Is it legal to block the net?

[Slanter]

What is the rule about holding your racquet up close to the net during play? It would be similar to playing the block in volleyball. I am not talking about playing a shot, merely holding the racquet there to attempt to block back a lob, net shot or even a kill. I seem to remember that it is not permitted and you need to actually be playing a shot.

[modious]

You can do that, just rem that your racket must not cross over the net or touch the net.

[Fourcas]

....and keep in mind that you are NOT allowed to annoy your opponent! For instance, if he smashes at the net and complete the stroke thus crossing the net after impact and hit your racket - then it's your fault! And if he feels annoyed by your racket while hitting - then it's your fault!


But it is a thin red line: annoying, not annoying. If you prepare a block shot close to the net , consider the risk of your opponent breaking his and your racket and then correctly blaming you......you'd have to pay for his racket!


Another way of annoying your opponent is making faces and shouting during play. This is also repulsive and illigal! Even if you hit the net and the duel continues, dont say sorry until after the duel , because it is just soooooooooo annoying! Anyway at our level it is quite common to do it and shouldn't always be called luck. You know; the more you practise, the luckier you get!


...think about it!

[marshall]

The rule actually is about obstructing an opponent's legal shot. And since the opponent's racquet can legally go over to your side of the net in the course of completing a stroke that hits the shuttle on his/her side, you are not allowed to hold your racquet in such a position that it would obstruct (or block) opponent's completing the stroke.

I have heard IBF-certified umpires make this interpretation: based on the above, if no opponent is close enough to the net to cross it w/ the racquet, it doesn't matter how close to the net you hold your racquet, because it's impossible that you are obstructing the opponent.

I don't think moving the racquet of holding it still has anything to do w/ the rule, because you could wave the racquet back and forth and still obstruct.

[klaphat]

I cannot pinpoint the exact rule..

BUT.. very often in Denmark when people hit a net drop.. and the birdie falls below the top of the net.. then you will see the player who hit the net drop place his racket close to the net.. on his own side.. hoping that the opponent will try to lob the birdie to the back in a flat curve.. which will allow the racket to block the birdie...

I've seen this several times - also in competition.. and the referees accept it...

I guess that is because the opponent's swing - because the birdie is under the top of the net - even in the follow through cannot be bothered by the blocking racket.

[SystemicAnomaly]

In volleyball, blockers are allow to break the vertical plane above the net & contact the ball on the opponent's side of the net. Contact is not allowed on the opposing side in badminton. Tennis does have one special case where contact is permitted on the other side of the net. In v'ball, blockers cannot interfere with the setting of a ball (close to the net) and are not allowed to attack the ball before it has broken the (vertical) plane of the net as it is coming toward their side. They may only contact the ball BEFORE it has broken the plane after an opponent has hit a ball that is meant to be an attack.

In badminton, there is some question as to whether any block is permitted. The previous reply states that they have seen blocks in competition that are permitted by the refs. However, I've heard of numerous other instances where it was called as a fault. I have been told by several differnt sources that blocking smashes or clears close to the net are not allowed. The defending player cannot hold their racket in place to make the block; however, the can time the movement of their racket to intercept the shuttle. This says that a static block is a no-no whereas a dynamic (or kinetic) block is perfectly acceptable.

The wording of the Laws is rather ambiguous. Law 13.4.4 :

It is a 'fault'... if, when the shuttle is in play, a player... obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.


Any other takes of this or any other Laws that might apply?

[SystemicAnomaly]

actually, the Laws of Badminton DO allow your racket to encroach in your opponet's space when following thru. however, you are not allow contact the shuttle of their side. u r correct in stating that one is not allowed to touch the net (until the bird is dead).

[jwu]

Didn't know how to search this topic so if someone answer this already, sorry.

My situation is sometime when the shot is just above the net so basically I can do whatever I want to score a point but then the opponent at the net puts his racquet up and either shadows the bird on his side or wave it in front of my face. Basically if I smash the bird or anything, the momentum of my swing would hit his racquet or even a body part sometime. Is my opponent's action legal? It sure is distracting and annoying for me whenever he does that.

[LazyBuddy]

I can't answer this question completly, but I think I know some parts of it, I was told all the following by an experienced guy from 1 of my clubs:

1. racket should never pass the net unless it's a continue motion after swing, but can't hit the net (is there any length or height limitation, I think so, but don't know)

2. Body should never pass or touch the net

3. Before opponent hit the bird, racket have to be held with certain limitation in distance and height away from the net. Sorry, don't know the exact number.

