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!

Obstruction at the net

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by pcll99, Mar 18, 2014.

  1. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    159
    Occupation:
    Cylon Agent
    Location:
    HK
    LXR vs Intanon at All England 2014.. at 15:35 to 15:52...

    should it be a fault??

    [video=youtube;ORFhylb5dvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORFhylb5dvU[/video]
     
  2. phili

    phili Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Germany
    No fault, LXR didn't interfere with Ratchanok's stroke.
     
  3. catman

    catman Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    It wasn't a fault - but I think Ratchanonk - should've followed through over the net when she saw LXR put up her racquet - that would've created a fault.
     
  4. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,647
    Likes Received:
    159
    Occupation:
    Cylon Agent
    Location:
    HK
    but Ratchanok's racket could have hit LXR's racket, no??
     
  5. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    obv no fault!

    (of course, you could theoretically think of a stroke with which she might have hit her opponent's racket on purpose. )

    but did the chinese obstruct the stroke? no way...
     
  6. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    Well the rules state that you can't prevent your opponent from making a legal stroke. LXR did prevent RI from playing a range of legal strokes, maybe not the avoiding brush shot she had to use but none the less she did prevent her from playing a range of legal strokes. So "obv no fault" is just wrong. The rules are not clear enough to make a decision, Not by you, not by me and not by the umpire.
     
  7. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Taking the rule THAT literally is pure nonsense!

    Let me explain why:
    If you take the rule literally, you would never be allowed to stand, say, 1 meter close to the net! Because that would always prevent me from swinging my racket, in a somewhat exaggerated, but LEGAL stroke over the net.

    Therefore, the rule of course has to be taken with some kind of sensible judgement to put it down to "reasonable" or "natural" strokes. Otherwise, I could always thinks of a LEGAL stroke by which I somehow reach over the net and touch you...
     
  8. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    Rules are supposed to be taken literally otherwise they become pure opinion, which is what you are using and then it all falls down. It's almost the definition of a bad rule. My solution is on the forum I won't keep repeating it.

    In this example RI could have without doubt hit LX racket with a "natural stroke"
     
  9. amleto

    amleto Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    Disagree - She's too far away! she's pretty much fully extended her racket arm anyway. There's no way she can get the racket head further over the net AND not hit the shuttle straight down on her own side.

    No fault.
     
  10. amleto

    amleto Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    That's rubbish. aside from the fact your opponent must always be standing right next to the net to be within reach, you would also have to be standing upright. You're just taking a ridiculous statement with not truth or logic behind it and associate it with the side of the argument you are against. How very disingenuous.
     
  11. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    UK
    If you could proof it I would except it. Factor in any hesitation from RI when she saw the racket go up. I still don't see how the umpire can make in anyway an accurate call in real time.
     

Share This Page