Let's consider the rules relating to net kills, when the shuttle is very tight to the net. I don't believe this has been completely discussed here before.

I've made some illustrations to help make the discussion clear. In these pictures, there is a translucent red surface that extends upwards from the net. Think of it as an imaginary boundary line, that shows whether an object is on your side of the net.

We all know that it is illegal to strike the shuttle on your opponent's side of the net:

Situation 1 - illegal contact

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/1.jpg

Obviously it's legal to strike the shuttle on your side of the net, even if some other part of the shuttle is still on your opponent's side:

Situation 2 - legal contacts

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/2.jpg
http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/3.jpg

We also know that it's legal to follow through your stroke over the net, provided that the intial point of contact was on your side:

Situation 3 - a legal follow through

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/2.jpg
http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/5.jpg

There's one more possible situation, however. Is it legal to strike the shuttle with part of your racket (the top of the head) intruding into your opponent's court? The point of contact is in your court, but part of your racket is not.

Situation 4 - is this legal?

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/4.jpg

Let's look at the relevant laws from section 13:


13. Faults

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);
13.4if, in play, a player:13.4.2invades an opponent's court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;



So what do you think?

I'm inclined to think this ought to be legal, but it's not clear to me what the laws say about it. It rather depends on how strictly "invading the opponent's court" is interpreted.

To me it seems legal, but all in all, it's up to the judge to decide on which side the point of contact has been made. For a net kill and for that last particular situation, it would be very very very very hard to see, unless the judge can see images at 60 frames per second :D

BTW, nice CG drawings!

To me it seems legal, but all in all, it's up to the judge to decide on which side the point of contact has been made. For a net kill and for that last particular situation, it would be very very very very hard to see, unless the judge can see images at 60 frames per second :D

BTW, nice CG drawings!

Good point. But what if the player is waiting at the net, with his racket already in this position? In this situation, the shuttle is taking a long time to cross the net (eg, a high mishit that lands very close to the tape). Is it legal for the player to get ready in this position (partly intruding), in order to kill the shuttle?

It may also become more relevant if cameras are used in the future to assist judges.

You've gone right to the wire here Gollum. It isn't splitting hairs; it raises a valid point for those who judge faults for the sake of judging faults. At any level other than the highest, is it possible to define a net kill fault with this issue in mind (I'm thinking purely about human judgement and its errors, not about the rigours of the Laws)?

In reply to your initial question, Gollum, it is absolutely legal.

Aleik.

One reason I am interested in this extreme case is that I know there are times that I perform such a shot.

Not very often, but it does happen. The other players have no way to tell whether I intruded over the net, but I know it as surely as I know which hand my racket is in.

It's peculiar, perhaps, but I feel it's important to develop my attitude towards playing with the rules in mind. I'm not only thinking about "what can I get away with?", but more importantly, "am I breaking a law?"

I tend to be very aggressive with attempting net kills, but I don't want to play shots that are illegal. For the same reason, I will never play a drive serve, even though there's no service judge to penalise me.

I would think it comes close on both sides but my inclination would be illegal.

A part of the racket has come over the net before striking the shuttle so it is not a legal follow through because the racket has gone over before the shuttle is struck.

Accompanying this there is the hinderace of the opposition playing their shot, if they would go to play a lift then your racket is in the way and there might be a clash.

I dunno about the exact ruling but if i go by the letter of 13.4.2, it would be illegal. For those who says it is legal, what percentage of racket invading opponent side is considered legal, 1% 10%, 25%, 50%? What make 5% more legal than say 50% over the opponent side? It is hard enough for judge to make regular (legal) net kill call already, having racket invasion before shuttle contact makes the call even more fuzzy.

Of course, i have seen many cases (6 stars tournament) where this was call legal.


similar in volleyball, can i hang my arms over the net onto opponent side on a jump block even though the ball contact (the block) occured on my side of the court?

.. But what if the player is waiting at the net, with his racket already in this position? In this situation, the shuttle is taking a long time to cross the net (eg, a high mishit that lands very close to the tape). Is it legal for the player to get ready in this position (partly intruding), in order to kill the shuttle?


I can also cite another situation where you're at the net making a drop shot, your opponent barely makes it in time and you know he's going to make a net drop shot, so you wait with your racket on the top of the net to make your net kill.
For me, if at that moment when you wait and your racket is on your opponent side, it is illegal, because you're in breach by rule 13.4.2 and you haven't made a stroke yet, so you cannot invoke the exception in rule 13.3

Nice drawings Gollum!

I think the question goes back to, "did the head of the racquest break the vertical plane of the net before the shuttle has entered into your side of the court".

In the example...