4. Certain motion with racket, say, waving before opponent hit the bird, etc are illegal, i think.

[jwu]

thanks LB, as far as i know from the rulebook it just states you can't distract opponent while they are hitting but not sure how that's defined. In no instance was my opponent's racquet or body part over or touching the net, he's just there standing so that if I hit it the way I want to hit it, I would hit him, which I don't want to do.

[coupii]

This is a good question and I've often wondered the same. I've asked others this same question, and I think we agreed that as long as the defending player does not cross the net with his racket, he can do anything with it, including holding the head of the racket just in front of the net to block a close net shot. Is anybody out there an umpire?

[Tomsk]

From the rule/laws



it is a 'fault':

13.4 if, when the shuttle is in play, a player:

13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, ie prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.

[coupii]

I see. So this implies that there is a zone in front of the net where the defender should not stand, reach into, play with his racket, or otherwise occupy, since if he were in this zone and I was the attacker, it would be his responsibility to get out of the way rather than attempt to defend, for fear of getting hit and being faulted. This being the case in spite of the fact that we are talking about a zone which is technically in the defender's half of the court?

A similar question is posed on badders.com under "Ask the Umpire" but I'm not sure the answer given addressed the question exactly.

Another question is, can a defender's attempt to play/defend/return the attacker's net smash/push/drive be technically defined as "obstruction?" Theoretically, an opponent with long arms and naturally outrageous follow through could cut a 2 foot swath over the net, and this doesn't seem to be fair either.

[LazyBuddy]

Originally posted by coupii
This being the case in spite of the fact that we are talking about a zone which is technically in the defender's half of the court?

...

Theoretically, an opponent with long arms and naturally outrageous follow through could cut a 2 foot swath over the net, and this doesn't seem to be fair either.

1. Yeah. I think it means the "defender's half".

2. Well, according to the rule, I believe we make the std. base one where the racket is (most likely should be in front of body), but not the body part.

[coops241180]

hmmm, my interpretation of the rule would be that it is a fault if your racquet connects with the opponents, this would be and obstruction.

i know a few peopl who use this tactic and it rarely works - or results in a fault - the only time it is realy playable is when your opponent plays an net return while ur stood there then tries to make up for his mistake.

Neil

[jwu]

so according to the rule, what my opponent did would be considered a fault since his racquet is usually within a foot of the net and obstructing any of my attempt to hit and follow thru. thanks for all the input.

as for the 2 foot follow thru that was mentioned, maybe that's gotta be a fault too, shouldn't be able to reach over to your opponent's side that much.

[ljq]

Actually, there are 2 types of harassing the opponent's concentration of the netting.

I can see that this type is the 1st type. The second type is where the opponent stand very close to the net and the opponent is immediately afraid of hitting the shuttle to high and the opponent can tap.

My friend does that, and 50% of the time, he taps it into the net.

Anyway, back to the topic, it the opponent put the racket such that the head of the racket is just above the net, and in front of you, this can be called as obstruction.

However, if it is very high above the net( the racket), i dun think it can be called as obstuction. The opponent could say he always put the racket that high.

These are not according to the books, it was what i found out from my coach, so it must be right.

[gerry]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by coupii
I see. So this implies that there is a zone in front of the net where the defender should not stand, reach into, play with his racket, or otherwise occupy, since if he were in this zone and I was the attacker, it would be his responsibility to get out of the way rather than attempt to defend, for fear of getting hit and being faulted. This being the case in spite of the fact that we are talking about a zone which is technically in the defender's half of the court?[/

No there is no zone/area that you can't occupy

Another question is, can a defender's attempt to play/defend/return the attacker's net smash/push/drive be technically defined as "obstruction?" Theoretically, an opponent with long arms and naturally outrageous follow through could cut a 2 foot swath over the net, and this doesn't seem to be fair either.

No it can't be defined as obstuction as long as he is attempting to play a shot.

][/A similar question is posed on badders.com under "Ask the Umpire" but I'm not sure the answer given addressed the question exactly.[/


I think it does. It's telling you that the attacker's initial point of contact with the shuttle must be on his side of the net but is allowed to follow through with his racket in the course of the stroke.
The defender can attempt a reply as but can not just put his racket up to to the net in the path of his opponents shot to block.

Maybe the eaiest way to picture this is;
you are at the net and play a tight net shot, your oponent then goes to play a reply but you keep your racket up stationary at the tape awaiting his reply, this would be deemed a fault as you are not attempting a shot.[/[/B][B

I hope this helps.

