shuttle hitting motionless racket

[fifteen luv]

I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
Can anybody clarify this for me.

[hahahalol]

fluke is part of the game.. so i think think u guys should have gotten the point..

[cklee]

I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
Can anybody clarify this for me.

Yo 15 luv,

In the Law of badminton for Umpires, we identify that as a fault. Law 13.4.4 stipulates that you are obstructing your opponent ie preventing him from making a legal stroke as your racquet stay motionless. Hence the umpire awarded a pt against you. It is also rare too witness such play by professionals players. Hope that is clear for you. :)

[Break-My-String]

CKLEE is correct provided that when you went and put your racquet up at the net, the purpose was to potentially (hoping you'll win the lottery) have your opponet hit the shuttle right into your racquet....

...by definition, "you are" obstructing your opponent's shot.

If it was the case, you made a poor shot at the net, realize you can't move & you're stuck at the net, your opponent is about to pound the shuttle between your two eye-brows...

...you raise your racquet in front of your face/head, your opponet smashes/drives/etc. bounces the shuttle off your racquet and falls "IN" onto the floor of your opponent's court :cool:...

...your lifting of the racquet to your face is perfectly legal, plus you guys get a point! :D

The major difference is that you are protecting yourself (your face) versus trying to block your opponent's return.

Cheers!

[wing-omega5-0]

that rule is just crazy. but it makes perfect sense XD. however, only gonna be enforced with an ump around cuz there aint gonna be some 5th person in a doubles game during drop-ins just to watch whether the rackets r in constant motion.

[__Lam]

next time wiggle your racquet about ;)

[fifteen luv]

next time wiggle your racquet about ;)

Thank you very to everyone of you for the info.
thanks and thanks again................

[chris-ccc]

...by definition, "you are" obstructing your opponent's shot.

...you raise your racquet in front of your face/head, your opponet smashes/drives/etc. bounces the shuttle off your racquet and falls "IN" onto the floor of your opponent's court :cool:...

...your lifting of the racquet to your face is perfectly legal, plus you guys get a point! :D

The major difference is that you are protecting yourself (your face) versus trying to block your opponent's return.

Cheers!
Hi fifteen luv,

Care has to be taken to explain this.

Firstly, we have to define "SHOT" and "STROKE".

SHOT = Flight of the shuttle.
STROKE = Swing of the racket.

You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE.

If the shuttle is very close to the net, your opponent can hit the shuttle with the point of impact on his/her side of the net and have his/her racket follow-through over the net, with the rackethead finishing over the net into your side of the court.

Your racket must have been so close to the net that it prevented your opponent from doing the follow-through with his/her racket over the net.

Usually the umpire makes the decision by judging whether the rackets will clash or not.

My advice is... still block the shot, but block it further away from the net, so that no clash of rackets can occur. It is then a LEGAL BLOCK. But it's easier said than done.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[Tomsk]

I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
Can anybody clarify this for me.

Your umpire is at fault.

A shuttle hitting a motionless racquet is NOT a fault.

If your were obstructing your opponents shot by preventing them following through with their stroke, the umpire should have said so.

[k.o.b]

Your umpire is at fault.

A shuttle hitting a motionless racquet is NOT a fault.

If your were obstructing your opponents shot by preventing them following through with their stroke, the umpire should have said so.

So i suppose putting up the racquet motionless along the net, in the direction of the opponent's shuttle or racquet is ok? I think the law means that the intentional positioning the racquet in a motionless way that it impede the fair play of the shuttle over the net, is not right.

At net play, if opponent follow thru his/her stroke, then the racquet shouldn't cross the over the net which can come into contact with the motionless racquet, then that's another law which is the crossing over net fault.

my 2 cents...

[jerby]

So i suppose putting up the racquet motionless along the net, in the direction of the opponent's shuttle or racquet is ok? I think the law means that the intentional positioning the racquet in a motionless way that it impede the fair play of the shuttle over the net, is not right.

At net play, if opponent follow thru his/her stroke, then the racquet shouldn't cross the over the net which can come into contact with the motionless racquet, then that's another law which is the crossing over net fault.

my 2 cents...
actually, a followthrough of a stroke is allowed to cross the net, the contact point however must be on your side.

[DivingBirdie]

There is often a certain level of ambiguity in such cases, and it's left for the umpire to judge. but i think most probably the point should have been awarded to u. in the fast pace of doubles it's not at all uncommon to have shots blocked at the net, whether it's luck or not, motionless or not. at least that's what i think

[mnanchala]

Simple, the volleyball-type blocking is not legal in Badminton. The umpire is correct.

There is no way you can block the stroke. To block the stroke, either you have reach into to the opponents court or (s)he has to reach over into your court, either of which would already be a fault.

The rule posted above clearly means you cannot block the shot. You can anticipate and block the shuttle AFTER the shot is made by your opponent.

