Dang, after all these posts trying to explain this dispute, I go back to what I originally said, just replay the point.
But there would be no need - the player that hit the shuttle from the adjacent court was lucky enough to win the point. Why would they want to give that up? The others have no complaint because they had hit miles out anyway!!!
I have no problem about the shuttle touching the post. The crux of the problem here is the intent and definition of 'fails to pass the net'. I contend that the meaning of pass the net is to go beyond. If the shuttle obviously passes over the net, it is legal. Going under the net is being negated by another law that makes it a fault, and also by the inapproriate use of the word beyond, which has more legitamacy with a shuttle over the net rather than under the net. A shuttle that goes around the post way below the tape on it's entire fight path will be hardpressed to claim that it went beyond or 'pass the net', given that the net area is well understood. It would be a different story if the outside areas of the post are considered as part of the net, which they are not.
we need to state the meaning of these 4 terms: pass go beyond go around go over you are right that: - pass is the same as go beyond but you are incorrect that you assume go beyond can only be achieved by go over. go beyond can be achieved by going around as well. as explained by CWB001, these are not open to dispute, they are all clearly stated in The Laws of Badminton. the laws are quite a wonderful piece of work and one can learn a lot about badminton from it. i suggest you read the laws from front to back for you own education and benefit. here is some links to it for your convenience: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/content/view/82/56/ or: http://www.worldbadminton.net/Portal/documents/laws2002.pdf
you are trying to re-define the work "pass" here. pass doesn't only mean go over, it can be go around as well. eg. if you are driving, how do you pass the car in front of you? i hope you don't drive over it... there is no need to re-define the english language for the sake of badminton, badminton laws is written with the current English definition.
I agree with Kwun that this situation has been brought up and discussed at length before and the conclusion, with reference to the Laws (which Kwun and others have now revisited) and in consultation with international badminton umpires, was that it is a legal shot. It was also pertinent that Gollum shared his experience on the issue with us and I agree with him as well. I'm thankful that both Kwun and CWB001 have even made the discussion more interesting, in reply to your equally thought-provoking points, and their arguments seem to substantiate the verdict much better. But whoever is able to play such seemingly uncharactistic shots deserves to win the point.
For heaven's sake, it's really very simple! Read The Laws. Or as we say in the computer biz, Read The F**king Manual
If you've read my reply to the bigredlemon, he was not talking about what if the shuttle passes through the net. He was not asking if it's legal if it goes around the net. Please read the posts comprehensively before replying. Thanks, Keith
I am so sorry, you are quite right... :crying: ...except when you said because he was talking about the shuttle going through the net.
When returning a net tumble, it is a fault if the shuttle goes under the net. The same shot around the outside post is legal. What kind of law is this?
Well, think about it. How many times have you seen a player return a net tumble that would have landed out (probably it would have to be very far outt, too) by sending it outside the post? Almost certainly never. How about a net tumble that would have landed in? Here a very, very bent sharp-angled banana shot is required and I bet you've seen even fewer of those. I''d be willing to bet my annual income against £10 that you couldn't perform such a shot if you tried it all day from my feeds. You'll probably go your entire badminton career and never see it. The reason, I suspect, that around-the-post shots are not faults is that it would be virtually impossible to judge (from an umpire's chair, or the player's position) whether they were outside the post or above the line of the net, if close to either. So for the extremely rare case that arises (and almost always for a shot that should have been left to fall out) the complications are just not worth it. It is much better to have a completely clear law that is easy to assimilate than to have too much to argue about. The only other option is to make obsolete all the world's badminton equipment by having a vertical extension to the post. This would be just plain silly. So why worry about it? The law is clear about what happens even if the number of occurences are few and far between. By the same token the serve law talks about the racquet head being discernably below the hand at the moment of impact, so if the judge cannot see it whether it is below then it is a clear fault. Or should be!!!
A net tumble on the extreme side can tumble 1"-2" outside the post. Say you take it 6 inches from the floor. In case 1 your reply goes under the net in between the posts. In case 2 you just tap it, 6 inches from the floor, around the post. One is a fault, the other is a perfectly legal. Is the law in this case implemented because of administrative/expediency reason? I think it kind of looks strange.
1. If you return a shot that is 2" out you are not very sensible and the point is moot. Remember 2" outside the post is 2" outside the line. 2. If you are taking net tumbles that low you need to move a lot faster. You'll break a lot of racquets and give away a lot of points otherwise. 3. This is not a "just tap it" situation. If it was going to land in then the shot is practically impossible, as I said before. If it was going to land out then you already have the point - why return it? I'd be interested to hear how many net tumbles you take 6" from the floor, laning in, that you manage to return by "tapping it around the post" over the course of the coming season. If it is more than zero I'll eat my racquet. It is hardly a case of administrative expediency. More a case of a law that is easy to understand and implement on court, that has the right effect in all sensibly likely situations.
I've just thought of something. If you were playing with umpires, service judges etc this shot would not be possible because it would hit the umpire's chair
what a fantastic thread sealing post. however... just on taneepak's note.. 1. why hit it if it was out.. 2. if it was close enough to the line for you to bottle it and try to return it then it is surely to close to the post to hit it round it. (width of the shuttle etc... ) 3. if you do manage it and hit it like you say, does the 'underneath the net' clause come into effect since at 6" above the floor your are clearly below the tape, altho outside the post? i think the definition of under the net needs to be cleared up. I'm qutie happy to take it that under the net means under the net which is between the posts, but i'm not sure. part of me thinks that under the net defines a particular height for an imaginary line. who knows! good thread.. can't believe it's legal but you guys are right.. the clause which you'd expect to deal with it seems to clearly omit around the net. obviously it was omitted because it's impossible to bend a shot (without a draft... hmmm surprised nobody tried it at the WC if the draft was as bad as suggested) lol - i'm gonna try it next monday, the hall i play at has particularly bad air conditioning on one court.. will certainly work Coops
Yes, under the net means literally that - under the net, which is between the posts. There are no imaginary lines to be taken into account. As to "who knows" - well, anyone who has read the laws. Opposite the umpire's chair, of course, is the service judge's chair. But more inhibiting than that, for a top quality player, is the point that they do not want to be seen going for a shot that is obviously miles out anyway.
Nothing wrong with that law. It makes perfect sense -- the only way to gain advantage is if your opponent's net tumble is going out. In that case, why bother? Just let it go out. If you think you can get it around the edge of the post, then maybe you should think about leaving it