[cooler]

this is relatively straight forward but usually not well understood by newbies who like to show off. In many cases, the opposing player has his/her racquet just above the net and the rebound shot is contacted not on his/her side but still on the side where the lift shot is attempted. It is obviously illegal but usually they don't want his/her cool shot called illegal and refuse to admit a fault. In many many cases, blocking a shot close to the net lead to a fault (unless it is done correctly). In support of my statement, i have viewed many many video tapes of international tournaments and watched many high level tournaments and i have not seen block shots made closer than 1 feet from the net. Advanced players know close block shots are usually fruitless because the umpire clearly see what is happening and by committing a block position, the opposing player see this and will adjust his/her shot away from the blocking player. It is a basic fundamental that u don't show your opponent your proposed shot or position. However, in my case, i use cross court net shot away from the blocking player. If i have to lift and the block shot is contacted on my side of the court, i would not waste my breath explaining these intricacies to players who faulted a block shot and let them have their point or lost a serve because in real tournament, these showoff players will lose real point.

[Joanne]

Never seen that kind of playing happen before...who will dare to do that?!

[cooler]

In support of my statement, i have viewed many many video tapes of international tournaments and watched many high level tournaments and i have not seen block shots made closer than 1 feet from the net.

I like to clarify my last statement, what i meant was i rarely see block shots been made or attempted by pros or advanced players from the tapes and tournaments i have seen. Of those rare occassion, those block shots were made no closer than 1 feet away from the net.

[jwu]

the person I play with would probably never play in tournaments so I doubt he cares. what he does is literally shadows the shuttle so that his racquet is probably no more than 1/2 ft away from the shuttle on his side. It is a clear obstruction but he claims he has the right to block the shot since his racquet is still on his side.

[LazyBuddy]

Originally posted by jwu
the person I play with would probably never play in tournaments so I doubt he cares.


Well, I've been involved in similar cases like this.

Once u try to explain some rules to them, they just totally ignore u, and think u r just making a damn excuse for losing a point. To be even worse, they even use this to show off, how cool their "invention" could be. Since, most ppl don't know this kinda rule, they always get the majority to support them.

Well, to me, surely I was upset sometimes. However, I think since it's just practice, I will just try to let them get away. If they don't care about the rule, that's their business. As least, I have to follow the rules properly, and make sure won't lose easy points for illegal moves in tournament.

Also, anther excuse: give them several easy point, will make the practice games more competitive for me. :o

[cooler]

Originally posted by LazyBuddy
Well, I've been involved in similar cases like this.

Once u try to explain some rules to them, they just totally ignore u, and think u r just making a damn excuse for losing a point. To be even worse, they even use this to show off, how cool their "invention" could be. Since, most ppl don't know this kinda rule, they always get the majority to support them.

Well, to me, surely I was upset sometimes. However, I think since it's just practice, I will just try to let them get away. If they don't care about the rule, that's their business. As least, I have to follow the rules properly, and make sure won't lose easy points for illegal moves in tournament.

Also, anther excuse: give them several easy point, will make the practice games more competitive for me. :o

That is the spirit Lazybud. :) People who don't want to listen or learn is why they are where they are.

[cooler]

Originally posted by jwu
the person I play with would probably never play in tournaments so I doubt he cares. what he does is literally shadows the shuttle so that his racquet is probably no more than 1/2 ft away from the shuttle on his side. It is a clear obstruction but he claims he has the right to block the shot since his racquet is still on his side.

It is like smokers saying he/she has the right to smoke in front of non-smokers. They don't know or care that whether their rights infringe upon other people's right.

[Zhang Ning]

Some players in my club have this kinf of habit :

When they did drop shot or net play, before I take the shuttle, their racket is ready to block at the net, so when I flick the shuttle, it touched their racket and bounce back to my court . they do it like they are playing volleyball. Is it legal to do that??:confused: :confused:

[timeless]

From what I understand of the rules, you can't block a shot at the net with your racquet held still in anticipation of the lift. However, you can attempt to block the shot by swinging your racquet, even in a very small movement, with anticipation of the lift. The difference between the two being, in the illegal case you're holding your racquet still, the legal case you're swinging/moving your racquet in a stroke.

I've seen a lot of beginners play weak net shots, and when they see their opponents coming in for the kill, they rush the net themselves and their racquet held up to block the kill. Not only is it really dangerous to do so, but illegal as well.

[LazyBuddy]

Here's an old thread: http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1311&highlight=interference

[SmashingBird]

I thought you can do whatever you want as long as your racquet don't cross the net.

I've also played with players who played a net shot too high and see their opponent coming to the net for a kill, they just kill the shot themselves so they wont get hit with the kill from the other guy.

