IN or OUT?
- Thread starter kwun
- Start date
Loh
Regular Member
badmad said:I don't think that would be a right call.
How about putting as "If you can't clearly see it in, then call it out"..
It just depends who should reap the benefit of doubt.
I agree. If the line judge isn't sure he should call 'unsighted' so that a 'let' call will be given by the umpire otherwise it wouldn't be fair to the either party.
I assume that the shuttle has landed (not still airborne), otherwise the line judge should not make any call yet. If the bird has touched the line, no matter how finely or thinly, it should be treated as "in" and normally the LJ should not make any call UNLESS it is 'out', whereby he will shout 'out' with his arms stretched from his sides. If I were the LJ in this case, I will shout 'OUT' with my arms outstretched sideways, because I see it as out side the baseline and not touching it.
But what happens IF:
1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?
2. The shuttle was about to land seemingly outside of the line but a gust of wind blew against the shuttle and made it land on its feathers first on/inside the line?
Care to offer your verdict, Mr Line Judge?
jump_smash
Regular Member
Loh said:
No exactly true. Line Judges do call in if shuttle is in it is a non-verbal call indicated by one arm pointing forward towards the inside of court!
Loh said:But what happens IF:
1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?
2. The shuttle was about to land seemingly outside of the line but a gust of wind blew against the shuttle and made it land on its feathers first on/inside the line?
Care to offer your verdict, Mr Line Judge?
1. Out. Cork touched outside first.
2. In. Doesn't matter about wind or not.
Whatever part touched the ground first counts (most of the time, the cork base first). That's what linejudges are for... to check the shuttle actually land on the ground.
.Loh said:But what happens IF:
1. The cork (shuttle' base) has landed outside the line but the feather(s) land on or inside the line?
Care to offer your verdict, Mr Line Judge?
bigredlemon
Regular Member
most video cameras have built-in edge enhancement enabled by default. It can't even be disabled unless it's high end equipment.kwun said:nope. it was a frame capture, any "visual effect", blame the tape!
Neil Nicholls
Regular Member
Loh said:
depends which happens first.
if the first contact is outside the lines, it is a fault, and as soon as a fault occurs, the shuttle becomes "Not in play". What the shuttle does when it is "Not in play" is irrelevent, so if any further part of the shuttle subsequently comes into contact inside/on the lines, it does not suddenly become "In".
It is exactly the same as if the shuttle lands clearly OUT and then bounces back in. Nobody considers that to be IN do they?
If different parts of the shuttle simultaneously contact IN and OUT, I'm not sure the rules are specific. But I would call it IN. Not that a person would be able to accurately judge that this has happened in the real world.
here is the capture of a typical scene from the same tape as the line call. i will make you be the judge whether this is a edge enhanced or a blurry video source.bigredlemon said:most video cameras have built-in edge enhancement enabled by default. It can't even be disabled unless it's high end equipment.
Attachments
wilfredlgf
Regular Member
That does not mean it's legally out. The linesman may have made a wrong call but as you know it, the call cannot be overruled.
If half of the BC population says its out then it's way too close to be accurate here. So, if they say it's in, then it's an in.
I still say it's out.
If half of the BC population says its out then it's way too close to be accurate here. So, if they say it's in, then it's an in.
I still say it's out.
SystemicAnomaly
Regular Member
New Poll...
The linesman for the call in question was:
._
|_| Correct! (it was close enuff to be good?)
._
|_| Dead Wrong! (both the lineman & his seeing eye dog should go!)
====================================================
I had assumed that the picture quality was such that it made the shuttle appear as if it might be touching the line when, in fact, it did not.
As a linesman, I would possibly call this shout OUT. However, if I had to make this same call against an opponent, I might be inclined to give them the benefit it I was not 100% sure.
Did NE1 see the US Open (tennis) 2 weeks ago? There was a close WS QF match between J. Capriati & Serena Williams. In the 3rd & deciding set, there was several (4?) line calls made against Serena that appeared to be blatantly wrong. If I remember correctly, the worst of the calls was an over-rule by the chair umpire on a ball that was clearly inside the line (not even touching it). The linesperson had correctly indicated that the ball was IN, but for some unknown reason the chair decided to over-rule.
