First Error counts?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by thegrobi, May 3, 2017.

  1. thegrobi

    thegrobi Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Badminton Coach
    Location:
    Germany
    Maybe player A does a net kill and touches with the body (or racket) the net, but also does the point.

    If the "point" happens a little -earlier- than the nettouch, i would think, A gets the point.
    If the "point" happens a little -after- the the nettouch, i would think, B gets the point.
    If the "point" happens at the same time (or timing is not clear detectable), i would think, rally must be repeated.

    I see now rule for this. So i think "first error counts (if detectable)"?!
     
  2. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    All faults except for red cards and service/receiver faults can only happen while the shuttle is in play. For instance, in the situation you describe:

    (Emphasis mine). As soon as a fault happens or the shuttle touches the ground, the rally is over, i.e. the shuttle is not in play:

    Whatever happens first decides the rally. If the umpire absolutely cannot decide, they can call a let:

     
  3. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Norway
    I understand that an umpire should make a decision that something is a fault only if he is absolutely sure of it. If he is not sure that the fault was before the rally ended - he should do nothing. That means, in your case, there is no fault and player A gets the point...
     
  4. 2wheels04

    2wheels04 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Cal Central
    That is absolutely the correct procedure of decision-making - no guesswork, absolute sureness.
    The general advice on umpiring covers this exactly, the RTTO 4.4 - do not call fault if a doubt arises as to whether infringement occurred.

    The law book provides some guidance about the phrase (17.5.1) which is beyond reasonable doubt. The same applies to all situations.

    As for "should do nothing," that is not correct. Why?
    17.6.3 clearly spells out what an umpire shall do. "Shall" means absolute requirement, "may" is an option.
    Doing nothing frustrates everyone.

    Ensuring players and spectators are kept informed of the progress of the match.

    So, the hot-seat actually is a privilege. What should the umpire be doing in this scenario?
    For starters, tell player "I did not see that. [I was looking at ...] I can only take action when I am sure .." or similar words.
    Admitting like this conveys the player that umpire does have human, and law-application limitation.

    When spectators also see that the umpire is 'conversing' with the aggrieved player, then that is similar to keeping them informed.

    Such step-wise process of communicating is not generally followed, which is a pity. Saying "play" and repeatedly, is not good communication.
     
    #4 2wheels04, May 3, 2017
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  5. 2wheels04

    2wheels04 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Cal Central
    Firstly, bringing in a red card situation is nonsense, the OP did not bring it up either.
    People come here to find answers, I know I do.

    And there is more confusion created by "fault happens ..."

    The umpire must call this as fault. So it is not automatic fault, it has to be called.

    There have been instances when the shuttle is played after it touched opponent jersey, lets say in a MD, and all players know this, including the line judges at both ends too, except the umpire. The players keep playing and after a few more exchanges, the rally ends.


    The first part is reasonable, the second is not correct, not by law, or in spirit.

    It looks like the player must replay the hard-earned point, just because the umpire cannot decide.
    The umpire has no justification for invoking 14.2.7

    14. LETS
    14.2 It shall be a ‘let”, if:
    14.2.7 any unforeseen or accidental situation has occurred.​

    What next?
    I did not foresee that you, the player ---
    will touch net at same time as net-kill
    will smash on same line as line-judge is weak
    will notice another shuttle on court after you lost rally
    ...
    ...

    14.1 permits umpire to call let to halt play, see below the actual law.

    14.1 ‘Let’ shall be called by the umpire, or by a player (if there is no umpire), to halt play​

    This is not what an umpire should do at this time.
     
  6. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    How else would you have written the statement then? The alternative form would be listing all faults that can happen during play, and that's by my count 19. Therefore, I said all faults except 2.., listing the 2.

    I am not sure where in It shall be a fault if, in play, a player touches the net or its supports with racket, person or dress the call of the umpire is relevant. From which law do you derive your statement?

    If an umpire does not notice and/or not call a fault, that's bad umpiring. If a service judge does not (covertly) signal the fault to the umpire, that's bad service judging.

    By the logic of your statement, a players gets a point when they win a rally or the umpire miscounts: This may happen in practice, but it's not the intention of the law.

    Then what should the umpire do if they are certain that a fault has been commited just when the shuttle landed on court?
    What if both sides commit a fault at the same time?
     
  7. 2wheels04

    2wheels04 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Cal Central
    No disrespect to OP, but to understand and discuss situation, I remove that "Maybe" and then take the three situation/s to make decision, and make assumptions. Assuming (a) umpire is on court, (b) net kill means player A hit the shuttle from side A on opponent court making shot at net. And that "point" suggests the time shuttle landed in opponent court.

    Player A only gets the point (= wins that rally) only if 'net-kill' is legal.
    Player B gets point is Player A net kill illegal.

    That is first to determine when was shuttle not in play? Then find who make first error, Player A or B?

    And now to determine which of the three situations will award the point and to who.
    Here is how translate the first two situations:
    1. Shuttle in B-court before Player A touch net.
    2. Shuttle in B-court after Player A touch net.

    Now to third situation.

    Consider that Player A killed at 160 kph while at net. The shuttle will land, lets say baseline, that is 22 feet away, in 0.15 seconds, more if lob, and so on, less if smash at half-court or at net.

    If there was no umpire, then sure, replay rally.

    If umpire, s/he has adequate time to determine the conditions to make decision; replay rally is not the decision to make. If any of player will disagree, then referee will need to be called on court. What is response of umpire when referee inquires - what specific aspect of law do you need help?
     
  8. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Norway
    Sorry, I don't understand where it came from... That was not OP question...

    Since you already started, umpire should not justify his decisions to the player. Surely not announce his doubts to the public. That will be bad for the game, player's respect, and not in spirit of the rules.

    In the situation when the shuttle landed at the same time when the net hit, there is nothing to discuss. If the player thinks the fault was before the rally ended, he can appeal to the umpire. Umpire should answer that he does not think that the touch was before the shuttle landed. The decision of the umpire is final, end of story.
     
  9. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Norway
    There are situation when umpire couldn't see and than it is ok to make a let. For example, umpire judging the sideline and the shuttle landed outside his vision because player was standing in front of the shuttle when it's landed. That's a "let", because he couldn't see to make a decision.

    On the other hand, the shuttle landed almost on the line, so close that is hard to choose if it's "in" or "out". Umpire have seen it clearly and he must take a decision, he cannot make a let... Same when the fault is at the same time as the shuttle landed. An umpire have to make a decision, no place for "lets"
     
  10. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    Ok, so how do I decide if two faults (or a fault and the shuttle landing on the ground) happen at the same time, at least as far as I can tell?

    Fortunately I've never been in this situation, but I don't think I would be able to distinguish which fault happened earlier if one happened 20ms or less after the other.
     
  11. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Norway
    I think this is a bit different. An umpire sure that both sides made a fault at the same time. This is easy - you cannot fault both sides so it should be a let.

    If you are sure that one was a fault but not the another that's tough luck - player that surely committed a fault is faulted, cannot be "let" there...
     
  12. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    The original question was about a fault and the shuttle hitting the ground. How do you think that differs from two faults?
     
  13. stradrider

    stradrider Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Norway
    I think it's different. The shuttle touching the floor has the priority over the "faults" in my opinion. It mentioned earlier in the "not in play" rule.
     
  14. thegrobi

    thegrobi Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Badminton Coach
    Location:
    Germany
    I think point is point; only the time (if detectable) is crucial.

    bye Ralf
     

Share This Page