[Gollum]

It's only illegal if it is considered to distract or obstruct the player. If you obstruct the follow-through of a lift, for example, by placing your racket head in the way. Blocking, of itself, is not illegal.

[silentlight]

I thought you can do whatever you want as long as your racquet don't cross the net.

I've also played with players who played a net shot too high and see their opponent coming to the net for a kill, they just kill the shot themselves so they wont get hit with the kill from the other guy.

:eek:, LOL.

[other]

lol......i thought that would be pretty dangerous what with the other player coming in at full steam, about to make the kill......

surely they are allowed to "block" if the shuttle has crossed to their side of the net? and if it hasn't, and they still hit it, then it is a fault.

please explain how exactly they block?

ok...having read the other thread.....how do i interfere with their follow through unless i have my racquet on their side of the net?

[Sliced Drop]

ok...having read the other thread.....how do i interfere with their follow through unless i have my racquet on their side of the net?
They're are allowed to follow through over your side of the net. Not likely to happen from a lift though.

[wwcbro]

Originally Posted by SmashingBird
I've also played with players who played a net shot too high and see their opponent coming to the net for a kill, they just kill the shot themselves so they wont get hit with the kill from the other guy.
You got to be bloody kidding!!!! That got to be the funniest thing I have yet to see in badminton.


Blocking a net kill is legal..and risky? If you can block a smash, why not a net kill? As long as your racquet doesn't cross over the net.

[Nrlll9]

Some players in my club have this kinf of habit :

When they did drop shot or net play, before I take the shuttle, their racket is ready to block at the net, so when I flick the shuttle, it touched their racket and bounce back to my court . they do it like they are playing volleyball. Is it legal to do that??:confused: :confused:

It's definitely illegal. They have to wait until after you hit the birdie to do it.

[Nrlll9]

I thought you can do whatever you want as long as your racquet don't cross the net.

I've also played with players who played a net shot too high and see their opponent coming to the net for a kill, they just kill the shot themselves so they wont get hit with the kill from the other guy.

No, you can't do it even if your racket doesn't cross the net.

[SmashingBird]

So technically, I can't move my racquet after I hit a shot until the other person hits the bird?

[cappy75]

Yup! But you can raise the racquet to protect yourself if you are infront of the netkill's path.


So technically, I can't move my racquet after I hit a shot until the other person hits the bird?

[SmashingBird]

So say I smash, as soon as I hit the smash with the follow through, I have to keep my racquet down, I can't even bring it up.

[wwcbro]

Originally Posted by cappy75
Yup! But you can raise the racquet to protect yourself if you are infront of the netkill's path.

So what is the differenc? You play a net shot & your opponent do a net kill, your racquet was up:- protecting your face/ready to block/or just in a ready pose; the net kill bounce off your racquet and goes over the net. Your racquet was stationary.
:confused:

[Gollum]

So say I smash, as soon as I hit the smash with the follow through, I have to keep my racquet down, I can't even bring it up.

Egads! No, that's totally wrong.

The ONLY circumstance in which you may not prepare your racket is when you would obstruct or distract an opponent. Realistically this does not often happen. There might be *some* occasions at the net where a player obstructs his opponent from playing a net kill, by placing his racket head in the path of the opponent's follow-through.

[bluejeff]

I just saw a similar case to this today.

Today, I was playing in the gym, and there was a Russian (I think :rolleyes: ), who is playing at the court behind me. Man, he was very tall, I would say, at least 190cm tall. So, one rally was like, he was standing near the net doing the net shot, then, the other side hit it back really quick because the shot was too high. Then, the shuttle hit his shoulder (because he is so tall!) and bounced back to the other side!! :eek:

So, would that be considered a point? or should it be a let? or should it be a point lost?

He is obviously NOT blocking at all, but ......

That's just crazy!! :)

[Zhang Ning]

he put the racket infront and just above the net, it just like the net now a few inches high, so when I did a lift the shuttle hit the racket and boucned back, it just happen less than a second after I hit the shuttle, how am I supposed to do another storke in such a short time?:confused:

[carlol]

in the tall russian's case, it would probably be a point lost, since it hit his body, and not the racket. The shuttle should hit the racket (actually the string of the racket if the rules have to be strictly followed i think) for the shot to be considered legal.

In the case of the net kill block, i agree with the guys who say that as long as you dont overreach or have ur racket cross the net, the shot or block or whatever u call it is legal. The defining point would be the overreach.

Thats just my humble 2 cents worth.

;)

[Nrlll9]

I just saw a similar case to this today.

