Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

A let when stepping on shuttle from the match beside?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by read_da_shot, May 15, 2004.

  1. read_da_shot

    read_da_shot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi. A unique scenario happened to me today. During a doubles game, the shuttle from the match beside our court landed silently on our court. Unfortunately, neither me nor my partner saw it land on our court as our eyes were pointing forward at our opponents. Furthermore, our opponent did not say anything about it as well (for the benefit of their doubt, I'm assuming they didn't see it too although I'm guessing they did).

    Basically, as I stepped to the side, I accidentally stepped on the shuttle during my stroke. The moment I stepped on it, it was too late for me to stop my stroke. The act of stepping on the shuttle did affect my stroke to a degree, although at that point, the opponent had a slight advantage. They eventually smashed my return shot. Although they had a slight advantage before I stepped on the shuttle, I believe if I didn't step on the shuttle, I would have been able to clear it safely to the backcourt to neutralize their advantage.

    Unfortunately, the "let" rules in badminton are very vague about such an incident. We politely asked the opponent for a let but they disagreed so our side accepted the loss in the point. IMHO, if a shuttle from the match besides your court lands in your court and it doesn't interfere with your return and your side decides to play on but you lose the point, I think it is fair that you accept the loss of the point. But what about this situation where I unknowingly step on the shuttle during my stroke?

    Anyways, what are the rules regarding this? All I can find is 16.1:

    16.1 A "let" may be given for any unforeseen or accidental occurrence.

    It's rather vague and doesn't define clearly whether my situation would have been considered a let or not. There were no umpires for our match and it was a self judged match.
     
    #1 read_da_shot, May 15, 2004
    Last edited: May 15, 2004
  2. Feng_MP-100

    Feng_MP-100 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, CA United States
    Your opponents don't have the sportsmenship...:( They automatically lost the game when they refused the "let" where they broke the rules of the game.
     
  3. read_da_shot

    read_da_shot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that upon their smash, my priority was maintaining/recovering my balance (and prevent myself from falling over) rather than getting back into position.

    Anyways, how would an official umpire rule in this situation?

    read_da_shot
     
  4. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,261
    Likes Received:
    528
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    as long as the rally was still in play. it should've been a let.

    any foreign objects that flies into the court should've caused a let, regardless whether it affected the rally or not.

    next time when that happens again, make sure you be smart and raise your arm immediately as a let request, and stop any further attempt to motion.
     
  5. Phil

    Phil Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2002
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Lawyer
    Location:
    Ontario
    It seems pretty clear to me, and I don't see why the other team wouldn't allow a let.

    Phil
     
  6. viper_mav

    viper_mav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    16.1 is kinda vague, don't you think? What if a bug crawled across the court, you stepped on it or attempted to avoid it, etc? Is that a let too?
     
    #6 viper_mav, May 16, 2004
    Last edited: May 16, 2004
  7. read_da_shot

    read_da_shot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is, I couldn't raise my hand before making contact with the shuttle. I simultaneously stepped on the shuttle while doing my stroke - and I only realized that I stepped on the shuttle at the same time of my stroke. But if the general rule is that it is a let if any foreign object lands in the court before the rally ends, regardless of whoever has an advantage, it would be a good black and white rule.

    However, is that really the interpretation of law 16.1?

    16.1 A "let" may be given for any unforeseen or accidental occurrence.

    Does 16.1 mean that any time a foreign object enters the court before the rally ends, it is a let?
     
  8. cappy75

    cappy75 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,509
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Depot Support Representative
    Location:
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    If people are aware of the bug... it's a let:D. stepped on it or attempted to avoid it?! How heavy is the bug:eek::D?!

     
  9. viper_mav

    viper_mav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hehe, I'll make sure my friends unleash a cage full of cockroaches nearby my court next time when the opponent gets me scrambling ;)
     
  10. Sliced Drop

    Sliced Drop Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, USA
    Yeah, the rules are vague in this respect - they were written from the perspective of one game on one court. I'd guess that if multiple games on nearby courts had been considered that a let would be dictated as soon as the shuttle landed.

    In most club situations however, a let is not automatic. Most clubs play out the point and allow sportsmanship to determine if that play was affected by the presence of an extra shuttle. Stepping on the shuttle qualifies in that regard - I'd expect to receive (or give) a let in that situation.

    If the 'opponents' are reading this: :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  11. Break-My-String

    Break-My-String Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    IMHO I agree that it should have been a let.

    I am disappointed that your opponents would not allow for the let, if they did not seen the shuttle until after the play has ended.

    It is the "poorest of sportsmanship" if your opponents had seen the shuttle on your court but decided "not to stop the play" thinking maybe one of you will injure yourself (by stepping on the shuttle) and lose the game by default.

    :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  12. LazyBuddy

    LazyBuddy Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,243
    Likes Received:
    13
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    New York, US
    Shame on the other team for not taking a "let". :mad:

    What's the point to win a game, just because the opponent is bothered by unexpected interference objects? If that's the case, I can feel free to throw whatever I can find in opponent's court, if I am losing??? :confused:

    Step on shuttle not only bothers ppl's stroke and balance, but also could be dangerous. There's no point to continue such a rally. When I face such issues, I always call loudly to make sure opponent's pay attention to stay away, and stop the rally immediately, regardless who's already in advantage. Once or twice I even stop my free kill when i saw stuff (other court's shuttle, kid's toy, etc) laying in opponent's court.
     

Share This Page