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!

Player intrusion from next court

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by techno79, Sep 9, 2013.

  1. techno79

    techno79 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Whilst playing a doubles match at my club (social but of a high standard), during a rally, a player from the next court let his momentum carry on into our court on my opponents side. This intrusion occurred whilst the shuttle was at my opponents end. I called Let as soon as I noticed but I was a bit slow so it was called after my opponent had hit the shuttle and when the shuttle was on it's way back.

    The rally stopped and my opponent said it was not my place to call Let because the invasion happened on his side during his shot. My immediate thought was of embarrassment for calling out Let when I thought I shouldn't have so I offered him the point for the rally and we carried on.

    After we finished the game, I started to think about this and then thought that had the intrusion been a shuttle from the next court then it wouldn't have mattered who called Let or who was affected by the shuttle. If a shuttle intrusion happened and someone called Let as soon as they noticed then it was valid. It seemed bizarre if this thinking didn't apply to a player invasion as well.

    Was my opponent right in his statement or was my call for Let valid?
     
  2. gnoils

    gnoils Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    IMO let call by any player is valid. Your opponent might not have seen the intrusion and your call might have saved him/her from possible injury.
     
  3. mannygk

    mannygk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    UK
    Just because it wasn't on your side of your court doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect you. The distraction it would cause to the player on the other side could easily disrupt the rally, let alone the danger posed by someone running on mid-game. Just think what would an umpire do; they would have certainly stopped the rally and called a let. My old club had a few notorious *court switchers* hahaha, they tend to be a law unto themselves :p
     
  4. Mark A

    Mark A Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    114
    Occupation:
    Warehouse dogsbody, Stringer, Panda reseller,
    Location:
    St Helens, UK
    A shuttle on the court affects everybody, so a let is more than fair. We always call lets for this, and nobody complains.

    Think of it this way: would an umpire call a let if this happened in competition? Of course they would.
     
  5. gundamzaku

    gundamzaku Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    working professional
    Location:
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    your opponent is an idiot! i'm sorry for saying this, but you had every good intention to call let and it's part of your sportsmanship so props to you, he/she just couldn't see it!
     
  6. gnoils

    gnoils Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    So did you win or lose?
     
  7. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    United States
    You called a let because it distracted you.

    3.5.2
    A shuttle invading from an adjacent court shall not automatically be considered a “let”.
    A “let” shall not be called if, in the opinion of the umpire, such invasion:
    3.5.2.1
    has gone unnoticed by the players; or
    3.5.2.2
    has not obstructed or distracted the players

    So just changing the word shuttle to 'person'. The person has under 3.5.2.2 distracted one of the players, therefore, an umpire would call a let in that case in a match. It doesn't matter if the player hitting the shot doesn't see it, you got distracted; whatever shot he does will be hard for you to return because you weren't paying attention to the rally.
     
  8. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    UK
    It was actually your opponent that was right, if you were playing in a parrallel dimension where the rules, logic, safety, decency and sportsmanship don't apply.
     
    #8 craigandy, Sep 12, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013

Share This Page