1) just as the shuttle has broken the vertical plane
2) the tip of the racquet then extends over the net
3) then the shuttle contacts the sweet spot on the racquet (your last pic)
then I would conclude the shot as legal.

Cheers!

I should also point out the implication of this question.

If it is legal, then any net shot, no matter how tight, can be killed - provided the player is ready for it.

If it is not legal, then extremely tight net shots (the ones that trickle over the tape) cannot be killed. At best, they can be driven flat, because the racket cannot be pointing in a downwards direction.

Alternatively, you could try hitting with the very top of the strings ;)

I should also point out the implication of this question.

If it is legal, then any net shot, no matter how tight, can be killed - provided the player is ready for it.

If it is not legal, then extremely tight net shots (the ones that trickle over the tape) cannot be killed. At best, they can be driven flat, because the racket cannot be pointing in a downwards direction.

Alternatively, you could try hitting with the very top of the strings ;)

Or hit the shuttle off the frame of the racket to make it fall straight down

good pictures. i assume the racquet will cross the net first before contacting the shuttle. therefor make it illegal. however, in a tournament, ref will not be able to make a definite call unless there is a instant replay. thanks for the good question. i will not be able call if it is legal or not...

I agree with the below description.

It is very close margin to have the shuttle already on your side of the court,
and make a shot crossing your racket over.
This is perhaps the reason, why most players tend to almost drive when hitting shuttles that are just flipping over, and not make a downward shot with the racket reaching over.
IMO, it would be illegal. (the answer to the original question, I mean.)


I can also cite another situation where you're at the net making a drop shot, your opponent barely makes it in time and you know he's going to make a net drop shot, so you wait with your racket on the top of the net to make your net kill.
For me, if at that moment when you wait and your racket is on your opponent side, it is illegal, because you're in breach by rule 13.4.2 and you haven't made a stroke yet, so you cannot invoke the exception in rule 13.3

Let's consider the rules relating to net kills, when the shuttle is very tight to the net. I don't believe this has been completely discussed here before.

I've made some illustrations to help make the discussion clear. In these pictures, there is a translucent red surface that extends upwards from the net. Think of it as an imaginary boundary line, that shows whether an object is on your side of the net.

We all know that it is illegal to strike the shuttle on your opponent's side of the net:

Situation 1 - illegal contact

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/1.jpg

Obviously it's legal to strike the shuttle on your side of the net, even if some other part of the shuttle is still on your opponent's side:

Situation 2 - legal contacts

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/2.jpg
http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/3.jpg

We also know that it's legal to follow through your stroke over the net, provided that the intial point of contact was on your side:

Situation 3 - a legal follow through

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/2.jpg
http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/5.jpg

There's one more possible situation, however. Is it legal to strike the shuttle with part of your racket (the top of the head) intruding into your opponent's court? The point of contact is in your court, but part of your racket is not.

Situation 4 - is this legal?

http://snarkpit.net/pits/gollum/4.jpg

Let's look at the relevant laws from section 13:


So what do you think?

I'm inclined to think this ought to be legal, but it's not clear to me what the laws say about it. It rather depends on how strictly "invading the opponent's court" is interpreted.




it looks like it would be legal because contact is still being made on your side of the court. As you can see, the shuttle is still across the red line that extends from the net.

if i were the ref i'd call a "Let"

Good illustration. In terms of situation 4. IMO its legal due to the contact of the shuttle is in your side. I've seen some slow motion netshots by the pros. They have similiar shots and the umpire didn't rule out anything.

Good illustration. In terms of situation 4. IMO its legal due to the contact of the shuttle is in your side. I've seen some slow motion netshots by the pros. They have similiar shots and the umpire didn't rule out anything.

that's what i see too but that just mean no one try contesting it.

if u violate 13.4.2 first to comply with 13.3, to me, 13.4.2 prevail over 13.3

I think Situations 1-3 are legal as the striker hits the bird from his own side of the court first and his follow-through over the net comes later without the racket touching the net.

Even in Situation 4, when the point of contact is on striker's side of the court but the racket head tilts slightly over the opponent's side at the net, it is still legal as it is quite a natural stroke and angle to put the bird downwards, so long as contact is first made on the striker's side.

Your question on invasion could invoke some doubt if the player just stands at the net with his racket raised above the net and placed slightly over his opponent's court during a rally and there was no net duel between them. Say, the opponent was retrieving a low mid-court drop shot. It could be construed as invading an opponent's court.

