of the shuttle never went above 1 foot.
    The rule says it is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net. The words 'fail to pass the net' can include the shuttle landing on the net without going over (blocked by the net) or the shuttle not going over the net. The net area is bounded by the net and posts. A shuttle that went around the post at 1-2' height on it's entire flight, would probably have great difficulty claiming that it passed the net. Pass means to go beyond. I don't think going around quite fits. To make it legal the definition of pass must include around (a more stringent one here) in addition to over or beyond.
    There are some not run-of-the-mill points in badminton that are open to dispute. What happens if the shuttle goes round the post into the court, well below tape height all the way, as well as well above tape height from the moment it was hit to the moment it crossed the tape, as the case here? Or if the server misses the shuttle all together? Or if the receiver's partner intercepts the service before the the receiver is even ready?
    The umpire is the sole arbiter but a player may appeal if he or she feels the umpired has erred in his interpretation of the law.

  9. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Both cases are obviously hit around the outside post from a height that is many feet below the net and the flight of the shuttle never went above 1 foot.
    The rule says it is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net. The words 'fail to pass the net' can include the shuttle landing on the net without going over (blocked by the net) or the shuttle not going over the net. The net area is bounded by the net and posts. A shuttle that went around the post at 1-2' height on it's entire flight, would probably have great difficulty claiming that it passed the net. Pass means to go beyond. I don't think going around quite fits. To make it legal the definition of pass must include around (a more stringent one here) in addition to over or beyond.
    There are some not run-of-the-mill points in badminton that are open to dispute. What happens if the shuttle goes round the post into the court, well below tape height all the way, as well as well above tape height from the moment it was hit to the moment it crossed the tape, as the case here? Or if the server misses the shuttle all together? Or if the receiver's partner intercepts the service before the the receiver is even ready?
    The umpire is the sole arbiter but a player may appeal if he or she feels the umpired has erred in his interpretation of the law.
    You really need to actually read the laws. They do not say what you assume they say, and are quite clear on all the points you mention, with no ambiguity.

    It is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net (law 13.2.3) but this is intended to cover the situation when the shuttle hits the net on the striker's own side and does not get to the other side.

    The law does not restrict the meaning of "pass" to "pass over".

    Clearly if the shuttle goes through, around, under or over it passes the net and is not a fault under 13.2.3. The law relevant to the original question is 13.2.6 which makes it a fault to go under or through the net. Which makes going around or over OK because neither is made a fault elsewhere in the laws.

    If the server misses the shuttle while attempting to strike it, it is a fault under law 9.3 which unambiguously states "it is a 'fault' if the server, in attempting to serve, misses the shuttle".

    On your last point two clauses come into effect.

    Law 9.6 states "the server shall not serve before the receiver is ready, but the receiver shall be considered to have been ready if a return of service is attempted".

    Note that it says "a return of service is attempted" - not "a valid return of service is made" or "the receiver attempts to return service". This is deliberate and means that the receiver's partner, in (insanely) attempting to return service makes the service valid.

    Law 11.2 states "only the receiver shall return the service; should the shuttle touch or be hit by the receiver's partner, it shall be a fault and the serving side scores a point".

    So the receiver's partner then completes the disaster by causing the fault after making the service valid while his partner is not ready.

    This also means that a server could actually try aiming to hit the receiver's partner. If he succeeds because the receiver's partner does not get out of the way (even though the shuttle would otherwise have landed in the wrong court) he gains a point. Of course this will not succeed against many players.

    It also means that a service receiver should check that his partner is not tying up his shoelaces when he gets ready to receive because the readiness of his partner is not necessary for a valid serve and an unready partner could lead to an easy point to the serving team.

    The same applies to the server and his partner, of course.

    I believe it is incumbent on every player to actually read the laws and fully understand their nuances before playing seriously.

  10. #61
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,202
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dang, after all these posts trying to explain this dispute, I go back to what I originally said, just replay the point.

  11. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S4MadMan
    Dang, after all these posts trying to explain this dispute, I go back to what I originally said, just replay the point.
    But there would be no need - the player that hit the shuttle from the adjacent court was lucky enough to win the point. Why would they want to give that up?

    The others have no complaint because they had hit miles out anyway!!!

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    The debate is easily dealt with:

    There is no issue at all if the shuttle does not touch the post.

    If it does touch the post, law 13.2.6 is relevant:

    "It is a fault if in play, the shuttle touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;"

    The post is part of the equipment of the court and not, therefore, outside the immediate surroundings of the court.

    It is never a fault, therefore, if the shuttle hits the post as long as it ends up in, even if the post is outside the line (which it shouldn't be in a properley set up court).

