Blocking at the net

First, LXR should be faulted for over the net violation in this particular instance.

Second, blocking at the net is not a fault, unless it interferes with the opponent's normal shot making. The only proven way to establish the interference is for the attacker's racket to make contact with the defender's racket as part of the follow-through. Otherwise, it's hard for the umpire to determine the attacker is interfered.

If the defender is brave enough to stick his/her face above the net to block the shot, the umpire may call a fault on the defender for abusing the compassion of the attacker

 

Imho in the future the attacker will just have to clash rackets in order to make sure they get the point. RI could have easily lost the point here as her shot ended being very close to the line, because she had to avoid striking LXR's racket...

 

Did you actually watch the video? Their rackets are right on top of each other...

omg, someone else *gets it*. Really disappointed to see what some umpires are coming up with here.

 

Not quite, the rule for the fault is

Prevents an opponent from making *A* legal shot. lxr prevented RI from playing a legal tap-kill. ergo fault.

In this case it is really obvious that LXR interferes with potential shots from RI.

 

I want to first make clear that in this particular case, LXR committed a fault since her racket was over the net. The rest did not matter.

Now, back to discussing blocking at the net on its own. You correctly identified the proper technique to use in that situation, a tab. Alternatively, a sweeping motion parallel to the net can also be used. Either technique will not result in the racket going way over the net. Therefore, the defender's blocking does not necessarily prevent the execution of such shots.

There lies the difficulty for the umpire to make the interference call. Hence, unless the rackets clashed, interference is usually not called. The attacker can help the umpire out by manufacturing a clash, but needs to be very careful with not going over the net before contacting the shuttle.

 

If the shuttle had already crossed the net to RI's side as was the case, then obviously she will strike it on her side first before her racket follows over the net.

As I said, imho I think it'll be more drama and excitement for the spectators (and less stress for the umpire ) if from now on in these cases a clash is produced to make a point (pun unintentionally intended ) and to deter such cases of net blocking in the future.

 

There is no difficulty, you don't get to choose and fortune tell what type of shot would be played if the racket wasn't there, the rule is preventing the player from making a legal stroke. I.E ANY stroke, not just the stroke dreamed up by the umpire.

 

Seriously?

Once I clashed and the racket broke, a bit of carbon sprayed off and lodged in my cheek, it was fine just took it out, bit sore but no big deal, if it had been a couple cm higher however, would have been my eye, may have messed it up bad/permanently.

 

No difficulty? Well then, how many obstruction calls have you witnessed? I can't say that I have never seen one, but I really don't recall any. I do recall seeing net blocking used by LD, LCW and numerous others. Most were just desperate attempts but some did result in points to the blockers. And I do recall Morten Frost commented: "if he is smart, he should swing his racket over" (to make contact with the blocker's racket and score a point).

 

Yeah you are right umpires do find it difficult but I have no idea why because it's not, for instance this one and many others that don't get called are as plain is day to me, I could even proof my point to show how bad it is, not even a marginal call.

imo that was an ill thought out suggestion by Morten for the reasons I have been explaining. Although would be the most assured way of getting the call

 

Probably because we at home watching it on video have the benefit of slow mo replay, whereas it's not so obvious live, even from the umpire's chair. And as phihag said, the umpires tend to err on the side of not making a wrong call.

 

Only if,

player invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person.

OR

obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;

In short, fault for invasion or obstruction comes into play only when racket crosses over the net. Players are free to use their racket in a whatever way they want within their side of court and they can not be faulted for obstruction.

 

Do you mean to say that, player is covering a face with one hand as an evasive action and holding racket in another hand and racket invades opponents court over the net OR followed over the net on opponent's side. ??

Please read the rules. It is a fault only when racket crosses over the net.

 

Rule 13.4.2 & 13.4.4

Please know the exact rules :

13. FAULTS
It shall be a ‘fault’:

13.4 if, in play, a player:

13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except that the striker may follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net;

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

 

pcll99 you have said :

For §13.4.4, it could be a fault even if the racket didn't cross the net.

I want this point to be discussed in this forum. In my opinion, legal stroke is prevented only if racket crosses over the net and not otherwise.

I am not sure how it can be a fault, and striker is prevented from making a legal strike by opponent without he crossing racket over the net, wherein striker is supposed to strike the shuttle in his side of court.

Or to put it differently, striker has to strike shuttle within his side of the court and opponent is keeping his racket in his side of court and opponent is not crossing his racket over the net. Under this circumstances, can anybody say that, striker is prevented from making a legal stroke.

 

No it is you who needs to read the rules. Ask yourself this, how can I follow the shuttle over the net with the racket if someone is PREVENTING me from doing so?