However, if both players are duelling at the net, a player can raise his racket above the net to anticipate easy kills without crossing his racket over his opponent's court. This cannot be considered an intrusion, invasion, intimidation, harassment, obstruction, etc, as his opponent is at liberty to play a net shot away from him with a cross or a lift. I used to think this is a fault as the player seems to be obstructing his opponent from making a good shot but I was told that the receiver can still play his shot away from his opponent at the net.

I was going to raise this issue a while back, but decided it was a bit too pedantic even for me :D .
But now it's here, I believe that if the racquet goes over the net, before contact with the shuttle, it is a fault irrespective of which side of the net the shuttle is on.
Also, if the racquet goes over the net, before the shuttle goes over the net, it is a fault irrespective of which side of the net you hit the shuttle on.

The only time it is legal to have your racquet go over the net is
You hit the shuttle on your side of the net,
the shuttle goes over the net,
and then, only after both those things have happened, your racquet can go over the net if it is a continuation of the same stroke.

That, I believe, is the exact interpretation.

But I think it is too hard for the umpire to rule on this, unless cameras and slow-motion replays are used. And that would interfere with the flow of play.

The only time it is legal to have your racquet go over the net is
You hit the shuttle on your side of the net,
the shuttle goes over the net,
and then, only after both those things have happened, your racquet can go over the net if it is a continuation of the same stroke.

That, I believe, is the exact interpretation.


I totally agree with Neil..very well put Neil!!

I think Situations 1-3 are legal as the striker hits the bird from his own side of the court first and his follow-through over the net comes later without the racket touching the net.

Er, situation 1 should definitely be illegal ;)



Even in Situation 4, when the point of contact is on striker's side of the court but the racket head tilts slightly over the opponent's side at the net, it is still legal as it is quite a natural stroke and angle to put the bird downwards, so long as contact is first made on the striker's side.

Your question on invasion could invoke some doubt if the player just stands at the net with his racket raised above the net and placed slightly over his opponent's court during a rally and there was no net duel between them. Say, the opponent was retrieving a low mid-court drop shot. It could be construed as invading an opponent's court.

However, if both players are duelling at the net, a player can raise his racket above the net to anticipate easy kills without crossing his racket over his opponent's court. This cannot be considered an intrusion, invasion, intimidation, harassment, obstruction, etc, as his opponent is at liberty to play a net shot away from him with a cross or a lift. I used to think this is a fault as the player seems to be obstructing his opponent from making a good shot but I was told that the receiver can still play his shot away from his opponent at the net.

Yes, I think this makes sense. I believe the term "invasion" implies more than just intruding a small amount into the court, in order to play a good shot. I think it implies some form of obstruction or distraction of the opponent.

I'm not sure about holding your racket in the way of an opponent's net shot. What if he decided to play a lift instead? Then you would be obstructing his follow through, which violates law 13.4.4 .

I was going to raise this issue a while back, but decided it was a bit too pedantic even for me :D .

What can I say - I'm a philosopher, and therefore represent the pinnacle of pedantry :D

...similar in volleyball, can i hang my arms over the net onto opponent side on a jump block even though the ball contact (the block) occured on my side of the court?

In volleyball, the rules of breaking the vertical plane is a little different. The defender/blocker can extend over the net "only after the 3rd hit has been made" and does not have to wait for the ball to pass through the vertical plane.

So yes, after the 3rd hit (ex/spike) has been made, the blockers can extend their hands past the net and make contact with the ball on the striker's side of the net, forcing the ball down winning the rally.

Cheers!

I think we are now questioning...

As part of stroking the shuttle, before the initial contact is made, can the racquet break the vertical plane?

Cheers!

I agree with Neil Nicholls here. Let's look at the rules again.


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:
13.4.2
invades an opponent's court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;


13.4.2 says that invading the opponent's court is illegal, and this includes even the tiniest bit of intrusion. But there is an exception.
13.3 says you can invade if you follow the shuttle over the net, meaning after you have hit the shuttle. Before the moment of contact, any intrusion will be deemed illegal.

I think situation four, as described, is legal. However, it is near-on impossible to do. If you look carefully at the position of the racket and the path it is assumed to be taking, the shuttle's skirt will naturally touch the illegal part of the racket after the legal part has contacted the cork. I'm sure that it is impossible for a kill with enough force to touch the cork alone.

Aleik.

I would like to know when is badminton going to start instant replay judge.

I think situation four, as described, is legal. However, it is near-on impossible to do. If you look carefully at the position of the racket and the path it is assumed to be taking, the shuttle's skirt will naturally touch the illegal part of the racket after the legal part has contacted the cork. I'm sure that it is impossible for a kill with enough force to touch the cork alone.

Aleik.

Brush net kill: the racket is held briefly, then swiped sharply from right to left along the net. This sideways motion generates enough power to produce a very tight kill without touching the net. The racket barely moves forward at all.

