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!

Raise racket to block net kill ?

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by whatever001, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. whatever001

    whatever001 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    US
    Hi all,

    Is it allowed to raise racket for blocking the net kill?

    Ex: I played the net kill, my friend raised the racket. The shuttle bounced back to my court.
     
  2. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,529
    Likes Received:
    267
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    By law your friend firstly cannot block your follow thru stroke if you so decide to clash rackets with him.

    And secondly, your friend must hit the bird with a stroke, ie not just block with a static racket.

    But in social games, without an umpire present, you really can't apply these rules effectively.
     
  3. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Germany
    Blocks being forbidden and a stroke being necessary is an often-repeated myth. In fact, it's so common that it was explictly addressed in my umpire's seminar. There is no such rule.

    The only applicable rule in this situation is:

    §13.3.4 It shall be a fault if, in play, a player obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net

    If you could not play the kill shot as you wanted to avoid a clash of rackets, your opponent has commited a fault, and the rally ends right there.

    But it sounds like you played the kill shot just fine. In that case, the game continues, and if you are unable to return the shuttle that bounced back into your court, that's a point for the opponent.
     
    #3 phihag, Jun 17, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2014
  4. amleto

    amleto Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    question has been answered so many times in this forum already
     
  5. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Feels like 100000 times...
     
  6. PinkDawg

    PinkDawg Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2012
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    U.S.
    What about in the Japan Open when Lee Chong Wei was playing Kenichi Tago (I think) and Kenichi Tago blocked the shuttle sort of unintentionally and LCW won the point?
     
  7. IvanT

    IvanT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Also, this happened during LCW's match against Chen Long at this year's All Englands. Wasn't called fault.
     
  8. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Germany
    Seems that some umpires call it a fault and some don't.
     
  9. amleto

    amleto Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    depends how far the 'blocker' is away from the net and how close the striker is to the net.
     
  10. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    228
    Occupation:
    Cylon Agent
    Location:
    HK
    this happens very often when LCW is involved. Sometimes it is committed by him and sometimes against him.
     
  11. BaoQingWang

    BaoQingWang Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Profesional
    Location:
    HDB
    Visor, which part of law saying one must hit the bird with a stroke? Please enlighten me/us. Thanks
     
  12. BaoQingWang

    BaoQingWang Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Profesional
    Location:
    HDB
    Amleto, from your answer it seems there must be some standard measured 'distance' in the badminton law for one to call fault which i don't think i ever read it. Could you justify?
     
  13. BaoQingWang

    BaoQingWang Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Profesional
    Location:
    HDB
    Rob3rt, normally umpires wont. I think
    But if they call, i believe it is because the other is raising his/her racket over the net and that is a fault!
     
  14. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    No fixed rule. It's up to the umpire to judge whether one player obstructed the other players stroke or not. Yes, this rule is ambigous! Like many others in many sports...;-)
     
  15. BaoQingWang

    BaoQingWang Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Profesional
    Location:
    HDB
    exactly, couldn't agree with you more :D
     
  16. RedShuttle

    RedShuttle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    You can't charge someone with murder if no one died. Basically, you have to swing your racket in your follow-through to make contact with your opponent's racket to establish the fact that you were obstructed by your opponent. Otherwise, no harm, no fault. Morten Frost made the point quite clearly in his commentary.
     
  17. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    UK
    If that were the case (and it's not, because faults have been given without contact) that would be a very irresponsible rule(having to make contact).

    In answer to the OP there is a rule that states you can not impede a follow through, sadly nobody knows how to apply it. There is no pattern that can be drawn from when it is called or not by umpires and the rule itself is in no way specific enough for an answer to be given.
    [MENTION=24009]Footwork[/MENTION] I can only think of blocking in squash(not even as ambiguous) but I am struggling with any other sports rules as ambiguous as this one. This rule is applied so inconsistently it is pointless
     
  18. |_Footwork_|

    |_Footwork_| Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Without any doubt: This rule is ambiguous! A lot of judgement involved on the side of the umpire. Everyone judges certain situations in one way or the other, some situations might not even be clear in slomo.

    The question is: Is this rule in any way critical/detrimental for the sport itself? I think it isn't! It's a rule that is very rarely needed (how often do we see such points? Once every 10 matches? How many of them are judges correctly? 80%? Makes one wrong decision every 50 matches or so (numbers are random, but you guys got my point!?)). It's nothing we should care about!

    Just to give another example of ambiguous rules: Soccer. What constitutes a "foul" is never clear. It can't be defined perfectly. Some refs are more strict, others let the players almost kill themselfes.
    How many wrong decisions do we have per game? 3? 5? 10?

    I think the net-blocking rule is not perfect, but good enough. And I've yet to see a better alternative...
     
  19. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,529
    Likes Received:
    267
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Not to bring up another ambiguous rule or two, like the service and receiver fault rules, but when there're several combined perceived erroneous judgment calls in a game that are perceived erroneous by players and spectators, then that really throws fairness in the sport out the window.
     
  20. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    UK
    The point I think is basically who knows how many are judged correctly. Nobody can define the rule.
     

Share This Page