Having problems with message search?
Hi all,
Glad to see Chris confirming that a small pro-rata adjustment is perfectly acceptable for top level play. That is exactly what was done at Windsor (re Ernie Melville's earlier email).
We had three (of four) courts that were narrow due to space constraints. Each was 80 feet wide rather than the standard 84 feet. However, the length was still the standard 105 feet, thus throwing out the internal geometry of each court. At the beginning of 2008, and in preparation for the Australian Championships, we decided that ensure that the courts were laid out in accordance with law 2(b)(6), and adopted a base unit of 20 feet rather than 21 feet. That did shorten those courts by 5 feet, but it restored the internal court geometry and made the proportions legal.
I managed every day of the 2008 Australian Championships at Windsor and our courts got nothing but praise from players from all parts of the country. I'm not sure why some people want to continue questioning an 18 month old decision that made the court proportions legal, and produced courts that local and interstate players enjoyed playing on.
Bruce M.
On 19/08/2009, at 10:15 AM, chris clarke wrote:
When we played the worlds in Christchurch in 2008, St. Martins had a dodgy boundary at the far end of the club and needed room to put ball barriers between lawns. I told them to reduced the length of the lawn by a yard and adjust the hoop positions accordingly. None of the top players in the world noticed.
When you are playing a stroke, you should be guaging distance with your eyes, not being some sort of mechanical robot. If all the hoops are moved to be in the position pro-rata to the size of the lawn, no-one should be affected.
Clearly, if it is 6 yards to hoop 1 from the south boundary and 7 yards to 1-b from the north boundary, this is wrong, but if the hoops are all moved, then there should not be a problem.
Send Email
