User Tag List

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 69 to 85 of 105
  1. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Cebu, Philippines
    Posts
    375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how a shuttle passing around the net is "passing through or under the net?

    As has been explained several times on this thread (with quotes of the relevant law), the shot was bizarre but perfectly legal.
    If you've read my reply to the bigredlemon, he was not talking about what if the shuttle passes through the net. He was not asking if it's legal if it goes around the net. Please read the posts comprehensively before replying.

    Thanks,
    Keith

  2. #70
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am so sorry, you are quite right...

    ...except when you said

    Quote Originally Posted by keith_aquino
    he was not talking about what if the shuttle passes through the net.
    Keith
    because he was talking about the shuttle going through the net.

  3. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Cebu, Philippines
    Posts
    375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    I am so sorry, you are quite right...

    ...except when you said



    because he was talking about the shuttle going through the net.
    Oops, caught guilty

  4. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?

  5. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?
    Well, think about it.

    How many times have you seen a player return a net tumble that would have landed out (probably it would have to be very far outt, too) by sending it outside the post? Almost certainly never.

    How about a net tumble that would have landed in? Here a very, very bent sharp-angled banana shot is required and I bet you've seen even fewer of those.

    I''d be willing to bet my annual income against £10 that you couldn't perform such a shot if you tried it all day from my feeds. You'll probably go your entire badminton career and never see it.

    The reason, I suspect, that around-the-post shots are not faults is that it would be virtually impossible to judge (from an umpire's chair, or the player's position) whether they were outside the post or above the line of the net, if close to either. So for the extremely rare case that arises (and almost always for a shot that should have been left to fall out) the complications are just not worth it. It is much better to have a completely clear law that is easy to assimilate than to have too much to argue about.

    The only other option is to make obsolete all the world's badminton equipment by having a vertical extension to the post. This would be just plain silly.

    So why worry about it? The law is clear about what happens even if the number of occurences are few and far between.

    By the same token the serve law talks about the racquet head being discernably below the hand at the moment of impact, so if the judge cannot see it whether it is below then it is a clear fault. Or should be!!!

  6. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A net tumble on the extreme side can tumble 1"-2" outside the post. Say you take it 6 inches from the floor. In case 1 your reply goes under the net in between the posts. In case 2 you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post. One is a fault, the other is a perfectly legal. Is the law in this case implemented because of administrative/expediency reason? I think it kind of looks strange.

  7. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    A net tumble on the extreme side can tumble 1"-2" outside the post. Say you take it 6 inches from the floor. In case 1 your reply goes under the net in between the posts. In case 2 you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post. One is a fault, the other is a perfectly legal. Is the law in this case implemented because of administrative/expediency reason? I think it kind of looks strange.
    1. If you return a shot that is 2" out you are not very sensible and the point is moot. Remember 2" outside the post is 2" outside the line.

    2. If you are taking net tumbles that low you need to move a lot faster. You'll break a lot of racquets and give away a lot of points otherwise.

    3. This
    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post.
    is not a "just tap it" situation. If it was going to land in then the shot is practically impossible, as I said before. If it was going to land out then you already have the point - why return it?

    I'd be interested to hear how many net tumbles you take 6" from the floor, laning in, that you manage to return by "tapping it around the post" over the course of the coming season. If it is more than zero I'll eat my racquet.

    It is hardly a case of administrative expediency. More a case of a law that is easy to understand and implement on court, that has the right effect in all sensibly likely situations.

  8. #76
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,238
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Die thread, die.

    Oh, S4MadMan was here.

  9. #77
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've just thought of something. If you were playing with umpires, service judges etc this shot would not be possible because it would hit the umpire's chair

  10. #78
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lymm, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,287
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast3r
    I've just thought of something. If you were playing with umpires, service judges etc this shot would not be possible because it would hit the umpire's chair
    what a fantastic thread sealing post.

    however...

    just on taneepak's note..
    1. why hit it if it was out..
    2. if it was close enough to the line for you to bottle it and try to return it then it is surely to close to the post to hit it round it. (width of the shuttle etc... )
    3. if you do manage it and hit it like you say, does the 'underneath the net' clause come into effect since at 6" above the floor your are clearly below the tape, altho outside the post? i think the definition of under the net needs to be cleared up. I'm qutie happy to take it that under the net means under the net which is between the posts, but i'm not sure. part of me thinks that under the net defines a particular height for an imaginary line. who knows!

    good thread.. can't believe it's legal but you guys are right.. the clause which you'd expect to deal with it seems to clearly omit around the net. obviously it was omitted because it's impossible to bend a shot (without a draft... hmmm surprised nobody tried it at the WC if the draft was as bad as suggested)

    lol - i'm gonna try it next monday, the hall i play at has particularly bad air conditioning on one court.. will certainly work

    Coops

  11. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    i think the definition of under the net needs to be cleared up. I'm qutie happy to take it that under the net means under the net which is between the posts, but i'm not sure. part of me thinks that under the net defines a particular height for an imaginary line. who knows!

    Coops
    Yes, under the net means literally that - under the net, which is between the posts. There are no imaginary lines to be taken into account.

    As to "who knows" - well, anyone who has read the laws.

    Opposite the umpire's chair, of course, is the service judge's chair. But more inhibiting than that, for a top quality player, is the point that they do not want to be seen going for a shot that is obviously miles out anyway.

  12. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,981
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?
    Nothing wrong with that law. It makes perfect sense -- the only way to gain advantage is if your opponent's net tumble is going out. In that case, why bother? Just let it go out.

    If you think you can get it around the edge of the post, then maybe you should think about leaving it

  13. #81
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, no ... but I MUST win!

    -dave

  14. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    china , hong kong
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LazyBuddy
    Even if it's clearly below the net height?
    no its not below

  15. #83
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Yes, under the net means literally that - under the net, which is between the posts. There are no imaginary lines to be taken into account.

    As to "who knows" - well, anyone who has read the laws.

    Opposite the umpire's chair, of course, is the service judge's chair. But more inhibiting than that, for a top quality player, is the point that they do not want to be seen going for a shot that is obviously miles out anyway.
    The Laws indeed made no mention of "imaginary lines", but without these how can we define the area "over the net" in:
    Law 9.1.8 the flight of the shuttle shall be upwards from the serverís racket to pass over the net so that, if not intercepted, it lands in the receiverís service court (ie on or within the boundary lines).

  16. #84
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,238
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wood_22_chuck
    No, no ... but I MUST win!

    -dave
    But what happens if you lose?

  17. #85
    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 Gollum
    Nothing wrong with that law. It makes perfect sense -- the only way to gain advantage is if your opponent's net tumble is going out. In that case, why bother? Just let it go out.

    If you think you can get it around the edge of the post, then maybe you should think about leaving it
    Even top players do play shots that are more than 2 inches out, or more than 2 inches in, simply because they are not always spot on.

Page 5 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
  •