    So there is not really much of a debate, is there?
    I have no problem about the shuttle touching the post.
    The crux of the problem here is the intent and definition of 'fails to pass the net'. I contend that the meaning of pass the net is to go beyond. If the shuttle obviously passes over the net, it is legal. Going under the net is being negated by another law that makes it a fault, and also by the inapproriate use of the word beyond, which has more legitamacy with a shuttle over the net rather than under the net. A shuttle that goes around the post way below the tape on it's entire fight path will be hardpressed to claim that it went beyond or 'pass the net', given that the net area is well understood. It would be a different story if the outside areas of the post are considered as part of the net, which they are not.

  13. #64
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,915
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Both cases are obviously hit around the outside post from a height that is many feet below the net and the flight of the shuttle never went above 1 foot.
    The rule says it is a fault if the shuttle fails to pass the net. The words 'fail to pass the net' can include the shuttle landing on the net without going over (blocked by the net) or the shuttle not going over the net. The net area is bounded by the net and posts. A shuttle that went around the post at 1-2' height on it's entire flight, would probably have great difficulty claiming that it passed the net. Pass means to go beyond. I don't think going around quite fits. To make it legal the definition of pass must include around (a more stringent one here) in addition to over or beyond.
    we need to state the meaning of these 4 terms:

    pass
    go beyond
    go around
    go over

    you are right that:

    - pass is the same as go beyond

    but you are incorrect that you assume go beyond can only be achieved by go over.

    go beyond can be achieved by going around as well.

    There are some not run-of-the-mill points in badminton that are open to dispute. What happens if the shuttle goes round the post into the court, well below tape height all the way, as well as well above tape height from the moment it was hit to the moment it crossed the tape, as the case here? Or if the server misses the shuttle all together? Or if the receiver's partner intercepts the service before the the receiver is even ready?
    The umpire is the sole arbiter but a player may appeal if he or she feels the umpired has erred in his interpretation of the law.
    as explained by CWB001, these are not open to dispute, they are all clearly stated in The Laws of Badminton. the laws are quite a wonderful piece of work and one can learn a lot about badminton from it. i suggest you read the laws from front to back for you own education and benefit. here is some links to it for your convenience:

    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badm...nt/view/82/56/

    or:

    http://www.worldbadminton.net/Portal...s/laws2002.pdf

  14. #65
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,915
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    I have no problem about the shuttle touching the post.
    The crux of the problem here is the intent and definition of 'fails to pass the net'. I contend that the meaning of pass the net is to go beyond. If the shuttle obviously passes over the net, it is legal. Going under the net is being negated by another law that makes it a fault, and also by the inapproriate use of the word beyond, which has more legitamacy with a shuttle over the net rather than under the net. A shuttle that goes around the post way below the tape on it's entire fight path will be hardpressed to claim that it went beyond or 'pass the net', given that the net area is well understood. It would be a different story if the outside areas of the post are considered as part of the net, which they are not.
    you are trying to re-define the work "pass" here. pass doesn't only mean go over, it can be go around as well.

    eg. if you are driving, how do you pass the car in front of you? i hope you don't drive over it...

    there is no need to re-define the english language for the sake of badminton, badminton laws is written with the current English definition.

  15. #66
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,741
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with Kwun that this situation has been brought up and discussed at length before and the conclusion, with reference to the Laws (which Kwun and others have now revisited) and in consultation with international badminton umpires, was that it is a legal shot.

    It was also pertinent that Gollum shared his experience on the issue with us and I agree with him as well.

    I'm thankful that both Kwun and CWB001 have even made the discussion more interesting, in reply to your equally thought-provoking points, and their arguments seem to substantiate the verdict much better.

    But whoever is able to play such seemingly uncharactistic shots deserves to win the point.

  16. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,879
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For heaven's sake, it's really very simple!

    Read The Laws.

    Or as we say in the computer biz,

    Read The F**king Manual

  17. #68
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,202
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    For heaven's sake, it's really very simple!

    Read The Laws.

    Or as we say in the computer biz,

    Read The F**king Manual
    No we don't, we say, "RTFM YFF".

    w00t!

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    : 10-16-2011, 05:17 PM
  2. Badminton Rule Check - The Ceiling
    By raymond in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 16
    : 07-18-2010, 05:54 PM
  3. Badminton rule question
    By kan2005 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 11
    : 08-21-2008, 04:12 PM
  4. Badminton Rule Dispute - Addendum
    By Neil Nicholls in forum General Forum
    Replies: 17
    : 10-03-2005, 09:09 PM
  5. Badminton RULE question.
    By David in forum General Forum
    Replies: 3
    : 11-17-2001, 09:12 PM

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
  •