It's bizarre, but it works.

Brush net kill: the racket is held briefly, then swiped sharply from right to left along the net. This sideways motion generates enough power to produce a very tight kill without touching the net. The racket barely moves forward at all.

It's bizarre, but it works.

yes, i've seen this done, robert blair is quite adept at it.

i think i've also seen an umpire call the 4th situation a fault also. anthony clark was faulted on a net kill - from a distance he appeared to be a long way from the net, i can only assume that he just crossed the net with his racquet before hitting the shuttle. but it must have been very slight, and i certainly think he contacted the shuttle on his own side of the net...

shame there wasn't an action replay :(

no. 4 is defo a fault tho..

cheers

Neil

In volleyball, the rules of breaking the vertical plane is a little different. The defender/blocker can extend over the net "only after the 3rd hit has been made" and does not have to wait for the ball to pass through the vertical plane.

So yes, after the 3rd hit (ex/spike) has been made, the blockers can extend their hands past the net and make contact with the ball on the striker's side of the net, forcing the ball down winning the rally.

Cheers!

ok:)
i'm not keen in volleyball ;) as i dont play or watch it much

Brush net kill: the racket is held briefly, then swiped sharply from right to left along the net. This sideways motion generates enough power to produce a very tight kill without touching the net. The racket barely moves forward at all.

It's bizarre, but it works.

Corrected and humbled!

Aleik.

The problem with brush net kills is that I believe they require "situation 4" to be legal. Otherwise you can't really use them effectively.

In any situation except the tightest of net kills, there's no need to use a brushing motion. You can just use a very small tap downwards with the fingers. The reason for brushing the kill is to avoid this forward movement of the racket head - because you will hit the net.

[QUOTE=Gollum]Er, situation 1 should definitely be illegal ;)

Sorry mate, you are absolutely right. Your colourful illustrations 'invaded' my senses and made me colour blind. :crying:

PS: I love your illustrations and just wonder how you did them. ;)

PS: I love your illustrations and just wonder how you did them. ;)

I used a program called LightWave to model the objects. Some years ago, LightWave was a professional 3d graphics suite, used for films and television. It probably still is, though I'm sure they have a much more modern version out now. But I'm out of touch with the current techniques of CG.

Anyway, I used to play around with this stuff to make pictures and animations when I was a teenager. I had a thing about cool spaceships :D

It was fun to play with it again :)

*edit* Here's the LightWave website: http://www.newtek.com/

Regarding situation #4:
Firstly, the initial point of contact (as mentioned in 13.3) is the only thing that is possible to judge by human eye. In other words, this is what is used in practise --- just like the definition of "waist" (lowest rib) and "undue delay" (5 seconds) when serving, none of which are specified in the rule book.

Secondly, the exception in 13.4.2 refers to the whole of 13.3, thus it is indeed the initial point of contact that is the key. You seem to think that the exception applies only to the part that's parenthesized.

---

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);

13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;

Regarding situation #4:
Firstly, the initial point of contact (as mentioned in 13.3) is the only thing that is possible to judge by human eye. In other words, this is what is used in practise --- just like the definition of "waist" (lowest rib) and "undue delay" (5 seconds) when serving, none of which are specified in the rule book.

Secondly, the exception in 13.4.2 refers to the whole of 13.3, thus it is indeed the initial point of contact that is the key. You seem to think that the exception applies only to the part that's parenthesized.

---

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);

13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;

So situation #4 is therefore illegal?
Good call Mag.

Interesting interpretation of my post.

NO -- Initial point of contact is on striker's side of net, so #4 is legal.

Interesting interpretation of my post.
NO -- Initial point of contact is on striker's side of net, so #4 is legal.
but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle, so the shuttle is no longer in play because a fault has occured, so where you hit the shuttle is irrelevant.

13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.

/.../13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.

So please tell us exactly which part of 13.3 that says so.

It is a mystery to me how you guys read the rules. :eek:

[QUOTE=Neil Nicholls]but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle,

Not necessarily. This is normally a single stroke when the two events (invasion and contact), happen simultaneously. Like tapping downwards close to the net. ;)

what if, because of my unique technique or style, a big portion of my racket invade the opponent's plane BUT i still make the shuttle contact on my side first? If by your interpretation, some racket invasion is allow as long as shuttle contact made on my side first, i can really abuse this rule because i can change my stroke style (with lot of racket invasion) and meet shuttle contact on my side criteria

[QUOTE=Neil Nicholls]but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle,

Not necessarily. This is normally a single stroke when the two events (invasion and contact), happen simultaneously. Like tapping downwards close to the net. ;)

