User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 58
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    china
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What fault is it? Receiver fault?

    Hi guys,

    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?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pascal123 View Post
    Hi guys,

    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?

    Thanks
    I dont spot anything either, i guess its because he "moved" before the serve was struck as deemed by the umpire. I replayed it a couble of dozen times and dont see anything though....

  3. #3
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,628
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by derekcai View Post
    I dont spot anything either, i guess its because he "moved" before the serve was struck as deemed by the umpire. I replayed it a couble of dozen times and dont see anything though....
    Yes it appeared that LD moved in before PG served. I heard it from the commentator.

  4. #4
    Moderator Oldhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,328
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    Yes it appeared that LD moved in before PG served. I heard it from the commentator.
    Loh's right.
    The Dutch umpire says 'Fault Receiver'.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow Badminton Laws state that the receiver is not permitted to move before the Service

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldhand View Post

    Loh's
    right.
    The Dutch umpire says 'Fault Receiver'.

    .
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by bad_fanatic View Post

    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.

    .

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc View Post
    .
    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.

    .
    u should check the video first before commenting. From my angle, even in slow-motion (3:53), i didn't see LD moving forward at all prior to PG contacting the shuttle.

  8. #8
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow No advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the Service

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc View Post

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler View Post

    u should check the video first before commenting. From my angle, even in slow-motion (3:53), i didn't see LD moving forward at all prior to PG contacting the shuttle.

    .
    My comment was meant for this rule to be changed later (in years to come).

    IMHO, there is no advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the server makes contact with the shuttle.
    .

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    china
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc View Post
    .
    My comment was meant for this rule to be changed later (in years to come).

    IMHO, there is no advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the server makes contact with the shuttle.
    .
    there is nothing wrong wif the rule. It just wasn't applied properly. I dont see this rule would be changed in my lifetime.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,628
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc View Post
    .
    My comment was meant for this rule to be changed later (in years to come).

    IMHO, there is no advantage to the server if he/she is permitted to move before the server makes contact with the shuttle.
    .
    I believe what you meant was "no advantage to the receiver".

    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. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In Competition
    Posts
    18,283
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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?

  13. #13
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow If there is no advantage to the receiver, then it should be OK

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post

    I believe what you meant was "no advantage to the receiver".

    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.

    .
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Faults for both the server and the receiver?

    Quote Originally Posted by abedeng View Post

    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?

    .
    Hahaha ... Are you saying that service judge is calling faults for both the server and the receiver? In that case, shouldn't it be called a 'Let"?
    .

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In Competition
    Posts
    18,283
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc View Post
    .
    Hahaha ... Are you saying that service judge is calling faults for both the server and the receiver? In that case, shouldn't it be called a 'Let"?
    .
    No, both umpire and service judge would probably call fault at about the same time.

    I am assuming the umpire's eyes must be on the receiver at most times ..... service judge will tackle the server.

  16. #16
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,544
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow 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".
    .

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    leamington spa
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Net fault
    By Ehtisham in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 4
    : 10-21-2011, 03:14 AM
  2. Is it fault ?
    By a_tabassum in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 14
    : 03-05-2010, 11:37 AM
  3. is this a fault?
    By li00075 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 12
    : 03-05-2010, 11:30 AM
  4. Who is at fault?
    By Dendrobius in forum General Forum
    Replies: 34
    : 06-26-2006, 04:08 PM
  5. Is it a fault??????????
    By shanepaul86 in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 9
    : 06-10-2005, 11:31 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
  •