Badminton rule dispute

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by AllisterBrimble, Sep 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wood_22_chuck

    wood_22_chuck Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    7
    Occupation:
    Electronics Technologist
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    No, no ... but I [size=+1]MUST[/size] win!

    -dave
     
  2. simplicity

    simplicity Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    china , hong kong
    no its not below
     
  3. jdcastro

    jdcastro Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manila
    The Laws indeed made no mention of "imaginary lines", but without these how can we define the area "over the net" in:
     
  4. DinkAlot

    DinkAlot dcbadminton
    Brand Representative

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,682
    Likes Received:
    290
    Occupation:
    Social Distancing Specialist
    Location:
    Southern California
    But what happens if you lose? :p
     
  5. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Even top players do play shots that are more than 2 inches out, or more than 2 inches in, simply because they are not always spot on.
     
  6. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Many years ago the Company that I was with used to bring income tax test cases to challenge the Hong Kong Inland Revenue, for the specific purpose of forcing a clear cut legal definition that makes sense.
    Even now in Hong Kong, any man in the street can and does seek a judicial review of an interpretation of a piece of legislation.
    The thing between my ears finds it hard to be convinced that a shot under the net and between the shot is a fault whilst a similar one outside the post gets away scot-free. You say it is the law, because it can never happen. I wouldn't be so sure.
     
  7. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    This should be the correct one.
     
  8. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    41,044
    Likes Received:
    2,066
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    make sense to you or not, the law is what is written down in Laws of Badminton.

    we have already told you your interpretation of the relavent laws is incorrect. i suggest you write to the IBF and file a formal complaint... ;)
     
  9. DinkAlot

    DinkAlot dcbadminton
    Brand Representative

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,682
    Likes Received:
    290
    Occupation:
    Social Distancing Specialist
    Location:
    Southern California
    And here's the addy to the IBF... ;) :p

    Actually, I'm sure Taneepak has it. :D
     
  10. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    41,044
    Likes Received:
    2,066
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    does this make sense to you?

    a shuttle that hits the net tape and not roll over is a fault, while a similar one just above the tape gets away scot-free.


    imaginary boundaries are bad. physically verifiable boundaries are good.
     
  11. libra

    libra Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ok, here's a scenario for you guys to think about...

    Defective posts:
    The hall I play in has some defective posts in that they have been bent inward towards the court (most probably some overly excited players trying to pull the net too tight).

    With the nets bent inward (some tops are actually bent up to 6" from where they ought to be), there is a gap of a few inches on either side of the net for someone to make the kind of 'impossible' shots that people are talking about in this thread.

    It doesn't happen often but it has (I've done it myself once) and when my opponent complained that it went around the post I just said ok and gave away the point - no big deal just a social game but if it was a close game in a comp I'm not sure I would give it away that easily.

    Thoughts anyone? Oh, and before anyone tells me to fix the posts, I've tried to get the gym people to fix it but they simply can't be bothered to spend the money - them not being badminton players and all.
     
  12. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Yes, it does make sense because the latter went over, the former did not. Pushing a shuttle 6" from the floor around the post for a distance of 6", in which the highest height was 6" and the lowest the opposite court floor, is not verifiable? If it is considered not verifiable when the fact is so obvious, then I am inclined to think that the law's intent is to take away any discretion of the umpire, and is to be implememted, warts and all, simply for administrative/expediency reasons.
    If the law says a serve must be over the net, does it mean only serves must be over the net and all other shots can be both around the posts and over the net-one for the gender, the other for the goose?
    The around the posts interpretation makes sense if the shot is discernably over the net, or even marginally below the tape. Under such a situation, any wind that makes a wide shot curve in, is part of the game. To leave this to the umpire's judgement or discretion will create more problems.
    If the law is so interpreted even if it brings an uproar or disbelief from the crowd, then shouldn't there be a law that will allow for any unusual situation, when the strict interpretation looks rather foolish, to redress this?
     
  13. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    41,044
    Likes Received:
    2,066
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    there come the flaw of your argument. how much is discernable? how do you measure it? how high up the pole should the boundary be? 3ft? 4ft? 4ft 2inches? how about if 1/2 the shuttle is above while 1/2 is outside the net? who has the best view point to make the decision?

    one of the problems with your interpretation is that it cannot be enforced precisely as you rely on imaginary boundary. judging such a boundary will not be accurate and will create even more dispute.
     
  14. CWB001

    CWB001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    Is this Grounghog day? Will this thread never end?

     
  15. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    I have returned net shots, both net tumble and cross court, that were 2" out at the height I took the shuttle. I played them because I thought they were in-we all do this, don't we? I have always returned them over the net. I have never ever thought of just tapping them around the post at such low height. That would be cheating. There were some rare occasions when some other players mishit a net tumble and the shuttle went around the post at no more than 6" onto the opponents' court. We never thought that it was a good shot. The opponents would have walked off the court if we insisted it was legal.
     
  16. CWB001

    CWB001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    Corrected. :D

    Not totally impossible, flukes can happen. But practically impossible, especially at 6" above the floor, which was the situation you were postulating.

    And in that situation, the opposition are not unhappy because they should have lost the point anyway.

    Now try hitting returns of shots that were going to land in, around the post.
     
  17. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Flukes, mishits, even thunderbolts are all legitimate when they get you a point. A point from a mishit is as good and legitimate as any other winning shots.
     
  18. CWB001

    CWB001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    No. A thunderbolt would earn a let.
     
  19. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    25
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    If you were the umpire in a tournament and you had the luck to see such a "fluke" shot, how would you rule? You implement the law and look foolish, or you rush to the referee for a consultation?
     
  20. CWB001

    CWB001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    UK
    I'll give you 100/10 for persistence.;)

    If I were an umpire in a tournament and saw it, I would look very foolish and lose my umpiring credentials if I did not know and implement the laws. By calling the referee I would be saying "I don't know what to do here - what is the law?"

    So I would implement the law and not look foolish.:)

    Only people who have not read the laws would disagree - and they would look foolish.:rolleyes:

    I'm sorry, but there really is no debate. The law is clear and is sensible and fair.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page