What fault is it? Receiver fault?

**pascal123** · 12-30-2008, 10:20 AM

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

**derekcai** · 12-30-2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by pascal123

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....

**Loh** · 12-30-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by derekcai

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.

***Oldhand*** · 12-30-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Loh

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'.

**bad_fanatic** · 12-30-2008, 06:25 PM

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.

**chris-ccc** · 12-30-2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Oldhand

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.

Originally Posted by bad_fanatic

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.

.

**cooler** · 12-30-2008, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

.

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.

**chris-ccc** · 12-30-2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

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.

Originally Posted by cooler

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.
.

**pascal123** · 12-30-2008, 08:20 PM

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.

**cooler** · 12-30-2008, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

.
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.

**Loh** · 12-30-2008, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

.
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.

**abedeng** · 12-31-2008, 12:48 AM

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?

**chris-ccc** · 12-31-2008, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

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.
.

**chris-ccc** · 12-31-2008, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by abedeng

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"?
.

**abedeng** · 12-31-2008, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by chris@ccc

.
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.

**chris-ccc** · 12-31-2008, 03:03 AM

.
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".
.

**Flashtastic** · 12-31-2008, 03:13 AM

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