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 kills - what's legal?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by Gollum, May 4, 2005.

  1. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Let's consider the rules relating to net kills, when the shuttle is very tight to the net. I don't believe this has been completely discussed here before.

    I've made some illustrations to help make the discussion clear. In these pictures, there is a translucent red surface that extends upwards from the net. Think of it as an imaginary boundary line, that shows whether an object is on your side of the net.

    We all know that it is illegal to strike the shuttle on your opponent's side of the net:

    Situation 1 - illegal contact

    [​IMG]

    Obviously it's legal to strike the shuttle on your side of the net, even if some other part of the shuttle is still on your opponent's side:

    Situation 2 - legal contacts

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    We also know that it's legal to follow through your stroke over the net, provided that the intial point of contact was on your side:

    Situation 3 - a legal follow through

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    There's one more possible situation, however. Is it legal to strike the shuttle with part of your racket (the top of the head) intruding into your opponent's court? The point of contact is in your court, but part of your racket is not.

    Situation 4 - is this legal?

    [​IMG]

    Let's look at the relevant laws from section 13:
    So what do you think?

    I'm inclined to think this ought to be legal, but it's not clear to me what the laws say about it. It rather depends on how strictly "invading the opponent's court" is interpreted.
     
    #1 Gollum, May 4, 2005
    Last edited: May 4, 2005
  2. Loopy

    Loopy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    LuckyTown
    To me it seems legal, but all in all, it's up to the judge to decide on which side the point of contact has been made. For a net kill and for that last particular situation, it would be very very very very hard to see, unless the judge can see images at 60 frames per second :D

    BTW, nice CG drawings!
     
  3. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Good point. But what if the player is waiting at the net, with his racket already in this position? In this situation, the shuttle is taking a long time to cross the net (eg, a high mishit that lands very close to the tape). Is it legal for the player to get ready in this position (partly intruding), in order to kill the shuttle?

    It may also become more relevant if cameras are used in the future to assist judges.
     
  4. Aleik

    Aleik Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Let's not get encumbered by detail...(is the taxma
    Location:
    U.K.
    You've gone right to the wire here Gollum. It isn't splitting hairs; it raises a valid point for those who judge faults for the sake of judging faults. At any level other than the highest, is it possible to define a net kill fault with this issue in mind (I'm thinking purely about human judgement and its errors, not about the rigours of the Laws)?

    In reply to your initial question, Gollum, it is absolutely legal.

    Aleik.
     
  5. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    One reason I am interested in this extreme case is that I know there are times that I perform such a shot.

    Not very often, but it does happen. The other players have no way to tell whether I intruded over the net, but I know it as surely as I know which hand my racket is in.

    It's peculiar, perhaps, but I feel it's important to develop my attitude towards playing with the rules in mind. I'm not only thinking about "what can I get away with?", but more importantly, "am I breaking a law?"

    I tend to be very aggressive with attempting net kills, but I don't want to play shots that are illegal. For the same reason, I will never play a drive serve, even though there's no service judge to penalise me.
     
  6. Dill

    Dill Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Lazy git (my coach can verify this)
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    I would think it comes close on both sides but my inclination would be illegal.

    A part of the racket has come over the net before striking the shuttle so it is not a legal follow through because the racket has gone over before the shuttle is struck.

    Accompanying this there is the hinderace of the opposition playing their shot, if they would go to play a lift then your racket is in the way and there might be a clash.
     
  7. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    I dunno about the exact ruling but if i go by the letter of 13.4.2, it would be illegal. For those who says it is legal, what percentage of racket invading opponent side is considered legal, 1% 10%, 25%, 50%? What make 5% more legal than say 50% over the opponent side? It is hard enough for judge to make regular (legal) net kill call already, having racket invasion before shuttle contact makes the call even more fuzzy.

    Of course, i have seen many cases (6 stars tournament) where this was call legal.


    similar in volleyball, can i hang my arms over the net onto opponent side on a jump block even though the ball contact (the block) occured on my side of the court?
     
    #7 cooler, May 4, 2005
    Last edited: May 4, 2005
  8. Loopy

    Loopy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    LuckyTown
    I can also cite another situation where you're at the net making a drop shot, your opponent barely makes it in time and you know he's going to make a net drop shot, so you wait with your racket on the top of the net to make your net kill.
    For me, if at that moment when you wait and your racket is on your opponent side, it is illegal, because you're in breach by rule 13.4.2 and you haven't made a stroke yet, so you cannot invoke the exception in rule 13.3
     
  9. Break-My-String

    Break-My-String Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Nice drawings Gollum!

