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!

Law 13.4.4: Is this obstructing an opponent?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by mallulover, Aug 6, 2012.

  1. mallulover

    mallulover Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    tampa
    We were playing doubles at a local gym. I was in the front and shuttle fell below the net level in opponent's court. Anticipating a lift, I raised my racket. He lifted the shuttle and to everyone's surprise the shuttle hit my racket and went to opponent's side. Opponent stopped the play saying it's fault.




    http://www.badmintonbible.com/articles/rules/faults.php says
    All 4 players agreed that my racket was well within my side of the court. Since my opponent lifted a shuttle that was well below the net level, his follow through would have never crossed over to my side where it would have collided with my racket that was over 2 feet above the net on my side of the court.


    Is my action a fault according to rule 13.4.4?
     
  2. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    No, it is not a fault.
     
  3. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    Ok so the guy was well below net level and at the net and your racket was only 2 feet above the net and you were at the net. If he played a lift how on earth did you intercept it? Assuming everything you have said is correct you must have been hovering your racket above his shot? did you make contact with the shuttle on your side of the net??
     
  4. Avenger

    Avenger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    from Indonesia, now in China
    as far as I understand, you cannot intercept opponent's move before he hit the shuttle (eg, hovering your racket in front and above of the net)

    however you could intercept it once your opponent make a shot (the shuttle touch your opponent's racket)
     
  5. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    It is legal if somehow what he described was correct. The physics behind it though, I'm not sure, but if he says he didn't reach over, and somehow he blocked the shot without obstructing, then it's a legal shot.
     
  6. mallulover

    mallulover Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    tampa
    Yes. I made the contact on my side of the net. All players agreed to this. He took the shuttle below the net level but it was not a tight net shot like you are imagining. He was actually lifting to the back and had the room to do so. Sorry about the confusion.
     
  7. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    No problem, I got that he was lifting to the back it was just if he was at the net lifting(well below net level) to the back and you were at the net how did you intercept it? If he was a good bit away from the net when lifting i can see how you could if it was a flattish lift but then there would be no question of obstruction.
     
  8. Optiblue

    Optiblue Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    I just show up
    Location:
    Canada, BC, Burnaby
    As long as the shuttle was on your side admit impacts your strings :)
     
  9. asdsadas2008

    asdsadas2008 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    I don't think that's the correct rule to apply here. During the olympics some players also did what you had done and they got a fault called from the umpire. It's because you are not returning using a stroke or whatever but rather just block/obstruct it with your racket. I don't know which rule specifically but the umpire in the olympics themselves called it fault. So i'm quite sure your action was a fault, the pro players themselves got the point given away because of that.

    To my understanding, what the rule means is that if you lift your racket after your opponent's racket touched the shuttle, then it's considered a block. Otherwise what you did was a fault since you were only waiting for the shuttle on your side with your racket up, and that's exactly what the olympic players did in London.
     
  10. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    United States
    Like I have stated above, physics aside, it is a legal shot. It was part of my national level umpiring exam. You are not obstructing(blocking) your opponents' shot in any way. You are also not distracting your opponents' shot. He is allowed to play any shot he/she wants (is capable of). So therefore neither rules have been broken.

    Unlike when the shuttle is above the net and leaving your racket there, you are not allowing your opponent a full follow through of their shot, which is why it's considered obstructing.

    However, if you were standing there waving your racket around crazily, it could be considered distracting and be called a fault then. Otherwise this shot is totally legal.

    Otherwise, you are claiming that if I were to stand still (near the middle of the court) and hold my racket up, doing nothing, while my opponent is going to smash, it ricochets off my racket and over the net would be considered illegal since I am not returning the shuttle, just "blocking" it.
     
  11. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    that's just plain wrong. all of it!
     
  12. gundamzaku

    gundamzaku Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    working professional
    Location:
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    i agree, completely!
     
  13. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    16,326
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Thanks for that clarification. I need to go back and look at videos again. Sometimes the umpires do give a fault, when a player just holds a racquet up and the shuttle bounces off it. I often wonder why but need to find the right example to reference to.
     
  14. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    I think a good clarification for this (not sure what is on your course cantsmashthis) but if the attacker is playing an "overhead"(above or level with net) shot at the net, then the receiver can't hold his racket up anywhere within a rackets length of the net (because your racket could, in theory follow the shuttle over about 60cm). I can't physically see how the rule can be applied if an "underarm" shot is being played as it would be impossible for the racket to follow through over the net if it were "underarm"(below net level).

    So the fact is when playing a "net kill" even though nobody actually follows through 60cm over the net, they are entitled to and if you are stopping this as an option, by holding your racket in the way then it must be called fault.
     
  15. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    Hey mulluover just saw this and thought of you. Is this what happened ??
    see 2:15 to 2:18
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UHVAI9yHmk&feature=related
     
  16. BaggedCat

    BaggedCat Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Video Games Designer
    Location:
    UK
    this is incorrect. you can do what you want unless it is deemed deliberate distraction or blocking a stroke. if you are not blocking a stroke, you can hover all you want.
     
  17. BaggedCat

    BaggedCat Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Video Games Designer
    Location:
    UK
    true. but theres more to the story. its not just if they are entitled to. its if they were likely to. it depends on how far away the person doing the net kill is and if it was possible to follow through if they wanted to. if you did a net kill at full stretch jumping from the behind the serve line, there is little likelyhood that you could follow through with a full racket length, so the oponent is allowed to block the shot closer to the net. if you are already right up against then net and do a net kill, you now have the possibility of following through, so the opponent arguably cannot block so close.

    and this is the trouble. there is human judgment involved in deciding if a stoke 'could have' followed through and got blocked.
     
  18. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK
    Yes this is true, angles of possible follow throughs need to be taken into account as well. I.e if the angle meant he would hit the net before reaching opponents racket then no obstruction
     

Share This Page