Today, I was playing in the gym, and there was a Russian (I think :rolleyes: ), who is playing at the court behind me. Man, he was very tall, I would say, at least 190cm tall. So, one rally was like, he was standing near the net doing the net shot, then, the other side hit it back really quick because the shot was too high. Then, the shuttle hit his shoulder (because he is so tall!) and bounced back to the other side!! :eek:

So, would that be considered a point? or should it be a let? or should it be a point lost?

He is obviously NOT blocking at all, but ......

That's just crazy!! :)

Thats not blocking, if you get hit by the shuttle you lose.

Blocking is like if you do a really good tumble drop and the shuttle is below the net and the other guy needs to do an upward pointing shot. Your racket shouldn't be anywhere near the net. If it is, its a fault.

[SmashingBird]

Thats not blocking, if you get hit by the shuttle you lose.

Blocking is like if you do a really good tumble drop and the shuttle is below the net and the other guy needs to do an upward pointing shot. Your racket shouldn't be anywhere near the net. If it is, its a fault.


Is this in the rule book somewhere, if it is, please show me.
I've played with players who always put their racquet up near the net trying to block the net everytime they play a netshot. If it is true, then I get to win the point since its a fault. ;)

[cappy75]

I think the difference is whether you're actually running towards the shot to block it (distracting the opponent who's trying to make a delicate shot) or have not enough time to backup from the shot, thus made it necessary to defend yourself. Also it depends on how far you are from your opponent... obviously the closer to the opponent the more you'll distract/obstruct him/her.


So what is the differenc? You play a net shot & your opponent do a net kill, your racquet was up:- protecting your face/ready to block/or just in a ready pose; the net kill bounce off your racquet and goes over the net. Your racquet was stationary.
:confused:

[novl]

he put the racket infront and just above the net, it just like the net now a few inches high, so when I did a lift the shuttle hit the racket and boucned back, it just happen less than a second after I hit the shuttle, how am I supposed to do another storke in such a short time?:confused:

According to the Rules/Laws of Badminton, blocking the net is legal as long as you don't invade your opponent's courtside (13.4.2) or distract your opponent by shouting or making gestures (13.5) or obstruct an opponent, ie prevent an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net (13.4.4).

So, if your opponent's racket stays on his side of the court, it is legal the block your shot unless he obstructs your racket following the shuttle over the net. My understanding is that was not true in your case. The only thing you can do is look where his racket is positioned and hit the shuttle passed his racket.

[Z1985]

yes. this is a useless tactics against professional player. But i admit i did that when playing with more amatuer player. just to scare them. I got a buddy last time who did something worse. he attempts net drop from back court and rushed right in front of the net to act a 'jump smash' action and scare the wits out of his opponent who dare not recieve his net drop. i was a victim too as it was really scary and i turned away. so is it a fault? guess he was just joking around.

[LazyBuddy]

I got a buddy last time who did something worse. he attempts net drop from back court and rushed right in front of the net to act a 'jump smash' action and scare the wits out of his opponent who dare not recieve his net drop. i was a victim too as it was really scary and i turned away. so is it a fault? guess he was just joking around.

If just a friendly social game, just draw some laugh, it's ok. Who cares about all the rulez, if ppl just come for fun? ;)

For more competitive games, this is obviously a "distraction" to opponents. It should be ruled as a fault.

[Joseph]

If just a friendly social game, just draw some laugh, it's ok. Who cares about all the rulez, if ppl just come for fun? ;)

For more competitive games, this is obviously a "distraction" to opponents. It should be ruled as a fault.

I could have sworn, I saw some doubles player do that and they didn't call a fault for those. Like, it was dropped and the partner jumped up and smashed back the return.

[cappy75]

That's probably because it wasn't anywhere near the net. Smashing still requires a swing, so technically it's legal. Unless the contact is made before the birdie reached their side of the court, it's legal to do that.


I could have sworn, I saw some doubles player do that and they didn't call a fault for those. Like, it was dropped and the partner jumped up and smashed back the return.

[Pball]

The opponent makes a drop shot, you got and start your lift, the opponent rushes you and holds his racket over the net waiting for your lift. ( his racket doesn't cross over the net.)

Another variation: the opponent rushes you and makes as if to smash you...

any comments appreciated.. because it is bugging the bloody hell out of me playing with people like this...

[Netasia]

the way i look at it, it's legal.

[jamesshieh88]

if he makes contact while the shuttle is still on your side of the net, then its illegal. i see many people do this just to try to distract you

[gerry]

Blocking is like if you do a really good tumble drop and the shuttle is below the net and the other guy needs to do an upward pointing shot. Your racket shouldn't be anywhere near the net. If it is, its a fault.

