quote:
反而我覺得你把14B譯成：(除非球証認為球手有意犯規, 就不論之前或之後需唔需要 snooker, 都可以 call foul & miss) 係有錯誤。
請留意(or as a result of, the stroke played and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.) 係話如果球証滿意這 Q 打失並非蓄意就不是foul & miss。
sec 14 (b) 係一整句, 個重點就係 "unless either player needed snooker before, or as a result of, the stroke played" 意思係 "foul & miss" 除非 打之前或之後需要 snooker, 但係 再 要乎合一個要求, 而呢個要求就係 (and the referee is satisfied that the miss was not intentional.) : "球証滿意這 Q 打失並非蓄意"... sec 14(b) 個意圖就係想完全解釋到 "needed snooker, before 或 after the stroke" 同 "foul & miss" 嘅特殊相對嘅關係, 而唔係簡單談論球証自己滿意定唔滿意蓄意定唔蓄意...
quote:
這就解答左你的疑問，球証係要睇實際情況去裁決，佢一定要好熟悉桌球打法同埋現場經驗，唔係求其揾個大學生唸熟本例就可以落場做球証。
作為一個好有經驗嘅球証我覺得你忽略咗冇解釋清楚 sec 14(b) 嘅真正涵意...
quote:
再俾多個例子：如果有球手打完紅要打色波，佢去揀打隻白波想輕輕(痴)埋啡波度做snooker 又唔夠力，依你講又要叫 foul & miss 啦係嗎？但你有無見過球証咁叫？如果真係叫會唔會俾人覺得佢多餘同埋唔識波？
你俾呢個例子, 一隻咁嘅波, 唔通佢 "盡力" 會打唔中?? 點解唔係 miss?? 咁如果面前有一大 pack 好近嘅紅波, 個球手想打 fine cut, 打唔中, 係咪又唔 call miss? 因為俾對手打多 Q 可能佢今次會打中又 SET 返球好靚嘅 SAFETY, CALL MISS 會唔會俾人覺得 "多餘" 同埋 "唔識波"??? 所以都唔係 miss?
無錯, 可能叫 miss 會誤導一啲你所講嘅 "水準唔高" 嘅球手, 但係 選擇權都應該係球手度, *** 唔通打入隻紅, 袋口有隻 黑, 但係 touching 隻 粉紅, 咁你就唔好叫 touching ball 怕會 "誤導" 個 "低水準" 嘅球手唔敢打球袋口隻 黑?
|
 |
|
問球例
Posted - 18.05.2006 : 21:48:17