[chickenpoodle]

how is it anticipation if it is AFTER a stroke was produced by the oppoenents?
perhaps fifteen luv and his partner just knew where his opponents were going to put the shuttle better than the opponent himself? (obviously not the case, but the umpire doens't know this!)

clearly the rule stated stroke.
stroke is racquet movement. fifteen luv's friend did not interfere with the making of the stroke of the opponents.
he merely put his racquet up towards the net in a blocking motion as to intercept the path of the shuttle.

if the racquets up at the net long before the opponents make the shot, but yet still decides to smash at the upraised racquet, the opponent's stupidity alone makes losing the point a well deserved loss.

besides, from the sounds of it, fifteen luv's partner wasn't even that close to the net. if he was close enough to the net, he wouldn't have been spooked by the net kill since he'd be protected by the net itself from the shuttle, correct?

[Russki Bear]

It is a legal shot. The umpire was wrong. 13.4.4 in the current rules on the IBF website:
"obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net"

As mentioned earlier STROKE as opposed to SHOT. You can't make rules to outlaw luck.

Unless your racquet was in the way of a stroke that may have followed through over the net, there was nothing illegal about it.

[jerby]

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);

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

so your opponent is allowed to follow through his stroke on your side, and if you block that your at fault...

I have some lucky ones liek that aswell. but those were returned netkills when I stood 2ft away and crouched down, then they luckily hit it at my racket.:D

[Eurasian =--(O)]

The umpire was right. Its called that way at every level. Maybe some people here are misinterpretting the rules. Your racket must be in motion when contacting the bird or else the shot is a fault.

[vlkbad]

The umpire was right. Its called that way at every level. Maybe some people here are misinterpretting the rules. Your racket must be in motion when contacting the bird or else the shot is a fault.

Yeah, it is called that way a lot. But I don't think the umpire was right. It is fair enough to call a fault when there is obstruction, which you can easily tell when it happens because it makes the person who is smashing change their stroke, or they end up clashing racquets. But if the smasher is surprised that the shuttle came back, they were clearly not obstructed, and it would be grossly unfair to penalize an extraordinary defensive play. While I was umpiring, I tended to give the benefit of doubt to the defenders.

[msharpes]

Just checked all the rules and nothing in the faults section about a motionless racket being a fault. It used to be a fault as you used to have to play a stroke but things got changed a long time ago (10 years plus), the same way that hitting the frame rather than the strings used to be a fault. If the Umpire gave the point because your racket was motionless then he was clearly wrong, if on the other hand your racket could have prevented the opposition from following through then it would have been a fault under rule13.4.4.
Golden rule is always have a copy of the rulebook in your racketbag and know them, then when you are right then you can inform your opposition (or even the umpire) and point to the right law. Final word, just make sure that you don't fall foul of rule 16.6.3 or 16.6.4

[sala_ryan]

i think that the umpire is correct...
because your racket was motionless and therefore strokeless...
which would make the whole game complicated...
i guess...

[phaarix]

I don't claim to be an expert on rules but I'd have to agree with the people saying that it is only illegal if you interfere with the opponents stroke and follow through. It sounds the most reasonable. Other than in that case I don't see why a motionless racquet should give you any unfair advantage. Or why it should be illegal. That's just silly...

It's like saying you aren't allowed to do a backhand if you twist your wrist a certain way. Or you are at fault if you perform more than two steps on your way to the shuttle. It just sounds ridiculous to me.

[mettayogi]

I have read the rules and don't see reference to 'racket must be in motion'. Please cite the rule if you know there is a fine point somewhere, then we'll get somewhere.

My reading of the rule is you can't put your racket, motionless or otherwise, in the potential follow through path of your opponent's net kill. If you hold your racket away from opponent's racket path and motionless, which rule specifically does it violate?

Another situation for motionless racket is you can keep your racket angled close to net for a net shot by bouncing back the bird. Maybe not particularly effective, but not at fault IMO.


Your racket must be in motion when contacting the bird or else the shot is a fault.

[drowsysmurf]

in my understanding, your racket might be too close to the net that it might not allow the oppent to follow through with their stroke. point of contact for a shuttle has to on the oppenents side, but their racket can follow throught past the net to your side of the court. if u prevented ur opponent for the chance to do that, then itz considered a foul. u can be further and still be motionless and it would have counted... sometimes (rare occasions) you do not need a stroke to block a smash because ppl smash into your racket so why move when ur racket is already set up?

[Mark A]

This is a delicious debate! My tuppence:

If your opponent follows through onto your motionless racket after having hit the shuttle on his side of the net... FAULT. Otherwise, your point!

Having a rule that outlaws motionless racket shots per se would be MENTAL. How is this "motionlessness" to be judged? You may as well call faults for frame hits, or tape hits, or shots that don't go where your opponent expects them to go! Luck is a (small) part of the game, as ANY top-level player will agree.

By the way, if you get called again, tell the umpire that, thanks to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, he can NEVER know both the exact position and momentum of the racket head, so his call is void anyway.

[drowsysmurf]

lol...then u might as well say the arm is a racket too or the bird hits the arm when it hits the racket thx to newton's theory of everything has an equal and opposite reaction =P