Exactly right, you must play a shot after he has made contact, not just leave your racket head stationery in the shuttles pathway

[Gollum]

No, I don't think this is a fault. It might be a bad technique, but it's not a fault. You can hold your racket wherever you want so long as you keep it on your side of the court, and you do not obstruct your opponent from making a shot.

If he's dumb enough to hit it right into your upheld racket, then that's his problem.

[Neil Nicholls]

Exactly right, you must play a shot after he has made contact, not just leave your racket head stationery in the shuttles pathway
which law is that?

[Neil Nicholls]

The rule actually is about obstructing an opponent's legal shot. And since the opponent's racquet can legally go over to your side of the net in the course of completing a stroke that hits the shuttle on his/her side, you are not allowed to hold your racquet in such a position that it would obstruct (or block) opponent's completing the stroke.

I have heard IBF-certified umpires make this interpretation: based on the above, if no opponent is close enough to the net to cross it w/ the racquet, it doesn't matter how close to the net you hold your racquet, because it's impossible that you are obstructing the opponent.

with this interpretation, blocking is legal and illegal in different circumstances.

1) shuttle is below net height and you are blocking a lift
legal (I've seen Gade do it and not be called a fault for it)

2) shuttle is above net height and you are blocking a net-kill
illegal if you are close enough to obstruct the follow through
legal if you are further away (but then you wouldn't be "blocking the net")
(I can't remember ever seeing case 2 occur in a pro tournament)

[timeless]

I blocked the net immediately after I flick served to Cappy75 last Saturday. Unfortunately I forgot to use my racquet and my head was the next closest thing :crying: :o :p :). *BOINK* Cappy's smash went right off the top of my head hahaha~! I wasn't skilled enough to "head" the shuttle back over the net either.

[cappy75]

Er... timeless, I don't think that was me:rolleyes:. At least I don't recall you trying to block my smash:D.


I blocked the net immediately after I flick served to Cappy75 last Saturday. Unfortunately I forgot to use my racquet and my head was the next closest thing :crying: :o :p :). *BOINK* Cappy's smash went right off the top of my head hahaha~! I wasn't skilled enough to "head" the shuttle back over the net either.

[gerry]

with this interpretation, blocking is legal and illegal in different circumstances.

1) shuttle is below net height and you are blocking a lift
legal (I've seen Gade do it and not be called a fault for it) I presume all of his racket was on his side of the court.

2) shuttle is above net height and you are blocking a net-kill
illegal if you are close enough to obstruct the follow through
legal if you are further away (but then you wouldn't be "blocking the net")
(I can't remember ever seeing case 2 occur in a pro tournament)

Your interpretation seems correct after re-reading the rules but I've always believed and have seen it mentioned on this site within a news article by another coach that you have to actually play a shot, I don't feel that a stationary racket could be described as playing a shot but then again... ?
I'm going on an umpires course shortly and will find it an interesting question to pose.

[LazyBuddy]

Er... timeless, I don't think that was me:rolleyes:. At least I don't recall you trying to block my smash:D.

Do I see signs of "brain damage" for timelless now? :eek: As he started to mess up his memory now... :D

j/k... :p

[Neil Nicholls]

Your interpretation seems correct after re-reading the rules but I've always believed and have seen it mentioned on this site within a news article by another coach that you have to actually play a shot, I don't feel that a stationary racket could be described as playing a shot but then again... ?
I'm going on an umpires course shortly and will find it an interesting question to pose.

maybe people are mis-interpreting Law 10.2
10. Singles
10.2 the shuttle is hit alternately by the server and the receiver until a 'fault' is made or the shuttle ceases to be in play


If, instead of blocking the net, I have played a bad shot, hold the racquet up in front of my face to defend myself (not near the net), and the opponent hits the shuttle onto my racquet, and the shuttle bounces back over the net.

Would you consider the shuttle to still be in play?

You're opening quite a can of worms if you say that it doesn't count as having played a shot if the shuttle hits a racquet that is being held still.
e.g. can your partner play a shot after the shuttle has bounced off your racquet?
e.g.
If I'm at the back and smash, the shuttle hits my partners racquet, (which he is holding still, not playing a shot) and goes over the net. Is that a fault? Only 1 person has "played a shot" so does it fall foul of 13.6.3
it is a fauilt if, in play, the shuttle is hit by a player and the player's partner successively

it sounds extreme, but it is the ambiguity of the laws that gives rise to all these little nooks and crannies.

