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!

Leg Under the Net

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by random.badmin1, Jan 16, 2011.

  1. random.badmin1

    random.badmin1 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    A friend of mine asked if there was any rule regarding a player's leg going under the net. Is it a fault? Any thoughts?
     
  2. krysser

    krysser Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    @Home
  3. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    13.4.3 says ......

    .
    This is incorrect.

    13.4.3 says;

    It shall be a ‘fault’:

    if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted;

    If this rule is not included, players could play havoc under the net. :p:p:p
    .
     
  4. Resistor

    Resistor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    I am not sure if I do agree with Chris..

    Just imagine a very tight drop where you will need to make the slice action with the racket. It will usually pass slightly under the net.

    And when you lunge for a kill, your feet might be slightly over too.
     
  5. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    When you lunge for a kill, your feet might be slightly over......

    .
    Believe it or not, this is a fault. It's not just my opinion, it's in the Book of Badminton Laws.

    Just ask any certified/qualified umpire.
    .
     
  6. krysser

    krysser Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    @Home
    Hmm I would have to disagree this is not automatically a fault, it is only a fault if this action distracts or obstructs the opponent, it says very clearly in the rule, so it is all up to the umpire to decide if the intrusion is a fault or not

    Ask any umpire ;)

    /Krysser

    edit typos
     
  7. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,379
    Likes Received:
    46
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Krysser is correct here.

    Invading the opponent's court under the net is only a fault if it distracts or obstructs the opponent. If the opponent is not distracted or obstructed, it's not a fault. Read the rule more carefully, and you'll see that's what it means.

    Obviously it's up to the umpire to determine whether the action was distracting or obstructive. ;)
     
  8. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought to myself "what an exciting topic!" Sadly, it is a bit more mundane than I hoped! :(;)

    In any case, what's the correct term for a "leg under the net" position/situation?

    Could it be "footsie?"
     
  9. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    This law needs to be changed

    .
    Then IMHO this law needs to be changed.

    Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement? :confused::confused::confused:

    I have always given a fault to players when their feet go over into their opponents' court (under the net). And I will continue to do so. :p:p:p
    .
     
  10. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Then you would be faulting LCW in almost every game he plays. :D
     
  11. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    It doesn't matter if the player is LCW, LD, PG, TH, or even myself

    .
    Hahaha... When I look under the net to give a fault to a player, I am objective in my call. It doesn't matter if the player is LCW, LD, PG, TH, or even myself. :D:D:D
    .
     
  12. krysser

    krysser Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    @Home
    Well that would be a step back in time, since in the good old days it was not allowed to cross under the net ;)

    I think you have misunderstood something about umpireing, since it is all about the umpires judgement. It is his/her split second decisions and interpretation/knowledge of the rules.

    /Krysser
     
    #12 krysser, Jan 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2011
  13. cobalt

    cobalt Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Yes
    Location:
    Arrakis
    Well said. It is what umpires are really meant for: to make those "judgement calls" which since olden days were supposed to be based on observation, common sense, even courtesy and sound values. The umpires are not just decorative figures who update the score like a town crier! :D

    Rules are primarily meant to ensure fair play and general conduct, among other things. If the rules become stifling in their context and interpretation, they defeat the purpose of "play" and "sport" and umpires are there to ensure that "sportsmanship" is practised.
     
  14. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    I think the "under the net" rule can be found analogous to the over the net with a follow through rule.

    As the rule is written, it's pretty clear that it's a fault if it's obstructive or a distraction but not a fault if it isn't.

    "if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted"

    pretty clear english to me...

    There are quite a few rules which depend on an umpires judgement. Delay of service, distracting an opponent... etc. In reality, all the rules depend on the umpires judgement. Touching the net with racket or body can even fall into this category since the umpire needs to see it first, then decide whether it was air movement, the shuttle or the actual person/racket which made the net move.

    In casual play, a person won't even notice that you've invaded their court under the net UNLESS it actually distracts them so it's an easy call IMO.
     
    #14 druss, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  15. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    There are quite a few rules which depend on an umpires judgement

    .
    Of course, we are not talking about casual play, but talking about tournaments (let's say International tournaments).

    When I posted: Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?; I meant exactly every word of it.

    When I play in a game and if an opponent has his/her leg and/or racket coming under the net into my side of the court, I would be distracted. This is a fact: I would be distracted.

    I don't need an umpire to tell me:- "No, you shouldn't be distracted because your opponent wasn't meant to distract you; It was only an accidental occurrence".

    Hope you see what I mean. :p:p:p
    .
     
    #15 chris-ccc, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  16. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    Not really, when I played competitive, I would only be distracted if I actually noticed it. In the heat of play with the concentration required, I would not notice if my opponents foot was on my side of the court unless it was actually in my way. I'm concentrating on the shuttle not my opponents foot...

    I don't know how you can say with such conviction that "I would be distracted". Maybe your downward peripheral vision is just that much better than mine is but I could not say with such conviction that I would even notice it, much less be distracted by it.

    YOU are talking about tournaments, who's to say that the OP was? He asked if it was a fault, he did not say in what setting... Regardless of where the conversation has led, the reason we responded to this thread was to answer the OP and help him.

    Really?? You think that there are no other rules that rely on the umpires judgement?
     
    #16 druss, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  17. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Because I always pay attention to my opponent's feet and rackethead

    .
    Because I always pay attention to my opponent's feet (ie his footwork) so that I can plan where to place my next shot (to wrong foot him/her).

    Similarly, for the rackethead of where my opponent is positioning it, so that my next shot won't be intercepted/blocked.

    Rules should be made as clear and as precise as possible. If not, different outcomes will come out from different umpires.

    This is just my opinion.
    :):):)
    .
     
    #17 chris-ccc, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  18. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Rules should be made as clear and as precise as possible

    .
    True, there are many rules that rely on the umpires' judgement. But I am against this type of rules.

    I wish to summarise what I have said;

    Rules should be made as clear and as precise as possible. If not, different outcomes will come out from different umpires (for the same incidence).
    .
     
    #18 chris-ccc, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  19. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    That would be great in an ideal world but... let's face it. There is no way that you can have all rules black and white because what people find a distraction is different. In the end, you'd end up with 200 pages of rules listing every possible thing that can be distracting...

    Umpires are there to use their experience and interpretation of the rules to manage the game so that it follows the rules but also flows well. Let's keep in mind that all international competitions are there for the spectators, without them there would be no competitions. Therefore the rules are/should be written such that the game is the most exciting possible with the least amount of disruption possible. Again, not ideal but reality.

    Well, I think I at least have pretty much exhausted my interest in this topic. Hopefully the OP has gotten the answer he was looking for.
     
  20. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Law 13.4.3

    .
    Yes, we are quite exhausted discussing this topic. :eek::eek::eek:

    I just want to make a suggestion to the Laws maker(s);

    Law 13.4.3 says;

    It shall be a ‘fault’:

    if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted.

    The blue part is clear and precise (because we can observe it physically). The red part is not too confusing about the obstruction part (again because we can observe it physically), but for the distraction part, it is not good at all (because distraction is experienced by the players).

    My question is: Would an umpire be persuaded by the players?

    The offending side says "I wasn't meant to distract my opponent", while the other side says "I was distracted by the what went on under the net".

    Therefore, I would suggest that the red part to be left out. And rewrite Law 13.4.3 simply as;

    It shall be a ‘fault’:

    if, in play, a player invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person.

    It's only my suggestion to have our Badminton Laws be formulated with less ambiguity.
    ;););)
    .
     
    #20 chris-ccc, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011

Share This Page