Results 18 to 31 of 31
09-04-2009, 05:41 AM #18
I'm sorry to ctjcad.
However, you did some what confused me from what you're exaggeration.
1st, I'll guess this one first because I don't know about height in meter. But 1.5 meter I would say higher than the net.
True short people will do over hand or drive? serve?
But isn't tall people still able to do... Well let's say 1.5 meter is around chess height of tall player, they'll still able to hit downward motion as long as 1.5 meter is above the net. don't you think?
So that's why you lost me. If 1.5 meter is higher than the net it is still going to be downward hit, why would it be change if it's tall or short player. you can always try it, pick any height from the ground and hit downward motion, I'm pretty sure other will able to do the same even if s/he is shorter or taller than you are.
So please again accept my apology.
09-04-2009, 05:55 AM #19
^^Is 1.5 meters higher than the net??..^^
..for your info:
- Standard badminton net height is 1.55 meters. About 5.08530183 feet. Let's call it 5 feet high.
- 1.5 meters = 4.9xxx feet (59.05511808 inches). Almost the same height as the net.
- 1.5 meters is less than standard badminton net height.
- There are pro players roughly abt the same height as, or a few inches taller than the net.
09-04-2009, 10:58 AM #20
I have never tried this idea of a rule, so I cant really say it would work great, but If the height is set high enough to be comfortable for most players (most players seem to preffer to serve quite high, if allowed to :-D ) but low enough to still keep the balance for receiver advantage vs server ...
the plusses and minuses I was most thinking about would ba
- Easier to judge
- same server advantage/dissadvantage regardless of physique, woman/man...
- easier for audince, tv-public to spot serving errors..
- maybe unconfortable? habits? some adjustment of serve for pros?!?
09-04-2009, 11:04 AM #21
09-04-2009, 02:31 PM #22
Setting a max. allowable height for serving..
Personally, i think 1.2m (abt 3.93700787 feet) to 1.25m (4.10104986 feet), let's call it 4 ft. (48 inches), would be a pretty fair range. The serve would still travel in an upwards trajectory, no matter if the player is short or tall. And there won't be a flat trajectory.
- IMO, the height range you've given is fair enough, for both server and receiver.
As for the pluses and minuses:
- I don't know how "easier" to judge will it be. Unless, you put some sort of markings in the background/sideline as a reference for the service judge. Or you'd expect the service judge to just visually picture the allowable max. height, just like what they are doing now with the "waist line" service rule.
For one, i don't know if you've seen it before or not, here in the U.S. when there are footie matches or American football matches, tv technology would allow some sort of a visual graphic fx to show where certain lines are without inhibiting the match, simply as a visual aid to the tv viewers.
- Yes, the advantage/disadvantage, regardless if the player is tall/short will be minimal as the serve will still travel upwards.
However, from what i can picture, the angle of view from taller and shorter players will differ. "Taller" (those 5'10" and above) players will have less leverage angle to play with (they'll be looking down to find the max. height area). Whilst "shorter" (those around net height) players will have more leverage angle to play with (they'll be looking down, but slightly), thus they'll be able to judge the height easier and they'll be able to execute the serve with more leverage. Advantage will slightly favor the "shorter" players, when they're serving.
- Yes, it will be easier for the audience. But how will it be done? through what technology?
- As for the minuses and whether players will get uncomfortable etc, they'll be minimal & i've somewhat mentioned them above.
Last edited by ctjcad; 09-04-2009 at 02:44 PM.
09-04-2009, 03:07 PM #23
well,is match hour=nice game?
what if two player play defensive game all the way long,and match end after 10 hours?
an intense and well match game is good enough,regardless how long the duration is
if purposely change the scoring system just to give crowd to see more rally(?),i think it is a pointless request
high speed,beautiful skill,and power is the major attraction of badminton,right?
longer duration wont help increase in badminton population,others will just say bye bye to badminton if we purposely increase the match length
just my humble opinion,feel free to critic
09-04-2009, 06:49 PM #24
Were there really any complaints with the oss? Wasn't it just matches wouldn't end in predictable times and something about commercial? Besides the longest match ever with the oss was 124 mins apparently
Compared to say tennis 6 hrs. 33 mins (not of actual play but still)
I would have to say tennis is pretty damn popular in the U.S. and the audience or spectators must not mind such a long match.