[gerry]

maybe people are mis-interpreting Law 10.2
10. Singles
10.2 the shuttle is hit alternately by the server and the receiver until a 'fault' is made or the shuttle ceases to be in play
I don't see any connection with the above as that is only to do with serving.


If, instead of blocking the net, I have played a bad shot, hold the racquet up in front of my face to defend myself (not near the net), and the opponent hits the shuttle onto my racquet, and the shuttle bounces back over the net.

Would you consider the shuttle to still be in play? Of course

You're opening quite a can of worms if you say that it doesn't count as having played a shot if the shuttle hits a racquet that is being held still.
e.g. can your partner play a shot after the shuttle has bounced off your racquet? You way off the mark here, we're only talking about the situation whereby if I play a tight net shot and then leave my racket at the top of the tape stationery thus making it nigh impossible for the opponant to reply.
e.g.
If I'm at the back and smash, the shuttle hits my partners racquet, (which he is holding still, not playing a shot) and goes over the net. Is that a fault? Only 1 person has "played a shot" so does it fall foul of 13.6.3
it is a fauilt if, in play, the shuttle is hit by a player and the player's partner successively You've answered your own question here.

it sounds extreme, but it is the ambiguity of the laws that gives rise to all these little nooks and crannies.

I've been playing 30 years and also coach at county level, I can honestly say that the few times that I've seen the situation I described happening, each time it's been called a fault, I've never argued with the umpire as it was also my understanding too. I conceded the point to you but please don't go to extremes.

[wood_22_chuck]

Er... timeless, I don't think that was me:rolleyes:. At least I don't recall you trying to block my smash:D.

cappy75, yes, that was you. I was holding my sides laughing like crazy when that happened. Lucky it scored through timeless' natural hair-parting :D

-dave

[Neil Nicholls]

I conceded the point to you but please don't go to extremes.
OK. Better left for other borads...

[Pball]

It seems too much is left to interpretation... for example an opponent rushing the net and making as if to smash could or could not be interpreted as distracting the opponent.

Holding a stationary racket in front of the net as the opponent is lifting could also be intrepreted either way...

Which is way most of the interenational level players don't employ therse tatics?

What you think guys...

regards

[Kamen]

I know nothing about the law of badminton but i am pertty sure that Lin Dan won a point by blocking a lift, volley ball style, in a recent tournament. If i am not mistaken, the match was against Peter Gade.

Going by this prededent, i guess the extremely annoying block is legal.

[Loh]

It seems too much is left to interpretation... for example an opponent rushing the net and making as if to smash could or could not be interpreted as distracting the opponent.

Holding a stationary racket in front of the net as the opponent is lifting could also be intrepreted either way...

Which is way most of the interenational level players don't employ therse tatics?

What you think guys...

regards

So who says umpiring a game is easy? :D

But I guess much has to depend on circumstances and it needs the vigilant eyes of the umpire to quickly size up the situation and make a verdict according to what he has been trained for under IBF laws.

In general, a player should be in no danger of commiting a fault if he maintains his body and position on his side of the court, ie, he holds his racket within his own court area without invading his opponent's court by placing his racket across the net such that it may obstruct his opponent's play or he crosses over his opponent's area with his feet or hands.

So in your first example, when a player rushes to the net to smash or pretending to do so, either in anticipation of a weak return or purely to bluff his opponent, it is all right so long as he does so within his own court area. Of course, if in the process he tries to distract his opponent with his wild antics, then the umpire can warn him. So long as his opponent is not harassed or obstructed into making a clean stroke, it is all right. A clever opponent can capitalize on the situation by making a good fast clear as he rushes forward.

As for your second situation, it is perfectly all right again so long as you hold the racket on your side of the court and ensure that you are not obstructing your opponent form making a clean stroke. In this case your opponent has the option of crossing the shuttle from the base of the net instead of just lifting it in front of you. He still has space to make his stroke. But if the shuttle has not gone down and he wants to play it at about net tape height, but you are there in close direct proximity, holding your racket in front to block his shot, then you can be faulted for obstruction. He can't make a clean stroke! But if you are further away, say near to the short service line, then you cannot be obstructing his stroke.

So it really depends on circumstances and you are then at the mercy of the umpire. :D

[Pball]

So who says umpiring a game is easy? :D

But I guess much has to depend on circumstances and it needs the vigilant eyes of the umpire to quickly size up the situation and make a verdict according to what he has been trained for under IBF laws.

In general, a player should be in no danger of commiting a fault if he maintains his body and position on his side of the court, ie, he holds his racket within his own court area without invading his opponent's court by placing his racket across the net such that it may obstruct his opponent's play or he crosses over his opponent's area with his feet or hands.

