Results 1 to 17 of 58
12-30-2008, 10:20 AM #1
What fault is it? Receiver fault?
I have been watching the AE 2004 match between Lin Dan and Peter Gade on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljfW1...eature=related .
From 3:43, Peter served, then after a few strokes, the rally halted. What happened? Seems to be Lin Dan committing some fault, but what fault is it?
There was a slow motion playback a few seconds later, but I still couldn't figure it out.
Anyone could help?
12-30-2008, 11:17 AM #2
12-30-2008, 11:28 AM #3
12-30-2008, 01:06 PM #4
12-30-2008, 06:25 PM #5
They called it receiver fault, but I think it's a bit harsh. In the first set, they also called service fault on Lin Dan as well.
12-30-2008, 06:53 PM #6
Badminton Laws state that the receiver is not permitted to move before the Service
This shows that Lin Dan is super fast, and with great anticipation too.
IMHO, this rule might need to be changed later (in years to come). With PG's experience, if LD moves first in one direction, then PG should place his shot to the opposite direction.
Anyway, at this moment, our Badminton Laws state that the receiver is not permitted to move before a player executes his/her Service.
12-30-2008, 07:01 PM #7
12-30-2008, 08:04 PM #8
No advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the Service
12-30-2008, 08:20 PM #9
Luckily, at that time, lin dan was already leading by 14-5. One point misjudged didn't cost him the match.
Sigh...I always think this kind of milisecond movement and those milimeter judgement of calling the shuttle out or in are not to be judged by human eyes. Though these errors are not seriously undermining the fair play, it would be better to make things more precise and accurate, thus even fairer play. Just see how many calls got overruled by challenges from the players in tennis. Hopefully, this kind of technology would be used in badminton in the future, at least for determining whether the shuttles are in or out.
12-30-2008, 10:33 PM #10
12-30-2008, 11:18 PM #11
The experienced receiver can take advantage of the situation if he has the option to move ahead of the serve. Already, a tall and imposing receiver bending forward with this racket raised to take the service, can cause some jitters to the server who tries to serve as 'perfectly' low as possible with the risk of the shuttle not crossing the net.
And many good receivers are so quick that they can kill the service at the net. Give them the option of moving first and they can even anticipate the serve better to kill the bird.
12-31-2008, 12:48 AM #12
Very difficult to judge.
Imagine this scenario:
The receiver moves before the shuttle is struck. Umpire calls fault..
The server does a fault serve (due to last second adjustments, seeing that his opponent moved). Service judge calls fault.
So which fault is binding?
12-31-2008, 01:00 AM #13
If there is no advantage to the receiver, then it should be OK
Loh ... Thank you for correcting my typo.
I agree with you what you say "a tall and imposing receiver bending forward with this racket raised to take the service can cause some jitters to the server who tries to serve as 'perfectly' low as possible". To some server, it is a distraction.
It is up to the server to remain not distracted and not to feel intimidated by the receiver.
I am saying that the server should learn how to take advantage of the situation if the receiver is committed to a certain stance/movement.
Remember that incident at the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games at Melbourne:
A receiver was bending forward with his racket raised to prepare to take the service. The server elected to perform a Shooting/Drive Service. The whole thing came to a stop when the receiver claimed that 'that Shooting/Drive Service' should be faulted.
IMHO, if there is no clear disadvantage biased to just one side, then we shouldn't disallow it. This will allow our Badminton to further develop.
Last edited by chris-ccc; 12-31-2008 at 01:03 AM.
12-31-2008, 01:12 AM #14
12-31-2008, 02:18 AM #15
12-31-2008, 03:03 AM #16
It should be a 'LET', if no disadvantage is suffered by either side
In this case, IMHO, it should be a 'LET'.
If both receiver and server have committed faults simultaneously, we have no choice but to say "Let's play it again".
12-31-2008, 03:13 AM #17
Either a let or might i suggest that the receiver must have faulted first as he has to move before the strike of the shuttle. It is only a fault by the server when they hit the shuttle and so therefore although only by a millisecond or 2 the receiver committed the first fault.
Also just for clarification what is deemed a movement before the serve. I'm guessing its when the receiver moves his/her foot
By Ehtisham in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 4: 10-21-2011, 03:14 AM
By a_tabassum in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 14: 03-05-2010, 11:37 AM
By li00075 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 12: 03-05-2010, 11:30 AM
By Dendrobius in forum General ForumReplies: 34: 06-26-2006, 04:08 PM
By shanepaul86 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 9: 06-10-2005, 11:31 AM