(I would though because I do not find tennis anywhere as enjoyable as badminton)
I personally don't see it as ridiculous of having oss back because nss ends so fasttttttttt
Not as exciting to me because if I see score 15-5 its like impossible for the latter to come back. I think its more exciting when there is the option of a major comeback, but 15-5 comeback very extremely unlikely under nss, audience would declare set is over just by looking at score.
I think nss is more friendly to attackers and people who do not have as much stamina or endurance (because they do not have to really worry about a sustained effort past 20-30 mins usually). Not as friendly for those who take a while to get into their groove. Oh well cannot do anything
Last edited by ionoo; 09-04-2009 at 06:53 PM.
09-05-2009, 03:04 AM #25
well said by ionoo on oss and nss. I'll repeat the idea that i like is when a game that is around 13 - 5, in old system you have a chance of coming back. Well better chance. But in nss. (first we must take the score and stretch it out because we're talking about ratio of the game) So the actual score on nss should be:
13 out of 15 = 86 % ---- 18 points in nss
5 out of 15 = 33% ------ 7 points in nss.
that score it is likely will never be a come back game. (which is kinda suck)
09-05-2009, 03:16 AM #26
and for the fixed height serve. Like I said. Players must know where their limit of the serve by practice. Well unfortunate for players who still in the progress of growing taller.
But anyhow by practice they should know where the limit of the highest point of the bird should be.
2nd. we can always put a line for max height of the bird should be for the line judge at the net pole. And have them sit in a chair that where is eye level of the line so it would be easier for them to judge.
(sorry but) who cares about the audience, if they want to watch played back then just put a camera at the line I guess.
3rd. I don't see why we should have minimum of the serve height. I mean, if anybody able to feel comfortable by serving at their ankle height, please do. I mean please DO. I can only see the highest point would be matter.
I know it's getting long but don't read this part if you want. I don't know why you guys keep saying it could be uncomfortable if the bird is around 4 feet? I'm 5'4" = bird around upper chest height?
6 footer = around mid of chest height?
6'5" = around waist line maybe? only if 6'5" guy that have a waist line and up only 2 feet and a half. I think that's a bit short and his body gonna looks weird.
09-19-2009, 01:25 AM #27
09-19-2009, 01:51 AM #28
I started this thread and was following closely. Thank you for your contributions. After listening to you all, I feel this way
1. The Height of serve to be easily measurable to judge-Not an imaginary line as of now. How it will be if we limit the height to one's naval and if it is made mandatoory to wear a shirt indicating with a line where naval height is?
2. Receiver should stand still till the serve is delivered-I thins this is good to be continued as it is now.
3. rally scoring system-There were many battles which was over even before we realized it was on. Compare with Federer Nadal match which is a feast for the eyes for whole 5 hours plus. I do understand, badminton players can not last that long because badminton is much more demanding. But a good match should last nearly an hour(A final). May be it should be made 30 X 3 and 2 points deference to win the game?
09-19-2009, 03:08 AM #29
09-19-2009, 03:28 AM #30
Most of the 'pro' badminton I watch is on Youtube. One thing I'd like to see for televised matches, etc.... Replays for the umpire and line judges to look back at in case a player feels the call was bad. Of course there should be a set limit of how many replay requests each player can have because the idea of constant play makes what this game we all love a real SPORT!
09-20-2009, 10:04 AM #31
Personally I think the contact height rule is fine as is. It forces people to limit themselves to similiar serves. Additionally, I'd say that the advantages that tallers players have are negligible not to mention debatable; the serve is prolly one of the last things I'd worry about against an exceptionally tall player >.>
@gamepurpose: "Who cares about the audience?" How about the game in general? Audiences = = money. Hell, even soccer has a rough time in the US; if Badminton ever wants a chance, anything (within reason) that can appeal to an audience is worthwhile; though I'm sure people who live in places where badminton is actually popular could care less >.>
By icecoldcoke in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 7: 11-28-2011, 09:18 AM
By suetyan in forum China Professional PlayersReplies: 98: 02-25-2008, 05:48 AM
By weeyet in forum Olympics BEIJING 2008Replies: 2: 04-17-2007, 01:11 AM
By thiery in forum General ForumReplies: 18: 07-22-2006, 09:52 PM
By Furqan in forum General ForumReplies: 3: 07-12-2004, 02:04 AM