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!

Net blocking / distraction

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by PyourK, Apr 4, 2010.

  1. Blazers OTK

    Blazers OTK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  2. vixter

    vixter Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Germany
    Wow what a point. The fault would be to call a fault after such an amazing point. :D

    The other player didn't seem hindered in his swing so I think there was no fault
     
  3. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    wow! Kinda hard to tell from camera angle but looking at the angle of both players distances from net - it looks like the attackers racket would hit the net before he could contact opponents racket, therefore making an obstruction not feasible in theory. Therefore in may opinion no fault.
     
  4. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    this is never ever a fault...
     
  5. BaggedCat

    BaggedCat Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Video Games Designer
    Location:
    UK
    saina's block is debatable. it was barely 5 cm from the net. wang had right to claim obstruction as she had to do a tap kill as any follow through of a full stroke would have hit sainas racket.

    julianes was no way a fault. to the point i would say it say clear cut a wrong call. wang had already made a full stroke and was pulling her racket back so would no way have hit julianes block.
     
  6. logicalguy

    logicalguy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    wales
    I need to buy me a cheap metal racquet made of lead..
     
  7. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    PanAm Umpire
    Location:
    California, United States
    Oh this one is tough. My ruling would be it is not a fault since the shuttle is well above the net. If it were closer to the net, I would have called a fault on the guy on the ground since he is blocking a full stroke rather than attempting to return it. He put his racket up for too long.
     
  8. BaggedCat

    BaggedCat Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Video Games Designer
    Location:
    UK
    no fault. i disagree it was a tough call. the smasher had already made a swing and from the type of shot, any possible follow through was impossible, without hitting the net. when the shot was blocked the smashers racket was already traveling downwards on their side of the net.

    if it were closer to the net, i would still say not fault if the smasher did the same shot. if the smasher did a flick or tap kill than there may be a call for a blocking fault.
     
  9. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    PanAm Umpire
    Location:
    California, United States
    If it was closer to the net, he pretty much has to do a net kill, there is no full motion smash for when he is closer to the net or he would hit the net.
     
  10. Tactim

    Tactim Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Nor Cal
    Want to briefly revive this thread with a most recent net block by Marc Zwiebler

    [video=youtube;ejv3-560KsE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejv3-560KsE[/video]

    Fantastic luck for Zwiebler to place his racket in the exact spot and a target for Tago to unconsciously smash at!

    Tago was obviously shocked and tried to protest to the umpire that Zwiebler had blocked his stroke or had obstructed him in some way. But seeing as Tago did a jump smash a couple feet behind the service line, there was no way Zwiebler could have been close enough to physically obstruct Tago.

    There is obviously a more clear answer in this case as it is not as controversial as other moments in the past. I just decided to post it here because I found it amusing that Tago tried to call out Zwiebler for obstructing him.

    Enjoy the clip!
     
  11. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,409
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    ^ Tks! Yeah, I saw that too. Incredible luck!

    Zwiebler was down one game, and down 18-19 second game. And this helped him extend to rubber game. I think the shuttle hit Zwiebler racket's frame and just dinked over half court. Truly a never say die attitude. :)
     
  12. icey_drone

    icey_drone Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Totally legal and nothing wrong with net blocking - as long as shuttle has crossed the net and it isn't obstructing your opponents on the other side

    If you're feeling lucky and daring to try something different, then by all means.

    If you think about it, the racquet head is extremely small, and for the shuttle to hit the sweetspot at over 300km/h from such a distance is really something...
     
  13. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    10
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    .
    I don't think so. I believe that Tago was asking the umpire if Zwiebler's block (point of impact) was on Tago's side of the net.
    .
     
  14. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
  15. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    as Marc didn't complain, it was probably ok and he wasn't obstructed with his stroke.
     
  16. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    What? you have to complain for calls? I thought trying to influence was against the rules.
    If you look at 4.37 onward Marc looks at the umpire a couple times before passing shuttle back and after with a wry smile because he doesn't agree and he's like - serious your not calling that.
    Why do you think he wasn't obstructed? their rackets were crazy close together, there is a massive chance Marc was obstructed, he could have had to stop his racket short (as a natural reaction to seeing a racket go up in his way). The only thing LCW has got going for him is that he raised his racket late therefore giving the impression that he was not blocking so harder for the umpire.
     
    #76 craigandy, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2013
  17. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Honestly speaking, I don't believe he was obstructed anyway.
    As I see it (which is hard from the video...), Marc didn't follow through over the net anyways, therefore LCW cannot obstruct him.
     
  18. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    It is hard to see what is going on from the vid but surely when they are both that close to the net it should just be instantly called. You don't have to make contact to be obstructed just the fact that contact could have happen is obstruction. How can you say Marc didn't adapt his swing because he saw LCW's racket go up? (as a natural reaction not to clash).

    Don't really understand the philosophy at the root of the rule. Is it a safety thing? Or is it that they think it ruins the integrity of the rally(unfair) by just being able to block up really close not allowing the shuttle to pass.

    If at the root is safety then I can understand why examples like this do not get called.

    If at the root it was the integrity(fairness) of the rally then I think examples like these need to be called every time. Like in golf and a staked tree, if you can make a swing to hit the tree then free drop even if it is not the swing you would make.
     
  19. Firefly

    Firefly Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Germany
    Anyway its forbidden to hold your racket ACTIVE over the net! your opponent MUST have the chance to hit the shuttle without any hinderance! This means also that he can swing out his racket over the net at your side! any way of irritation is a fault! It's another thing if you want to save your body/head before hit by the shuttlecock passively.
     
  20. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    1. wrong! you may hold your racket actively above the net in order to block the shuttle!
    as long as you don't
    2. correct!!
    3. wrong. as long as he's far enough (or the shuttle is deep enough...), it is allowed to raise your racket in order to block him. this may irritate him, his problem!
     

Share This Page