I do give up because you can't seem to understand what "obvious" mean in context. I've said repeatedly it is the shifting of the burden of proof. I am getting tired of holding your small hands to cross the street, if you can't comprehend my arguments that human judgement on minute distinction should be eliminated or minimized then I can not help you. That your above attempt to discredit my point, actually makes my point ... "thanks by the way", is pretty ironic and is exactly why everyone is begging for instant replay! "Dunk swish swoosh", im done with you! let go of my hand!!!
Common V1lau, I can only assume that what is in your head is not converting onto the computer. To help me use your theory and show me a fault that has ever been committed in pro badminton to date.
and saying the shuttle must 'obviously' go up doesn't do that at all. It just means someone has to judge the minute difference between 'obviously' up and 'not obviously up'. You have accomplished exactly zero by using the word obviously. In fact you have done worse than zero! You have taken away the ability for technology to prove one way or the other if a serve was legal, because there is no technology ever invented that tell you 'yes, it was obviously up'. In summary: I'm telling you making subjective rules is stupid. You're telling me it will remove human error from 'matter of fact' calls because now the decision is subjective. Well no **** sherlock. It's self fulfilling!
Every time you do that you score an own goal. You still don't know to what the original was for, do you?
I've answered your objections, but you and Amleto keep strawing manning what I am saying and therefore we keep going in circles. Look I tried to discuss nicely but i was met with"whoosh", instead of "I disagree and this is why". I Just for the record this is as clear as I can make my idea and exactly what is in my head, if you still find fault with it, so be it. Rule without “obvious”: Serve must be hit with an upward trajectory Fact: Any bird hit below the net will have an upward trajectory and therefore be legal Player action: I will try to serve as close to the top of the net as possible to keep the bird flat Umpire information needed to make a decision: Exact height of contact point relative to the top of the net. Question is above easily determined? I would argue no as I believe it is near impossible to make minute distinction and measurements without any kind of accuracy without computer aids. Do you agree? What I think “obvious” adds to the rule and the changes it should produce. Rule: Serve must be hit with an obvious upward trajectory Fact: Same Player action: It’s up to me to demonstrate that the bird is hit in an upward direction, so I cannot serve as close to the top or I will be faulted. I must adjust my contact point down to be safe. Umpire information needed to make a decision: My subjective opinion informed by experience and review of many serves. Question is the above easily determined? I would argue yes since I believe the serve point after adjusting for the language introduced will be low enough to form a clear opinion. Second it is easily challenge-able with a side camera angle. Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant difference between the contact point and top of the net because of the word “obvious” then there would without. Hypothesis 2: It is easier and more accurate for the service judge to determine trajectory of the bird with the added buffer that the player has to make it clear then it is to determine the relative heights of ribs, fixed points to service points.
Wrong. The judge has to decide if the shuttles trajectory is sufficiently upwards to be called 'obvious'. This is not challenge-able at all with a camera or technology as I have already explained. It is not more accurate or easier for the judge to estimate 'obvious upwardness' instead of 'any upwardness'.
Badminton must be the only sport in the workd that I can think of that has these archaic subjective rules that is difficult to judge. What with estimating the lowest rib, angle of the racket at serve, killing the bird only after it has crossed the net, cork touching the line considered in, etc... I really don't envy those service and line judges with their jobs. Even one time making the wrong call is one time too many, imho.
I said earlier I assumed that their would be a difference and that I trust humans to make judgments when they are not minute. The "obvious" language only purpose is to do just that. The difference I expect to see because of the word "obvious" is like trusting a line judge to tell me if the bird touched the middle of the line or inside the line and without the word "obvious" I am asking the line judge to also tell me if it landed on the outside of the line. I am arguing the I have greater confidence in the first and am I would try to make the serve situation similar to the first situation. Let try this another way: Say I word the rule i am proposing perfectly and that you can serve anywhere under the net with the racket facing downward and there where almost no more service faults because it was worded and understood perfectly and it turns out everyone is serving at 7.5cm under the tape on average or a fixed point serve as proposed earlier in the thread but faulted half the time as we see today?
Your idea is not use able as a rule it is 100% subjective, I don't know how else it can be said. Service faults are always going to happen in badminton, that is not even a consideration, what is a consideration is fairness to players and umpires in the calling of this decision. So for the rule to be one 100% perfect their would be like a gps chip in the cork loads of cameras recording and a review system. Then the say a stage down would be something like the the newly proposed rule of a fixed completely consistent point from the ground. completely objective but still might be tough to judge(depends on what tool they invent) down one more is the current rule slightly subjective as an umpire has to guess where the lower rib is although it does exist on every body there is no point of reference as in the service position the elbow is not down by their side. This leads to a lot of inconsistencies with the call as we have seen. down to the bottom your rule. For the judge to interpret "obvious"... This would be very very inconsistent.
Christ on a bike. I was disagreeing with your statement. Apparently there is a question in there. I'm not answering it, though.
If something is judged isn't that going to be subjective? Lets be fair, we both have 2 points to compare, my idea has the top of the net and the service point and the fixed point rule has the set height line and service point. Unless a computer is doing all the evaluation work I would say we're at the exact same place with a service judge having to determine the relative positions of the 2 points. At that moment I think we are at draw, then if I introduce language I think will obligate the server to serve lower therefore more likely not to fault then i think i have to upper hand. If the language is exclusive to the fixed height rule then it would have the upper hand. I have other reasons why I prefer my suggestion to the fixed point, but that is another discussion. I think if the criteria for slightly subjective is comparing one imaginary point and another real point then I don't see how that is better and more objective than having to compare 2 real points?
Devil in your ear. I didn't make that statement. I agree, poorly thought out on my behalf, apologies on that one
You don't have two points to compare. Your whole argument is based on that, and it is not true, you have told us and that is what we are trying to tell you. You don't have the top of the net you have serve from "obviously under" or "obviously upward", that is not a point to compare, that does not exist that point, nobody knows where that point is, that point is an imagination, that point is not an identifiable point, that point could mean different thing to different people, that point is not quantifiable erm I am out of ways to put it. On another note Just because it is Judged does not in anyway make a difference to whether the written rule is objective or not.
If I am telling you to serve in an upward direction, then by default the top of the net is a point in the evaluation because you can not serve up without being below the the net, i really don't see how you're not seeing that. The service point is a given in a service situation. No matter how much you need them not to exist to prove your argument, they do! The points are not questionable only the evaluation of the relative position of the points is questionable, which we both have the service judge subjectively determining. As I have pointed out repeatedly the "obvious" is only to shift the burden of proof and put pressure on the server to serve lower! Whether it does that or not is just a guess on my part and unimportant at the moment. I've already tried to show you why I think it is necessary language to include with regards to the limitations of human perception and judgement. Because you want to interpret "obvious" counter to the way I intended and have explained, is why we have gone in circles. Look if I omitted the word obvious would you still have a problem with subjectivity of the rule "the serve must be hit in a upward direction"? Again I didn't the argue the written rule is objective or not, only that the judgment is, unless a robot is making the judgement.