So in your first example, when a player rushes to the net to smash or pretending to do so, either in anticipation of a weak return or purely to bluff his opponent, it is all right so long as he does so within his own court area. Of course, if in the process he tries to distract his opponent with his wild antics, then the umpire can warn him. So long as his opponent is not harassed or obstructed into making a clean stroke, it is all right. A clever opponent can capitalize on the situation by making a good fast clear as he rushes forward.

As for your second situation, it is perfectly all right again so long as you hold the racket on your side of the court and ensure that you are not obstructing your opponent form making a clean stroke. In this case your opponent has the option of crossing the shuttle from the base of the net instead of just lifting it in front of you. He still has space to make his stroke. But if the shuttle has not gone down and he wants to play it at about net tape height, but you are there in close direct proximity, holding your racket in front to block his shot, then you can be faulted for obstruction. He can't make a clean stroke! But if you are further away, say near to the short service line, then you cannot be obstructing his stroke.

So it really depends on circumstances and you are then at the mercy of the umpire. :D

Hmm.. in that intrepretation.. he/they would be at fault then, as he/they usually hold the rackets at about 4 to 5 inches away from the net... sometimes even less...

[annab]

What's with all this interpretation?! IBF, amend the laws so we have clarity, for Pete's sake! Put it on your to do list right after "Move to KL".

And while you're at it, put a time limit on how many seconds a server can take to serve. And for that matter, how many seconds a receiver can take to get into ready position.

And include the lighting specs (angle and illumination) and acceptable noise levels so court owners can build courts without blind spots and karaoke bars!

Man, there really shouldn't have to be so much speculation, interpretation, analysis of the rules. It just leads to arguments on the court that can't be decided with any finality. Rules should be clear and comprehensive.

[kwun]

this is the way i interpret it. take a look at these 3 rules:


It is a ‘fault’:

13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker’s side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

13.4 if, in play, a player:

13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, ie prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net; the logic is as follows:
latter part of 13.3 tells us that the striker near the net is allowed to invade the air space of the opposite court if it is a follow through.

13.4.4 tells us that the receiver is not allowed to prevent the striker in rule 13.3 from making a legal stroke (legal according to 13.3).

the only way in which a receiver can prevent the striker from making a legal stroke is to block it. and since a follow through is at most a few inches into the opposite end, then the receiver is not allowed to block a few inches from the net, or however far is considered an interference.

if you follow my logic so far, the only ambiguity is how much is considered an interference. it is 3 inches, or a foot? or 2 feet?

[gerry]

this is the way i interpret it. take a look at these 3 rules:
latter part of 13.3 tells us that the striker near the net is allowed to invade the air space of the opposite court if it is a follow through.

13.4.4 tells us that the receiver is not allowed to prevent the striker in rule 13.3 from making a legal stroke (legal according to 13.3).

the only way in which a receiver can prevent the striker from making a legal stroke is to block it. and since a follow through is at most a few inches into the opposite end, then the receiver is not allowed to block a few inches from the net, or however far is considered an interference.

if you follow my logic so far, the only ambiguity is how much is considered an interference. it is 3 inches, or a foot? or 2 feet?

Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.

Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.

I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.

[ynexfan2003]

Who is going to perform a proper shot when the follow through could potentially result in a broken racquet, because some fool is blocking the net with his racquet?
It's no surprise that the only people who perform this shot are intermediate at best, and tend to have a whole array of cheap, querky techniques such as the foul serve I mentioned in another thread.



Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.

Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.

I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.

[Pball]

What's with all this interpretation?! IBF, amend the laws so we have clarity, for Pete's sake! Put it on your to do list right after "Move to KL".

And while you're at it, put a time limit on how many seconds a server can take to serve. And for that matter, how many seconds a receiver can take to get into ready position.

And include the lighting specs (angle and illumination) and acceptable noise levels so court owners can build courts without blind spots and karaoke bars!

Man, there really shouldn't have to be so much speculation, interpretation, analysis of the rules. It just leads to arguments on the court that can't be decided with any finality. Rules should be clear and comprehensive.


Annab (puso mo..peace)

Being a part owner of a court and am on the organizing committee for our tournaments I whole heartedly agree...

PS: that Karaoke thing been fixed yet??

[Pball]

Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.

Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.

I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.

Could you kindly post the reply/ies here.. it would help a lot, also about the rushing thing, it is just to obvious a distraction ploy.. just wonder if it would be allowed in a tournament... and if a warning is issued by the umpire, how would the point go, or is it a let?? :confused: