User Tag List

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 86 to 102 of 105
  1. #86
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Many years ago the Company that I was with used to bring income tax test cases to challenge the Hong Kong Inland Revenue, for the specific purpose of forcing a clear cut legal definition that makes sense.
    Even now in Hong Kong, any man in the street can and does seek a judicial review of an interpretation of a piece of legislation.
    The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.

  2. #87
    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 taneepak
    Many years ago the Company that I was with used to bring income tax test cases to challenge the Hong Kong Inland Revenue, for the specific purpose of forcing a clear cut legal definition that makes sense.
    Even now in Hong Kong, any man in the street can and does seek a judicial review of an interpretation of a piece of legislation.
    The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the posts is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.
    This should be the correct one.

  3. #88
    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
    The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.
    make sense to you or not, the law is what is written down in Laws of Badminton.

    we have already told you your interpretation of the relavent laws is incorrect. i suggest you write to the IBF and file a formal complaint...

  4. #89
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,200
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun
    make sense to you or not, the law is what is written down in Laws of Badminton.

    we have already told you your interpretation of the relavent laws is incorrect. i suggest you write to the IBF and file a formal complaint...
    And here's the addy to the IBF...

    Actually, I'm sure Taneepak has it.

  5. #90
    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
    The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.
    does this make sense to you?

    a shuttle that hits the net tape and not roll over is a fault, while a similar one just above the tape gets away scot-free.


    imaginary boundaries are bad. physically verifiable boundaries are good.

  6. #91
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, here's a scenario for you guys to think about...

    Defective posts:
    The hall I play in has some defective posts in that they have been bent inward towards the court (most probably some overly excited players trying to pull the net too tight).

    With the nets bent inward (some tops are actually bent up to 6" from where they ought to be), there is a gap of a few inches on either side of the net for someone to make the kind of 'impossible' shots that people are talking about in this thread.

    It doesn't happen often but it has (I've done it myself once) and when my opponent complained that it went around the post I just said ok and gave away the point - no big deal just a social game but if it was a close game in a comp I'm not sure I would give it away that easily.

    Thoughts anyone? Oh, and before anyone tells me to fix the posts, I've tried to get the gym people to fix it but they simply can't be bothered to spend the money - them not being badminton players and all.

  7. #92
    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
    does this make sense to you?

    a shuttle that hits the net tape and not roll over is a fault, while a similar one just above the tape gets away scot-free.


    imaginary boundaries are bad. physically verifiable boundaries are good.
    Yes, it does make sense because the latter went over, the former did not. Pushing a shuttle 6" from the floor around the post for a distance of 6", in which the highest height was 6" and the lowest the opposite court floor, is not verifiable? If it is considered not verifiable when the fact is so obvious, then I am inclined to think that the law's intent is to take away any discretion of the umpire, and is to be implememted, warts and all, simply for administrative/expediency reasons.
    If the law says a serve must be over the net, does it mean only serves must be over the net and all other shots can be both around the posts and over the net-one for the gender, the other for the goose?
    The around the posts interpretation makes sense if the shot is discernably over the net, or even marginally below the tape. Under such a situation, any wind that makes a wide shot curve in, is part of the game. To leave this to the umpire's judgement or discretion will create more problems.
    If the law is so interpreted even if it brings an uproar or disbelief from the crowd, then shouldn't there be a law that will allow for any unusual situation, when the strict interpretation looks rather foolish, to redress this?

  8. #93
    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
    Yes, it does make sense because the latter went over, the former did not. Pushing a shuttle 6" from the floor around the post for a distance of 6", in which the highest height was 6" and the lowest the opposite court floor, is not verifiable? If it is considered not verifiable when the fact is so obvious, then I am inclined to think that the law's intent is to take away any discretion of the umpire, and is to be implememted, warts and all, simply for administrative/expediency reasons.
    If the law says a serve must be over the net, does it mean only serves must be over the net and all other shots can be both around the posts and over the net-one for the gender, the other for the goose?
    The around the posts interpretation makes sense if the shot is discernably over the net, or even marginally below the tape. Under such a situation, any wind that makes a wide shot curve in, is part of the game. To leave this to the umpire's judgement or discretion will create more problems.
    If the law is so interpreted even if it brings an uproar or disbelief from the crowd, then shouldn't there be a law that will allow for any unusual situation, when the strict interpretation looks rather foolish, to redress this?
    there come the flaw of your argument. how much is discernable? how do you measure it? how high up the pole should the boundary be? 3ft? 4ft? 4ft 2inches? how about if 1/2 the shuttle is above while 1/2 is outside the net? who has the best view point to make the decision?

    one of the problems with your interpretation is that it cannot be enforced precisely as you rely on imaginary boundary. judging such a boundary will not be accurate and will create even more dispute.

  9. #94
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is this Grounghog day? Will this thread never end?

    [QUOTE=libra]Ok, here's a scenario for you guys to think about...

    Defective posts:
    The hall I play in has some defective posts in that they have been bent inward towards the court (most probably some overly excited players trying to pull the net too tight).

    With the nets bent inward (some tops are actually bent up to 6" from where they ought to be), there is a gap of a few inches on either side of the net for someone to make the kind of 'impossible' shots that people are talking about in this thread.

    QUOTE]

    The appendix to the laws dealing with equipment variations says:

    Where it is not practicable to have posts on the sidelines, some method shall be used to indicate the position of the sidelines where they pass under the net, eg by the use of thin posts or strips of material 40 mm wide, fixed to the side lines and rising vertically to the net cord.

    They obviously hadn't thought of your scenario in particular, but to compy you could attach a thin stick to the post where the bend occurs, long enough to get to net height.

    Or find a more professional venue.

    Or get your friend to read the laws.

    But the shuttle only has to go over the net during a serve (going round is OK at other times), so it shouldn't be a practical problem because you can't exactly serve over the post and expect the shuttle to land within the court, can you.

    Taneepak, I think we all think the law is fine and sensible, so you need to take your battle to change them elsewhere.

    Have you had a session on a court trying to send shots from within the court around the post 6" above the floor yet? I bet I know how many landed in.

    Regards,

    Cliff

  10. #95
    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

    Have you had a session on a court trying to send shots from within the court around the post 6" above the floor yet? I bet I know how many landed in.

    Regards,

    Cliff
    I have returned net shots, both net tumble and cross court, that were 2" out at the height I took the shuttle. I played them because I thought they were in-we all do this, don't we? I have always returned them over the net. I have never ever thought of just tapping them around the post at such low height. That would be cheating. There were some rare occasions when some other players mishit a net tumble and the shuttle went around the post at no more than 6" onto the opponents' court. We never thought that it was a good shot. The opponents would have walked off the court if we insisted it was legal.

  11. #96
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    I have returned net shots, both net tumble and cross court, that were 2" out at the height I took the shuttle. I played them because I thought they were in-we all do this, don't we? I have always returned them over the net. I have never ever thought of just tapping them around the post at such low height. That would be impossible.
    Corrected.

    Not totally impossible, flukes can happen. But practically impossible, especially at 6" above the floor, which was the situation you were postulating.

    And in that situation, the opposition are not unhappy because they should have lost the point anyway.

    Now try hitting returns of shots that were going to land in, around the post.

  12. #97
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Flukes, mishits, even thunderbolts are all legitimate when they get you a point. A point from a mishit is as good and legitimate as any other winning shots.

  13. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Flukes, mishits, even thunderbolts are all legitimate when they get you a point.
    No. A thunderbolt would earn a let.

  14. #99
    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
    Corrected.

    Not totally impossible, flukes can happen. But practically impossible, especially at 6" above the floor, which was the situation you were postulating.

    And in that situation, the opposition are not unhappy because they should have lost the point anyway.
    If you were the umpire in a tournament and you had the luck to see such a "fluke" shot, how would you rule? You implement the law and look foolish, or you rush to the referee for a consultation?

  15. #100
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    If you were the umpire in a tournament and you had the luck to see such a "fluke" shot, how would you rule? You implement the law and look foolish, or you rush to the referee for a consultation?
    I'll give you 100/10 for persistence.

    If I were an umpire in a tournament and saw it, I would look very foolish and lose my umpiring credentials if I did not know and implement the laws. By calling the referee I would be saying "I don't know what to do here - what is the law?"

    So I would implement the law and not look foolish.

    Only people who have not read the laws would disagree - and they would look foolish.

    I'm sorry, but there really is no debate. The law is clear and is sensible and fair.

  16. #101
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    someone shut this thread down!

  17. #102
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,200
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by __Lam
    someone shut this thread down!
    I second the motion.

Page 6 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
  •