No. It could easily be hawkeye calculating a full sphere regardless of the angle, still a sphere. The logic isn't there. Surely a drop shot would have a TINY hawkeye mark since there is no compression of the cork? Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
You keep saying, in effect, "I'm right because I'm right". It seems the rules of the game need some rewriting to make this issue clear. Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
Like @mark_palmos said, it would change the size of the court depending on the shot played. I am aware that this is said in a provocative way, that is my intention I don't think Hawk-Eye could actually resolve that, but I don't know.
Indeed, hawkeye can easily calculating a full sphere. But in fact it doesn't!!! It calculates an ellipse. Well, I don't know how much compression happens during a drop shot. I took it as a black-box and assume the 5 mm representation in hawk-eye is correct, judging by the actual cork size is 25 mm. I don't have argument why it should be something else. If you argue that it should be 1 mm, please enlighten me on why it is 1 mm
Obviously nobody actually KNOWS, and a conversation comparing di*k sizes is of no interest to me. I've written entails to the line judge associations of England and Denmark, and hopefully they will illuminate us. Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
very well spotted But have you ever noticed that the flight of the shuttle is often completely different? Sometimes the challenged shot was a smash and the animation shows whatever stupid but not the smash that had happened. So the animation has nothing to do with the real shot, and thats why its not a rules thing, but an animation "error".
I am not quite on your wavelength. In what way are they too vague for your situation? (forget all the noise about hawkeye. That doesn't really answer the question)
This is ambiguous: §13.3.1 It shall be a fault, if in play, the shuttle lands outside the boundaries of the court (i.e. not on or within the boundary lines); What does land mean here, is it determined by the cork circumference or actual contact... It could be either, which is the whole point of this thread. If they meant "makes contact" then that is the term that should be used. Anyway, it seems there is nobody here who actually knows, I'm waiting to hear back from the line judge associations. Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
Lol... Land is quite different from perceived to land. Whatever makes contact is different from what looks like it made contact.
yeah but also yeah, the rules can be further elaborated to make people who isn't used to the rule understand it easily
What about §15.2, which uses the verb hit? Is there any serious theory that shuttle hits the surface of the court can possibly mean something but first contact between shuttle and court?
15.2 is a different matter altogether. It is talking about the entire surface of the court, ie once it touches the ground it's dead, regardless of in or out. Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
So your alternate theory is that after the shuttle is dead, it travels for a bit, and then it's decided whether it's in or out? I concur that §13.3.1 should read hits, not lands, but what exactly is the alternate interpretation which causes your confusion, if not the above?
what you say has nothing at all to do with what I said... obviously once it touches the ground, play is over, so...? It is unrelated to line calls. I am not confused at all, please do not be arrogant, it is an ugly attribute. I am discussing something because the rules of the game do not satisfy me. It is quite possible that the term hits is being broadly used, ie that the overhead view of the cork "hits" any part of the line... It is possible that the rules of tennis use "hits" too - and we know a tennis ball does not have to touch the line to be in.
You even gave the answer how it's related to line calls and you don't seem to see it, maybe emphasizing something helps:
After speaking to my brother, who plays a lot of tennis, he is sure that in tennis it is the part of the ball that touches the line. I check the ITF rules, and on page 7 (http://www.itftennis.com/media/277489/277489.pdf) it says TOUCHES the line... I had always thought that it was whether any part of the ball was over the line, regardless of what part touched, but it seems not. Badminton is not tennis, but now it's only football AFAIK which definitely determines whether a ball is in or out by using an as-seen-from-above view. If I do get a definitive response from the Line Judge Associations I will let you know what they say. Cheers for now, interesting debate.
It has never been a debate to me/us... And I haven't seen phihag been arrogant at all. Perhaps you misunderstand due to language differences? And none of us has been comparing **** sizes either, as you say...
