it's pointless to you because you don't have any good points to make. if u read more of my posts, u would find i do admit mistakes when situation warranted but i dont back off if i think my claims stand. Here are links to all my oops. Go check them out if you want. http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/search.php?searchid=93630 I have admitted lots of oops so i must be a wise man. Thank you Seven. I will continue to make line calls based on my above judgement. If you don't like it, you better report me to the IBF and our canadian badminton assocation because i'm such a bad line judge. I triple dare you.
Sorry if I offended you, I was NOT saying that "you are not wise" in general, just saying that you could be wise in this particular case! If I don't want to argue about this, it is not that I have no (good) points, it is 1/ that the subject isn't worth it 2/ that I don't think you would change your mind, whatever my arguments My time on Earth being limited , I won't lose time on such trivial discussions!
In that case u r surfing the wrong thread or even the wrong site. why did you elect to vote anyway if the whole subject isn't 'worth' it? The subject isn't worth it to you because you treat proper line calls as trival and hitting a shuttle back and forth in the air is good enough for you.
For those people who say i don't know what i'm talking about, then I'll let pictures do the talking. the first pic is a repeat of freezed and zoomed image provided by kwun. the following pics is a recreation of the image in question. every attempt to position the shuttle as closely as to the shuttlecock captured in the image in question. i've attached several closeup of the cork contact point at various lighting. Absolutely all care taken so that the shuttlecock didn't move between photo shots. As i have said before, the call was EZ, it's out. the shuttlecock in my photo shots is an used yonex AS-50, probably same kind used in the tournament of the questioned image
for those who originally say the the shuttlecock is still falling and it's hard to tell, when that shuttlecock do land, it would be even farther out than what is shown in the picture in question.
Exactly. This is just flat-out provoking... first basically calling out the other side, then saying it is all "pointless," as if to get in the last word. Besides, it's clearly IN. I was surprised to see about a 50/50 split in the votes. I expected most to be OUT. Phil
i think seven is just joking around. so please take him lightly. i assume, cooler, that EZ = easy. i am looking at the last closeup picture you attached, even though with perfect rigid geometry it would have been out, the apparent softness and non-evenless in the your "court surface" is making it hard to determine if it indeed touched the line or not. so i don't find it an easy case myself. call me stupid if you like.
so Phil you think it is IN? even with cooler's re-enacment of the scene (do we sound like those "Cop TV" show? ), we still cannot get a concensus on the call.
kwun,eyes definitely sharper than a camera lens good eyes, in that shot, i admit i had did not flatten out the tape completely, leaving a tiny rift at its edges. So i go flatten the tape on the wood, and taken more shots with back light too. the point is that the center of contact point is out of bound first before downward momentum compresses the cork into an area of contact. If one use the argument that if the cork touches the line it's in, then what about situation where the cork hit out first and bounces and landed in or on the line. Any lineman will call that out but if we go by if cork touches line is in rule, then all those shuttle went out and bounces in should be call in. No one want that rule. in tennis, the ball compresses even more as seen from mac cam, where the ball roll along a large surface area before bouncing up again. How about this situation, a tennis ball touch the base line, compresses and keep rolling and the center of compressional rolling occur actually outside the line, is that in or out. ? I think point of contact rule should be use as who know what is the air pressure of each tennis ball. Same as for the shuttlecock, the area of contact will depend on how fast the shuttle hit the mat and the shape of each cork. I know each brand and grade of shuttles have different cork curvature profile. Are linemans really know of all the cork shape of each brand of shuttle used? Center of contact point is the best rule. It brings the resolution down to say +/- 0.5mm difference in contact point before I consider it hard to tell.
note the dark area left of the tape and below the blue arrow, it's the shadow. Shadow means empty space which is resolved with back lights
unfortunately, the shadow covers both the empty space and the contact point... anyway. note i am on neither IN nor OUT side. my point was really that it is quite hard to tell. the linesman won't have such a close macro view of the contact point. it is not "EZ"...
Cooler, I merely responded to your statements about Athens line judges being "local volunteers", as I knew that was not the case. Regarding your interesting photo investigation: are you sure you didn't misplace the shuttle 0.5 mm? That would make the shuttle a definite IN or a definite OUT in your photos. I think you have showed clearly that this line judges' decision was indeed impossible, or arbitrary if you like. So, the best ruling would have been if he/she put hands over eyes (because it was impossible to judge) and let the umpire rule, hopefully a "let".
it was a hard call and deserved a great discussion. even tho it was called IN by the LJ i would still call it OUT based on that picture. dont want to dispute with anybody... im just stating my opinion on how i perceive the evidence. cheers
Yes, the original subject was fun and entertaining. Now I don't think there is a point to spend all my time in what we commonly call "deaf discussions"... Sorry Phil if you thought this was in order to have the last word, I rather think by saying this that I am leaving others - who want to continue argueing - have the last word... Agree!
I think cooler might have put the shuttle closer to the line in the reconstruction than in the real case.
Very observant, were u a line judge at one time? In my re-construction of the 3D model from the original fuzzy 2D black and white, i did say i try to be as 'close' as possible, i wasn't lying LOL. I was afraid someone would think i would be bias. Yes, i did recreate the scenario with doubters in mind so i gave as much leeway to doubters as possible since the black and white blowup was a fuzzy enhancement of the orginal video capture. To take care that, i printed the black and white with shuttle and line sizes referenced to real dimensions. In my pic below, i have outlined the real possible position of the shuttle and the line. I've key in the speed band of the shuttle, and the middle of the cork shadow as the middle axis. I've use the inside line edge as reference line because it has a better consistence edging across the photo. All outlined objects are in real dimensions. From that, Neil is correct, my 3D reconstruction is or could be closer than what really was. That's why i made the call EZ out from the original video capture image.
in the 3d reconstruction, the line edge to center of shuttle contact point is 3mm. in the following up outline of the 2d black and white, that distance is 4 to 5mm. (not exact because 2d couldnt give me the exact contact point) As noticed by Neil, the 3d reconstruction is about 1 to 2 mm closer to the line edge than what really was he saw from the original video captured image.