This just goes to show that linepersons & umpires are fallible even tho' they are undoubtedly screened & highly trained for grand slam events in order to minimize these types of errors.
The linesman for the call in question was:
._
|_| Correct! (it was close enuff to be good?)
._
|_| Dead Wrong! (both the lineman & his seeing eye dog should go!)
====================================================
I had assumed that the picture quality was such that it made the shuttle appear as if it might be touching the line when, in fact, it did not.
As a linesman, I would possibly call this shout OUT. However, if I had to make this same call against an opponent, I might be inclined to give them the benefit it I was not 100% sure.
Did NE1 see the US Open (tennis) 2 weeks ago? There was a close WS QF match between J. Capriati & Serena Williams. In the 3rd & deciding set, there was several (4?) line calls made against Serena that appeared to be blatantly wrong. If I remember correctly, the worst of the calls was an over-rule by the chair umpire on a ball that was clearly inside the line (not even touching it). The linesperson had correctly indicated that the ball was IN, but for some unknown reason the chair decided to over-rule.
This just goes to show that linepersons & umpires are fallible even tho' they are undoubtedly screened & highly trained for grand slam events in order to minimize these types of errors.
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL, i should have known this is kwun's trick question or a clip of a questionable line call 
IMO, that call is a plain jane out. We all watched tournaments before and know that line judges do make errors.
In this case, the line judge called in a instance where as I and other have ample times to eyeball that freeze frame to make the real right call.
IMO, that call is a plain jane out. We all watched tournaments before and know that line judges do make errors.In this case, the line judge called in a instance where as I and other have ample times to eyeball that freeze frame to make the real right call.
Now that we have the answer, we are not going to start argueing about whether the linesman was right or wrong.
If some people think they are capable of knowing better than the linesman whether it is IN or OUT by just watching this picture
... well, so much the better for them.
There are always people who think they know better than the umpire/referee, whatever the sport...
If some people think they are capable of knowing better than the linesman whether it is IN or OUT by just watching this picture
... well, so much the better for them. There are always people who think they know better than the umpire/referee, whatever the sport...
wilfredlgf
Regular Member
Still, seven, what we have here is a still frame and we have tonnes of time to look at it carefully. The linesman could only see it within a fraction of a second. Who do you think would have a better look at it? They must make a decision within the couple of seconds.
A quote from Bill Shankly from football, "The problem with referees is that they know the rules but the don't know the game".
A quote from Bill Shankly from football, "The problem with referees is that they know the rules but the don't know the game".
Do you think your call will be better if you watch this picture for hours? 
I remember in football at world cup 98, the referee gave a penalty to Norway against Brazil.
By watching the TV videos over and over, everyone agreed that there was NO foul.
Then one or two years later, they found an amateur video from another angle... which proved there was a foul and that the referee was right!
All this to say that you shouldn't beleive what you see on a picture or on a video, the best person to judge is the one who sees it IN REAL and has been prepared in order to judge. (all the rest is only telespectator's OPINION, not facts)
I remember in football at world cup 98, the referee gave a penalty to Norway against Brazil.
By watching the TV videos over and over, everyone agreed that there was NO foul.
Then one or two years later, they found an amateur video from another angle... which proved there was a foul and that the referee was right!
All this to say that you shouldn't beleive what you see on a picture or on a video, the best person to judge is the one who sees it IN REAL and has been prepared in order to judge. (all the rest is only telespectator's OPINION, not facts)
Camera angles on football games have more margin for error however.On a badminton court IF the camera is exactly facing along the line, then any foot after wards should be more accurate (provided it has a clear view.)
However this particular case, and most tv cameras AREN'T facing exactly down the line. Also on a still, the frames are only a certain muber of frames per second, so errors are there. More errors can come from if the shuttle was smashed onto the line, as the cork may spread out and bee in contact with the line in a still, but the first contact may be out.
It is a continous argument. Good luck!
However this particular case, and most tv cameras AREN'T facing exactly down the line. Also on a still, the frames are only a certain muber of frames per second, so errors are there. More errors can come from if the shuttle was smashed onto the line, as the cork may spread out and bee in contact with the line in a still, but the first contact may be out.
It is a continous argument. Good luck!
Neil Nicholls
Regular Member
kwun said:
does the formatting imply that you disagree with the line judge?