I agree with Cooler on his point. Also, it is impossible to have invasion and contact occur simultaneously in physics. Only situation come close to what you describe is to have racquet exactly lined up above the net and block the shot without any motion. I just want to say that most of the time this will be called legal because no ref has the eyes good enough to call this illegal during a play. Just like tennis, you must not play the shot to argue the point. During a match, not a lot of people are welling to do that. In spirit of rule, I still think it is illegal. In real situation, if you can get to the shot, play on as it is legal. If you can not get to the shot, it is a nice shot and you should concede because the person most likely did not intend to cross over to start with. Unless there is a video judge during the match, this is all just an argument. Badminton is a gentalmen/ladies' game...

[QUOTE=Loh]

I agree with Cooler on his point. Also, it is impossible to have invasion and contact occur simultaneously in physics. Only situation come close to what you describe is to have racquet exactly lined up above the net and block the shot without any motion. I just want to say that most of the time this will be called legal because no ref has the eyes good enough to call this illegal during a play. Just like tennis, you must not play the shot to argue the point. During a match, not a lot of people are welling to do that. In spirit of rule, I still think it is illegal. In real situation, if you can get to the shot, play on as it is legal. If you can not get to the shot, it is a nice shot and you should concede because the person most likely did not intend to cross over to start with. Unless there is a video judge during the match, this is all just an argument. Badminton is a gentalmen/ladies' game...
yes, that's where i'm coming from.
I'm not trying to overrule umpire or judges, i'm just stating the spirit of the rule.Because badminton is a very technical game, fraction of a second or a few mm (or sq. mm) difference can make you win or lose a point. If invasion of a striker racket over opponent area before striking shuttle is allow, the by-law should clarify that.

Personally i think for the interest of the game, if my opponent make a nice tight hail mary return, i shouldn't be allowed to invade his/her side of area for a net kill but rather forces me to make a lift or a less dangerous straight drive return instead, not a net tap shot downward just because i can reach my racket over and tap it down. This would extends the rally and make the game more exciting. This concept also reduce miscalls on striker's racket versus shuttle touching the net on those super tight tap shot/net kill.

13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.
So please tell us exactly which part of 13.3 that says so.
It is a mystery to me how you guys read the rules. :eek:

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);

the bit in bold

If the two of use walked through a doorway, and I were to follow you, which of us went through first? I can't follow you unless you go first.

but the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle,
Not necessarily. This is normally a single stroke when the two events (invasion and contact), happen simultaneously. Like tapping downwards close to the net. ;)
We are talking about Gollum's situation 4, in which the tip of the racquet has invaded over the net before contact with the shuttle.

P.S. I think simultaneous invasion is tough to call if the shuttle is partly on both sides of the net at time of contact. It depends if the whole of the shuttle has to go over the net before the racquet can follow it.

/.../
13.3 permits the racquet to go over the net only if the racquet goes over the net after the shuttle has gone over the net, and the racquet is going over as part of the same stroke that hit the shuttle over.

Somewhere around the word only is your logical somersault. That's not actually what the rule says.

In any case, surely you don't expect a human umpire to be able to judge a call like that? In case #4 it would be impossible to tell that from a follow-through that continues over the net. If one says that #4 should be illegal, then there is no other option than to prohibit all invasion of the opponent's court space -- including follow-throughs.

Somewhere around the word only is your logical somersault. That's not actually what the rule says.

In any case, surely you don't expect a human umpire to be able to judge a call like that? In case #4 it would be impossible to tell that from a follow-through that continues over the net. If one says that #4 should be illegal, then there is no other option than to prohibit all invasion of the opponent's court space -- including follow-throughs.

The rules state it clearly:

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);
13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;

From the above, isn't it right if I say

1. Initial point of contact with the shuttle must be on the striker's side.
Do you agree?

2. Racket or person cannot cross over the net.
Do you agree (not withstanding the exception)?

Exception to 2: Racket may go over the net following the shuttle, which implies after the stroke, which means after the initial point of contact.
Do you agree?

So, if the breach occurs before the initial point of contact, it is a foul. In fact, I don't understand how people can see it any other way.

Of course, you're right in saying it's hard to judge such instances, but that's not the point of this thread. If we cannot even agree on whether it is legal or not legal based on two little clauses, then how can we even give judgement?

Of course, you're right in saying it's hard to judge such instances, but that's not the point of this thread. If we cannot even agree on whether it is legal or not legal based on two little clauses, then how can we even give judgement?

Precisely! Call a 'LET' it's the only solution to this kind of situations

Somewhere around the word only is your logical somersault. That's not actually what the rule says.
I think it does.
Can you explain how it is wrong?

