Just thinking about a hypothetical situation. If the feather part of the shuttlecock touches the line first (meaning it is "in) but the cork part touches the outside of the court after that (meaning it is "out"), How would the line judges and the hawkeye judge it, will it be in or out?
That'll never happen due to the aerodynamics and weight distribution of the shuttle. From a height no lower than about 2 ft, it'll always right itself and land cork first, even if it started falling upside down.
if all physics fail: i would call it out the cork matters in my view (dont know official rules about it) (i think it can actually somehow happen, or at least it could get very close)
If you are asking how a line judge will judge it and how hawkeye will judge it, there might be different answers. Hawkeye is programmed for specific conditions, and how it judges will be determined by what the programmers wrote. Line judges will see it differently based on each individual's abilities and eye-sight. In general most judges will be looking at the furthest point of the shuttle, and with the speed of the shuttle probably would not be able to focus on the back end (feather end). Only with the benefit of video capture and slow motion replay would you be able to catch whether the feathers touch first before the cork. But likely the line judges will be looking at the cork end and would make the call based on that. And I suspect with the remote possibilities of this scenario happening, Hawkeye likely programmed to do the same.
You would take the first point of contact of the shuttlecock with the ground as the reference to judge whether it is in or out. I've seen instances where the cork has hit the outside of the line marginally before the feathers land on the line as the shuttlecock settles. Sometimes a let is played as we don't have line judges for club matched and it is sometimes hard to see from the other side for my opponent as it looks in for them. Kindest regards, -Ajay- Quote of the Day If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.
First you've got to think if the physics is possible. Without it, we'd get questions like "What if a player hits so hard the shuttle just rips the net apart and land on the opposite side" Second, if it is possible (as with a highly defective shuttle), the judges would most likely call it out because they wouldn't see that the feather part has touched the line first. Hawkeye used mathematical calculation so I don't think it will be very accurate in this scenario. Third, what is the right call? Well of course the correct call would be in since the feather touches the line first.
That's not true. In badminton hawkeye is just some guy looking at a slow motion replay, then they mock up an animation.
No, they're not. For details about how the Hawk-Eye system works, see the (technical officials magazine) COCTales, Edition No. 4, page 5: I'm unaware of any change to that system, although I haven't seen it personally. However, every time I see it on video, challenges are nowhere near immediate - a computer could not only calculate the result within a fraction of a section, be triggered by the umpire's panel, but also decide every line call in advance. Can you quote a source that shows that Hawk-Eye is now automated, like in tennis?
There is a thread where this was discussed, with an interview of the hawk-eye operation guy. It has nothing to do with computer except for the animation. It is simply the addition of cameras on the lines and then someone with the slow motion of those cameras to see where the shuttle landed and calls in or out.
Yeah, sorry. I assumed the Hawk Eye implementation included the path prediction like in other sports. The original Hawk Eye thread is an interesting read, as well as the wiki page, especially on margin of errors or where the prediction doesn't work.
Sometimes I wonder why instead of the animation they don't show us the actual replay with the dedicated camera. Some of the calls look dubious!
Can't remember where I read this, but this was partly because if the original replay was unclear, they didn't want to create further confusion.
Because if they did that then they'd be admitting that sometimes they don't know! The fake animation with the illusion of certainty looks more professional to the average person!
Thanks to ralphz for reviving this 8y old thread! In this hypothetical situation, the shuttle will be, should be, considered IN. Recall that the lawbook definition of shuttle - it is from cork bottom to top of feathers. Recall also that if player touches shuttle at feathers during a rally, or shuttle touches player's jersey (which happens when it goes past), that is also a fault. That is, any part of the shuttle belongs to the shuttle, just as any part of the jersey, or shoelace belongs to the player. As for how the hawkeye will judge it. I looked at my archives of all line calls that were reviewed, and do not find any shuttle that landed as described in the hypothetical situation.
