Leg Under the Net

[chris-ccc]

Really?? You think that there are no other rules that rely on the umpires judgement?

.
True, there are many rules that rely on the umpires' judgement. But I am against this type of rules.

I wish to summarise what I have said;

Rules should be made as clear and as precise as possible. If not, different outcomes will come out from different umpires (for the same incidence).
.

[druss]

That would be great in an ideal world but... let's face it. There is no way that you can have all rules black and white because what people find a distraction is different. In the end, you'd end up with 200 pages of rules listing every possible thing that can be distracting...

Umpires are there to use their experience and interpretation of the rules to manage the game so that it follows the rules but also flows well. Let's keep in mind that all international competitions are there for the spectators, without them there would be no competitions. Therefore the rules are/should be written such that the game is the most exciting possible with the least amount of disruption possible. Again, not ideal but reality.

Well, I think I at least have pretty much exhausted my interest in this topic. Hopefully the OP has gotten the answer he was looking for.

[chris-ccc]

.
Yes, we are quite exhausted discussing this topic.

I just want to make a suggestion to the Laws maker(s);

Law 13.4.3 says;

It shall be a ‘fault’:

if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted.

The blue part is clear and precise (because we can observe it physically). The red part is not too confusing about the obstruction part (again because we can observe it physically), but for the distraction part, it is not good at all (because distraction is experienced by the players).

My question is: Would an umpire be persuaded by the players?

The offending side says "I wasn't meant to distract my opponent", while the other side says "I was distracted by the what went on under the net".

Therefore, I would suggest that the red part to be left out. And rewrite Law 13.4.3 simply as;

It shall be a ‘fault’:

if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person.

It's only my suggestion to have our Badminton Laws be formulated with less ambiguity.

.

[random.badmin1]

Thank you to everyone who contributed! =)

[pcll99]

.
Yes, we are quite exhausted discussing this topic.

I just want to make a suggestion to the Laws maker(s);

Law 13.4.3 says;

It shall be a ‘fault’:

if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted.

The blue part is clear and precise (because we can observe it physically). The red part is not too confusing about the obstruction part (again because we can observe it physically), but for the distraction part, it is not good at all (because distraction is experienced by the players).

My question is: Would an umpire be persuaded by the players?

The offending side says "I wasn't meant to distract my opponent", while the other side says "I was distracted by the what went on under the net".

Therefore, I would suggest that the red part to be left out. And rewrite Law 13.4.3 simply as;

It shall be a ‘fault’:

if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person.

It's only my suggestion to have our Badminton Laws be formulated with less ambiguity.

.

Wa!! This is a very interesting discussion.

I agree with Chris that the rule would be much less ambiguous if it were amended in the way Chris had suggested.

The bottom line is fairness.

Is it fair to fault a player who had invaded his opponent's court even though he has not obstructed or distracted his opponent???

[cobalt]

Wa!! This is a very interesting discussion.

I agree with Chris that the rule would be much less ambiguous if it were amended in the way Chris had suggested.

The bottom line is fairness.

Is it fair to fault a player who had invaded his opponent's court even though he has not obstructed or distracted his opponent???

In many instances, yes.

If the player intentionally uses the other half of the court as an "extension" of his own half, for purposes of balance or positioning to play or finish a point, then it would constitute an unfair advantage; the player should be faulted. This should be easy for the umpire to observe as well.

If the player takes the shuttle before it has crossed the net, it is a fault. Simple.

If however, the player has crossed the line simply as a (mostly unavoidable) follow-through to a shot he has completed and his momentum cannot allow him to stop before he crosses, then there is nothing wrong; unless of course, he happens to block or hamper the opponent's response to the shot by crossing the line.

IMO, the first and last instance would be where the umpire's discretion and judgement are called for, through his powers of observation and deduction.

My 2c

P.S. It may be a fantastic analogy, but in some ways, it is similar to the law courts themselves. The Laws are clearly spelt out in so many volumes, there is seemingly no ambiguity. Why then do we require a Judge? Because someone who knows the Law, needs to be able to fairly interpret the Law as applicable to a specific situation.

[pcll99]

In many instances, yes.

If the player intentionally uses the other half of the court as an "extension" of his own half, for purposes of balance or positioning to play or finish a point, then it would constitute an unfair advantage; the player should be faulted. This should be easy for the umpire to observe as well.

But if that player has obstructed or distracted his opponent AND he hasn't touched the net, is it ok?

[cobalt]

But if that player has obstructed or distracted his opponent AND he hasn't touched the net, is it ok?

13. FAULTS

It shall be a ‘fault’:


13.4

if, in play, a player:

13.4.1 touches the net or its supports with racket, person or dress;
13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except that the striker may follow
the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact
with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net;
13.4.3 invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is
obstructed or distracted; or
13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is
followed over the net;

13.4.5 deliberately distracts an opponent by any action such as shouting or making gestures;

[pcll99]

sorry what I meant was this:

"But if that player has not obstructed or distracted his opponent AND he hasn't touched the net, is it ok?" Should it be allowed?

[cobalt]

I think you may be referring to 13.4.2

[druss]

sorry what I meant was this:

"But if that player has not obstructed or distracted his opponent AND he hasn't touched the net, is it ok?" Should it be allowed?

Based on the current wording of the law, then yes it should be allowed.

[cobalt]

Based on the current wording of the law, then yes it should be allowed.

13.4.2 clearly states that it is a fault if the player "invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person..." if he goes for a hit, unless the "invasion" happens when the striker "may follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net."