In any case, surely you don't expect a human umpire to be able to judge a call like that? In case #4 it would be impossible to tell that from a follow-through that continues over the net.
I refer you to what I said in post #19
"But I think it is too hard for the umpire to rule on this, unless cameras and slow-motion replays are used. And that would interfere with the flow of play."

If one says that #4 should be illegal, then there is no other option than to prohibit all invasion of the opponent's court space -- including follow-throughs.
no.
The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke
if no other faults are committed.
What does the word "follow" mean?

incidentally, I believe it is also legal to have a double hit, where the initial contact is on your side, and the second contact is on the other side of the net, as long as it is a legal double hit i.e. 1 stroke

Ouch. I wish somebody told me I had to read the rule up until the word "follow". Maybe I should go see a doctor, or take a few days off. :p
Luckily that wasn't my point though.

/.../ Of course, you're right in saying it's hard to judge such instances, but that's not the point of this thread. If we cannot even agree on whether it is legal or not legal based on two little clauses, then how can we even give judgement?

Unless we're just splitting hairs, isn't that EXACTLY the point? In a sense, it doesn't even matter what the rules say on this, because the only thing that CAN be practically judged by a human is whether the initial point of contact is over the net or not (or whether a player invades opponent's court space or not, you can't judge BOTH). And indeed, that is the interpretation of the rule in practical application in real tournaments, with real umpires (real humans) umpiring. Just think about the consequences of any other interpretations or the rule.

Luckily that wasn't my point though.
I'm not sure I know what your point is then.

Unless we're just splitting hairs, isn't that EXACTLY the point? In a sense, it doesn't even matter what the rules say on this, because the only thing that CAN be practically judged by a human is whether the initial point of contact is over the net or not (or whether a player invades opponent's court space or not, you can't judge BOTH). And indeed, that is the interpretation of the rule in practical application in real tournaments, with real umpires (real humans) umpiring. Just think about the consequences of any other interpretations or the rule.

Actually, I think it's not that difficult. I suppose it would be easier than judging for offside in a football (soccer) match. The umpire sits right in the middle, so he/she will always have a clear line of vision. For the borderline cases, I guess he/she will just have to give the benefit of the doubt to the striker (it's the opponent's fault to hit that high near the net). Anyway, luckily for us, this sort of situation don't often occur.

I'm not sure I know what your point is then.

I take it you didn't read the second part of my post, then?

THE POINT: Why discuss a rule interpretation that is impossible to umpire? Or, to put it differently: it is irrelevant whether #4 is legal or not, because using any other interpretation of 13.3 than that the initial point of contact is what matters would mean that no human could make a correct call.

Determining on which side initial point of contact occurred is hard enough, without the benefit of a replay. :eek:

Actually, I think it's not that difficult. I suppose it would be easier than judging for offside in a football (soccer) match. The umpire sits right in the middle, so he/she will always have a clear line of vision. For the borderline cases, I guess he/she will just have to give the benefit of the doubt to the striker (it's the opponent's fault to hit that high near the net). Anyway, luckily for us, this sort of situation don't often occur.

Did you see the pictures in the origional post? The shot was not too high off the net. Also, this happen quite often in case of very tight net drop return (lift or drop back again) while the other side block the net. You are talking about an ideal situation here with a ref who has 20/20 eyes (yes, this is required for ref in international match). However, can a ref tell if a racquet's tip is just touching the plane or has it cross over the plane just by 5mm? Yes, some members here plays international match while most of us don't. If that is the case we do not have a judge to call any shot. As I said it before, just play on...

Oh, OK.
You're talking about enforcement of the laws.
I thought we were talking about the letter of the law.

Back to Gollum for the philosphy question then.
If nobody sees the fault happen, did it really happen?

Oh, OK.
You're talking about enforcement of the laws.
I thought we were talking about the letter of the law.

Back to Gollum for the philosphy question then.
If nobody sees the fault happen, did it really happen?

Very good Neil :D

Kicking solipsists out the way like the scum that they are, then yes the tree did fall and the fault did occur. But the event is unintersting in itself; it only acquires meaning through its relations to our values.

So the tree fell, but if no-one cares about trees, then it doesn't matter. Philosophers are in disagreement over whether squirrels get a vote, but the issues of animal and alien minds can be discussed independently and are therefore not germane.

The following are three mutually distinct but related issues: the letter of the law; the interpretation of the law; and the enforcement of the law. Judging cases such as this is difficult, because it requires consideration of all three and how they are connected. Isolation of any one element will lead to a spurious conclusion - because it is a conclusion out of context.

