Mark Phelan needs to resit secondary school maths. definitely a bad idea to use the forza roll in the background to reinforce his disagreement.
Lol... no kidding. The distance to the roll is probably 3x further away than to the server. Also, I wonder, BWF could've made the 2 panels with the black lines further apart to get greater accuracy.
It's not about the absolute deviation, it's more about showing that the current tool can produce different judgements. Even if the deviation at the server's distance would only be 5 cm it would be significant. And yeah, it would not be that difficult to create a bigger distance between the to plates to make it more accurate.
It all shows that the implementation of the new rule is simply not done well by BWF. Overall, I'm still convinced that defining a fixed height is the right way to go as a premise to give the service judges a chance (and tool) to make a consistent and correct calls. With the lowest-rib rule, every single call was not more than an estimation which had to be done within a split second. But the tools and visualisation for the viewers that BWF has provided yet are just pathetic. And don't get me started on the poor communication.
Eventually this fault can be easily called by video camera and software, not unlike Hawk-Eye. So service umpire calls the fault, while the instant review system can be used by the player to challenge the call.
Of course I agree there. But a tool to aid service judging with this rule. A couple of good inexpensive cameras, fixed to the centerline height necessary for 1.15m. Live feed to a monitor. Hell. You don't even need software to draw a line for the judging. You can just paste some thin black tape horizontally across the screen and level it with a level gauge. Voila. No parallax error. Any angle you view from is restricted by the screen's projection ability. Or if they need the line for instant replays. It can't be that hard to draw with any software they use in broadcasting. Graphics on screen are so easily done now. The only problem I foresee with this method though is whether they need to standardise the camera equipment used worldwide. Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
Assuming that the feet are already in a good position. And I didn't read anywhere that shorter players are not allowed to bend their knees.... They could even do an overhand serve, because the racket does not have to be angled downwards. Even more options for shorter players and they'd even have the racket up already. Waiting to play the third shot. Please don't act like taller players had any advantage of this rule compared to shorter players! They were just the first to adapt, because they were forced to change something. $£€$£€$£€ that's one reason. You'd need a very very high frame rate to make it better than the eye alone (you have to make the eye the limit, that requires more than just the 'frame rate of the human eye'), this is for the camera and the display. And How would it be easier to set it up at the correct height? There are other, very simple options to improve it until there is an automated or at least challengeable solution. Two very simple ideas that would increase accuracy significantly.
why? who cares? if service is called wrong then go on at least for me..i dont need to review..why would I?
There is now way for the old rule to implement. Now at least there is a fix height...instead of whatever stupid height you would argue for i have seen the dumbest (illegal) serves in amateur play, this no way can get worse with the new rule
That is not related to what I wrote. Your previous post was that taller players now were bending their knees and thus were in a better position for the third shot. I just wanted to make clear that that's not an advantage for taller players since shorter players can bend their knees as well while still being allowed to serve at 115 cm which gives them a lot of different options for the serve. A lot more than taller players have. For example and overhand drive serve while bending their knees.... That would put them in the perfect position for the third shot: legs loaded, racket up. Now try to imagine a tall player trying this. I just wanted to make clear that taller players adapted the rule already (they had to) while time will show what shorter players will come up with. In my opinion, the angle of the racket does make a difference as well. Summing up my opinion (which might change any time) to reduce misunderstandings: I like the fixed height rule better than the old rule, because it is possible to enforce it. I still don't know what to think about 115 cm. I'm pretty sure it's not too high, but I really don't know if higher would be better. I think it's good to create a neutral situation when serving, therefore trying to reduce the advantage taller players have with the old rules. If (and time will show) shorter players can take too much advantage of the fixed height rule the way it is tested now, it should be changed ("hand must be above 115" might be unfair again, but could be enforced similarly to the back under 115 rule). The problem is that this would destroy the simplicity of this rule and thus would make it more difficult to enforce (again)...
it is mainly for the audiences instead of player, also to decrease ambiguity as mentioned by the rest that is why I also 'only' said 'possibly a challenge system for the players', it is not very necessary
On what frequency do you imagine the lasers to be? How would you engineer the system? Would it require additional personnel to run? Actually, let me preempt those answers: Such a system would be orders of magnitudes more costly and harder to engineer than outfitting HawkEye with the capability to detect height(§9.1.6) service faults.
@rajuu If you post a copy of a news article, please also post the link of the webpage for reference. What was the reason for posting old news?