    I think the question goes back to, "did the head of the racquest break the vertical plane of the net before the shuttle has entered into your side of the court".

    In the example...

    1) just as the shuttle has broken the vertical plane
    2) the tip of the racquet then extends over the net
    3) then the shuttle contacts the sweet spot on the racquet (your last pic)
    then I would conclude the shot as legal.

    Cheers!
     
  10. Gollum

    Gollum Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    I should also point out the implication of this question.

    If it is legal, then any net shot, no matter how tight, can be killed - provided the player is ready for it.

    If it is not legal, then extremely tight net shots (the ones that trickle over the tape) cannot be killed. At best, they can be driven flat, because the racket cannot be pointing in a downwards direction.

    Alternatively, you could try hitting with the very top of the strings ;)
     
  11. Dill

    Dill Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Lazy git (my coach can verify this)
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Or hit the shuttle off the frame of the racket to make it fall straight down
     
  12. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    good pictures. i assume the racquet will cross the net first before contacting the shuttle. therefor make it illegal. however, in a tournament, ref will not be able to make a definite call unless there is a instant replay. thanks for the good question. i will not be able call if it is legal or not...
     
  13. krantikt

    krantikt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Santa Clara
    I agree with the below description.

    It is very close margin to have the shuttle already on your side of the court,
    and make a shot crossing your racket over.
    This is perhaps the reason, why most players tend to almost drive when hitting shuttles that are just flipping over, and not make a downward shot with the racket reaching over.
    IMO, it would be illegal. (the answer to the original question, I mean.)


     
  14. Hawkefire

    Hawkefire Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON



    it looks like it would be legal because contact is still being made on your side of the court. As you can see, the shuttle is still across the red line that extends from the net.
     
  15. lorus_blue

    lorus_blue Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philippines
    if i were the ref i'd call a "Let"
     
  16. ants

    ants Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    13,156
    Likes Received:
    18
    Occupation:
    Entrepreneur , Modern Nomad
    Location:
    Malaysian Citizen of the World
    Good illustration. In terms of situation 4. IMO its legal due to the contact of the shuttle is in your side. I've seen some slow motion netshots by the pros. They have similiar shots and the umpire didn't rule out anything.
     
  17. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    12
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    that's what i see too but that just mean no one try contesting it.

    if u violate 13.4.2 first to comply with 13.3, to me, 13.4.2 prevail over 13.3
     
  18. Loh

    Loh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,604
    Likes Received:
    299
    Occupation:
    Stock Broker
    Location:
    Singapore Also Can
    I think Situations 1-3 are legal as the striker hits the bird from his own side of the court first and his follow-through over the net comes later without the racket touching the net.

    Even in Situation 4, when the point of contact is on striker's side of the court but the racket head tilts slightly over the opponent's side at the net, it is still legal as it is quite a natural stroke and angle to put the bird downwards, so long as contact is first made on the striker's side.

    Your question on invasion could invoke some doubt if the player just stands at the net with his racket raised above the net and placed slightly over his opponent's court during a rally and there was no net duel between them. Say, the opponent was retrieving a low mid-court drop shot. It could be construed as invading an opponent's court.

    However, if both players are duelling at the net, a player can raise his racket above the net to anticipate easy kills without crossing his racket over his opponent's court. This cannot be considered an intrusion, invasion, intimidation, harassment, obstruction, etc, as his opponent is at liberty to play a net shot away from him with a cross or a lift. I used to think this is a fault as the player seems to be obstructing his opponent from making a good shot but I was told that the receiver can still play his shot away from his opponent at the net.
     
  19. Neil Nicholls

    Neil Nicholls Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Cannock, UK
    I was going to raise this issue a while back, but decided it was a bit too pedantic even for me :D .
    But now it's here, I believe that if the racquet goes over the net, before contact with the shuttle, it is a fault irrespective of which side of the net the shuttle is on.
    Also, if the racquet goes over the net, before the shuttle goes over the net, it is a fault irrespective of which side of the net you hit the shuttle on.

    The only time it is legal to have your racquet go over the net is
    You hit the shuttle on your side of the net,
    the shuttle goes over the net,
    and then, only after both those things have happened, your racquet can go over the net if it is a continuation of the same stroke.

    That, I believe, is the exact interpretation.

    But I think it is too hard for the umpire to rule on this, unless cameras and slow-motion replays are used. And that would interfere with the flow of play.
     
  20. m_poppema

    m_poppema Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I totally agree with Neil..very well put Neil!!
     

Share This Page