None of that helps resolve the question; philosophy once again proves that its virtue is not solving problems, but posing them.

For me, this thread has demonstrated that opinion on this matter is divided, with no clear ruling either way.

Very good Neil :D

Kicking solipsists out the way like the scum that they are, then yes the tree did fall and the fault did occur. But the event is unintersting in itself; it only acquires meaning through its relations to our values.

So the tree fell, but if no-one cares about trees, then it doesn't matter. Philosophers are in disagreement over whether squirrels get a vote, but the issues of animal and alien minds can be discussed independently and are therefore not germane.

The following are three mutually distinct but related issues: the letter of the law; the interpretation of the law; and the enforcement of the law. Judging cases such as this is difficult, because it requires consideration of all three and how they are connected. Isolation of any one element will lead to a spurious conclusion - because it is a conclusion out of context.

None of that helps resolve the question; philosophy once again proves that its virtue is not solving problems, but posing them.

For me, this thread has demonstrated that opinion on this matter is divided, with no clear ruling either way.

Neo: WOW...........

According to the "Classical" laws of physics, it is a fault.
People care about the rule but most of people can not tell if it is carry over or this topic we are talking about here
To enforce this rule, we need a camera which fix on the net, not the pretty girl in the stand. Also, a Deep Blue will also help to recreate the shot in 3D pictures.

Very good Neil :D

Kicking solipsists out the way like the scum that they are, then yes the tree did fall and the fault did occur. But the event is unintersting in itself; it only acquires meaning through its relations to our values.

So the tree fell, but if no-one cares about trees, then it doesn't matter. Philosophers are in disagreement over whether squirrels get a vote, but the issues of animal and alien minds can be discussed independently and are therefore not germane.

The following are three mutually distinct but related issues: the letter of the law; the interpretation of the law; and the enforcement of the law. Judging cases such as this is difficult, because it requires consideration of all three and how they are connected. Isolation of any one element will lead to a spurious conclusion - because it is a conclusion out of context.

None of that helps resolve the question; philosophy once again proves that its virtue is not solving problems, but posing them.

For me, this thread has demonstrated that opinion on this matter is divided, with no clear ruling either way.

Gollum, steer clear of LSD, you're frightening me. :p

Gollum, steer clear of LSD, you're frightening me. :p

You'll be relieved to hear that I gave up full-time philosophy almost a year ago. I have occasional relapses (see above), but I've pretty much kicked the habit. I feel I can lead a more normal life now, so long as I take things one day at a time :D

You'll be relieved to hear that I gave up full-time philosophy almost a year ago. I have occasional relapses (see above), but I've pretty much kicked the habit. I feel I can lead a more normal life now, so long as I take things one day at a time :D

I think you are a practising philosopher judging by your present philosophy in life in bold letters. Not that I disagree. :)

None of that helps resolve the question; philosophy once again proves that its virtue is not solving problems, but posing them.

For me, this thread has demonstrated that opinion on this matter is divided, with no clear ruling either way.

This impass can be easily resolved by having close up camera-like device for replay as used in tennis and hockey. ie, we don't have to rely on squirrel to tell us if the tree as fallen if remote monitoring was set up.

This impass can be easily resolved by having close up camera-like device for replay as used in tennis and hockey. ie, we don't have to rely on squirrel to tell us if the tree as fallen if remote monitoring was set up.

Beware! That's isolating one element at the expense of the other related two.

Because cameras are not used in this way, the rules can be vague. If cameras ARE used in this way, the rules will need to be changed to give an explicit verdict.

I just had to revive this thread.
In the match between Mi Zhou and Ruina Going in 2003, the judge called an error. But I think it was pretty unfair. So much for video judging eh? :p

I extracted the video scene. Take it here, it's less than 5 megs.
http://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0EUVOJJ2Z3DD11JFWX13YNLYOU

And here if the bandwith has been surpassed.
http://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1393A4HZ17A7M0LY7GN2I9VOAN

I just had to revive this thread.
In the match between Mi Zhou and Ruina Going in 2003, the judge called an error. But I think it was pretty unfair. So much for video judging eh? :p

I extracted the video scene. Take it here, it's less than 5 megs.
http://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0EUVOJJ2Z3DD11JFWX13YNLYOU

And here if the bandwith has been surpassed.
http://s23.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1393A4HZ17A7M0LY7GN2I9VOAN

cant seem to download.
can u post a frame capture photo?

