Challenging Fault Call

Ultimate Reality Sports Show! And there would not be too much delay, the BCers are fast in their responses!

However not likely to happen anytime soon at BWF level, perhaps the IBL/Axiata Cup, or some other place.


Actually, the net shot and when players coming together situations are going to be contentious, not necessarily the fault call itself. That is why the tourney puts eagle eyes on that perch above the net, somebody who knows and adjudicates on the offense committed.

As re: the last sentence, there are challenges available to the player, called "instant review," albeit they will only be for the Superseries events and TC/UC/WC, and only on the telly court(s). As far as I reckon, this instant reviews, will only be for line calls. They are very likely not to challenge an umpire's decision for the fault over the net call, or even the service judge's fault calls, especially the soon-to-be experimented, minimum height of 1.10 metres.

Here is my understanding of the fault for shot(s) at the net, and especially, in situations when players come together. The law is clear on obstruction, 13.4.4., and distraction, 13.4.5.

Player must not be obstructed, or in any way prevented from executing a legal shot, including the follow through over the net. The determining criterion is that the shuttle must be hit first.

If the player say, flinches, or stops short of making the shot, then 13.4.5 may be applied by the umpire. Did the opponent distract? Any gesture could be considered distracting. Shouting from the close proximity at the net, and therefore deliberate distracting is an easier decision for the high chair, for any other gesture by that player, the eagle-eye from that perch should help. The more experience the umpire has, the better the outcome for this decision against the offender will be.

Another way to base the decision would be to freeze that action, [mentally] remove that offending opponent. Now decide:

Where was the shuttle hit last? Which side of the net, striker or opponent?
Did this player execute the shot, that is hit the shuttle.
Then, was this player's follow through blocked by opponent in any manner whatsoever, especially if the offender's racquet invaded the other side.
​

We, who have the slo-mo high frame-rate camera action(s) to see, will have the luxury of frying that umpire. But eagle eyes there must make that decision in much less than a blink of an eye.

 

In addition, I question the ultimate authority of the umpire since video replay is enforced. Take the following scenario as an example.

Line judge made a call (whatever that may be). Umpire overrules it. Can a player challenge umpire's overrule? I'd think so. And if the video shows the umpire is wrong, would his judgement then be corrected?

 

Looks like yes. From BWF website.
http://www.bwfbadminton.org/news_item.aspx?id=78748

"Singles players or doubles pairs with matches on the TV court will be able to challenge line calls or umpire overrules of line calls."

 

i would say
no
probably no

 

I can see no fault and no fault aswell

 

ah, well there is no proper rule for that, the rule just leaves it to pure opinion(unless there is a clash), so there is no answer to that one. You are both correct and wrong if you say either fault or no fault.

 

Fault.
See freeze-action below; shuttle not hit on his side by striker.

 

No, nothing here; see freeze-action frame below:


Player in red jersey held racquet legally on her side, striker (blue jersey) made a legal attempt to kill, shuttle hit the red-jersey's racquet, landed on blue side. Rally to Red.

 

Those freeze frames show nothing of the point of contact. It is just the point of contact that counts, not the whole shuttle. Look below I have freeze framed on contact and it is a definite that no fault for both.



Blue line shows net, blue dots show the shuttles point of contact with LD's racket




Red line shows net, red dot shows point of contact.

 

If you watch this replay you can see that RI saw LX racket go up so instead of playing a straight up regular kill she had to brush the shuttle to avoid contact. The rules states "prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke". I can argue that the raising of LX'S racket did in fact prevent RI from playing a regular net kill. The facts are strong. why else would she brush the shuttle??? That shot is normally only played to avoid contact with the net which she was not in danger of. She was trying to avoid something though.....

 

Sorry I do not agree with you. Look where the point of contact from RI. It is quite far away from the net. The position to make downwards kill for RI will not work in this case.

 

You do not agree that I can not predict what would have happened? I was merely putting the argument forward. I am not sure at what point RI clocked LX racket and therefore delaying her forward swing, so maybe what you see is not where she would have hit it from. Just sayin the rule is too ambiguous unless a clash occurs.