I just tried and it seen ok. Wait for a few seconds... I have to wait for about 5 sec before the save window came up.

thanks, it worked this this time.

the stroke looked ok to me on my first watch.
when i zoom in, it clearly show the cork had passed the net plane and mi zhou racket is still 1.5 to 2 feet away. It was a bad call by the umpire.

pic 1: cork just enter mi zhou side while her racket is still 1.5 to 2 feet away
pic 2: moment just before mi zhou strike shuttle. About 75% of shuttlecock is already on mi zhou side, cork facing toward mi zhou
pic 3: moment after mi zhou strike shuttlecock with cork turning away from mi zhou. the freeze frame capture cork intersect the plane of the net (cork is facing away from umpire/camera)

the umpire was wrong even when he had the best view.

Nice capture cooler.
I agree also, the umpire made a bad call. The commentators said it too, alrthough in a more brit manner.

The commentators said it too, alrthough in a more brit manner.
Was it something like:
"Oh my word! What do you think of that call?"
"That's a tough one for the umpire to call"

The commentators said it too, alrthough in a more brit manner.
Was it something like:
"Oh my word! What do you think of that call?"
"That's a tough one for the umpire to call"

lol, not like that...
It's something like
"The umpire called a fault on Zhou for hitting the birdie before it crossed the net...
Now let's take a look at this (replay)...
... a marginal call.... That's a little harsh...."

Typically brit no? ;)

The only time it is legal to have your racquet go over the net is
You hit the shuttle on your side of the net,
the shuttle goes over the net,
and then, only after both those things have happened, your racquet can go over the net if it is a continuation of the same stroke.

That, I believe, is the exact interpretation.


Can't be right as there will be times when your racquet will be completely on your side of the net, contact is made on your side of the net but the top of your racquet head crosses the plane of the net before the shuttle does. E.g. in diagram #4 by Gollum, what happens if the net and vertical plane of the net are transposed to the left such that the tip of the racquet head touches the vertical plane. Then the entire racquet is on your side of the court but since the shuttle is contacting the angled racquet head a few centimetres away from the vertical plane, with the slightest forward motion at all the tip of the racquet head will cross the vertical plane before the shuttle does. Don't think the spirit of the law would want this to be a fault.

More generally, I agree with Mag that nothing in the Laws says situation #4 is illegal.

13.3 is read as follows:
If B then A.
(In parentheses) If C then NOT A.
13.4.2 is read as follows:
If D then A.
If D AND (NOT B) then NOT A.

Where:
A = "it is a fault"
B = "the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net"
C = "follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke"
D = "invades an opponent's court over the net with racket or person"

The independence / non-mutually-exclusiveness of these propositions does not allow one to say anything about NOT C.
I.e. You can invade an opponent's court over the net with racket or person if the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker's side of the net with other clauses suggesting you cannot touch any part of the net with the racquet on your follow-through, cannot impede opponent's reply to your shot, etc.
Even if trying to infer the spirit of the rule from C or NOT C, keep in mind that this is in parentheses suggesting one possible exclusion and does not necessarily cover ALL possible exclusions-- else the parentheses would be eliminated.

... there will be times when your racquet will be completely on your side of the net, contact is made on your side of the net but the top of your racquet head crosses the plane of the net before the shuttle does.

yes. And my contention is that that is a fault

More generally, I agree with Mag that nothing in the Laws says situation #4 is illegal.
I think it does (technically, even if the umpire cannot be expected to see it)


13.3 is read as follows:
If B then A.
(In parentheses) If C then NOT A.
13.4.2 is read as follows:
If D then A.
If D AND (NOT B) then NOT A.

Where:
A = "it is a fault"
B = "the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net"
C = "follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke"
D = "invades an opponent's court over the net with racket or person"

If D AND (NOT B) then NOT A.
that is a mistake
It is always a fault to invades an opponent's court over the net with person.
There is only an exclusion for invading an opponent's court over the net with racket, i.e. C.

and that is the basis of my stance on situation #4
It is only an exclusion if the shuttle goes over the net before the racket.

nice discussion all ;) great pics!

i think rule is clear to understand. whenever you intrude on the other side
on the net it is a fault EXCEPT if the motion which goes over the net comes
from continuation of same strike, where ball was hit on own side of the court.

i think that the reason for this exception comes from health reasons....
if i were to smash the ball with power just near the net and i couldn't
swing my hand/arm naturally it may give me injury to my wrist/hand/arm,
thus the exception.

does this sounds clear to you?

If I were the umpire, I would treat this case as legal: "my" emphasis is on the contact point of the shuttle.

If it is legal, then any net shot, no matter how tight, can be killed - provided the player is ready for it.

Yes. In fact, some world class players can actually kill a net shot which is only "a few" cm above the net, when his/her position on the court is good enough...and I have also done this, although very luckily, when the shuttle is 5 cm above the net.