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!

shuttle hitting motionless racket

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by fifteen luv, Aug 6, 2006.

  1. fifteen luv

    fifteen luv Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    M'SIA
    I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
    Can anybody clarify this for me.
     
  2. hahahalol

    hahahalol Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    toronto
    fluke is part of the game.. so i think think u guys should have gotten the point..
     
  3. cklee

    cklee Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Entrepreneur
    Location:
    Singapore
    It's a fault

    Yo 15 luv,

    In the Law of badminton for Umpires, we identify that as a fault. Law 13.4.4 stipulates that you are obstructing your opponent ie preventing him from making a legal stroke as your racquet stay motionless. Hence the umpire awarded a pt against you. It is also rare too witness such play by professionals players. Hope that is clear for you. :)
     
  4. Break-My-String

    Break-My-String Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    CKLEE is correct provided that when you went and put your racquet up at the net, the purpose was to potentially (hoping you'll win the lottery) have your opponet hit the shuttle right into your racquet....

    ...by definition, "you are" obstructing your opponent's shot.

    If it was the case, you made a poor shot at the net, realize you can't move & you're stuck at the net, your opponent is about to pound the shuttle between your two eye-brows...

    ...you raise your racquet in front of your face/head, your opponet smashes/drives/etc. bounces the shuttle off your racquet and falls "IN" onto the floor of your opponent's court :cool:...

    ...your lifting of the racquet to your face is perfectly legal, plus you guys get a point! :D

    The major difference is that you are protecting yourself (your face) versus trying to block your opponent's return.

    Cheers!
     
  5. wing-omega5-0

    wing-omega5-0 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student(uni)
    Location:
    Richmond-BC
    that rule is just crazy. but it makes perfect sense XD. however, only gonna be enforced with an ump around cuz there aint gonna be some 5th person in a doubles game during drop-ins just to watch whether the rackets r in constant motion.
     
  6. __Lam

    __Lam Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    next time wiggle your racquet about ;)
     
  7. fifteen luv

    fifteen luv Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    M'SIA
    Thank you very to everyone of you for the info.
    thanks and thanks again................
     
  8. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Blocking a Shot Vs Obstructing a Stroke.

    Hi fifteen luv,

    Care has to be taken to explain this.

    Firstly, we have to define "SHOT" and "STROKE".

    SHOT = Flight of the shuttle.
    STROKE = Swing of the racket.

    You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE.

    If the shuttle is very close to the net, your opponent can hit the shuttle with the point of impact on his/her side of the net and have his/her racket follow-through over the net, with the rackethead finishing over the net into your side of the court.

    Your racket must have been so close to the net that it prevented your opponent from doing the follow-through with his/her racket over the net.

    Usually the umpire makes the decision by judging whether the rackets will clash or not.

    My advice is... still block the shot, but block it further away from the net, so that no clash of rackets can occur. It is then a LEGAL BLOCK. But it's easier said than done.

    Cheers... chris@ccc
     
  9. Tomsk

    Tomsk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Your umpire is at fault.

    A shuttle hitting a motionless racquet is NOT a fault.

    If your were obstructing your opponents shot by preventing them following through with their stroke, the umpire should have said so.
     
  10. k.o.b

    k.o.b New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    So i suppose putting up the racquet motionless along the net, in the direction of the opponent's shuttle or racquet is ok? I think the law means that the intentional positioning the racquet in a motionless way that it impede the fair play of the shuttle over the net, is not right.

    At net play, if opponent follow thru his/her stroke, then the racquet shouldn't cross the over the net which can come into contact with the motionless racquet, then that's another law which is the crossing over net fault.

    my 2 cents...
     
  11. jerby

    jerby Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    EU
    actually, a followthrough of a stroke is allowed to cross the net, the contact point however must be on your side.
     
  12. DivingBirdie

    DivingBirdie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Singapore
    There is often a certain level of ambiguity in such cases, and it's left for the umpire to judge. but i think most probably the point should have been awarded to u. in the fast pace of doubles it's not at all uncommon to have shots blocked at the net, whether it's luck or not, motionless or not. at least that's what i think
     
  13. mnanchala

    mnanchala Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Delaware, USA
    Simple, the volleyball-type blocking is not legal in Badminton. The umpire is correct.

    There is no way you can block the stroke. To block the stroke, either you have reach into to the opponents court or (s)he has to reach over into your court, either of which would already be a fault.

    The rule posted above clearly means you cannot block the shot. You can anticipate and block the shuttle AFTER the shot is made by your opponent.
     
  14. chickenpoodle

    chickenpoodle Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    how is it anticipation if it is AFTER a stroke was produced by the oppoenents?
    perhaps fifteen luv and his partner just knew where his opponents were going to put the shuttle better than the opponent himself? (obviously not the case, but the umpire doens't know this!)

    clearly the rule stated stroke.
    stroke is racquet movement. fifteen luv's friend did not interfere with the making of the stroke of the opponents.
    he merely put his racquet up towards the net in a blocking motion as to intercept the path of the shuttle.

    if the racquets up at the net long before the opponents make the shot, but yet still decides to smash at the upraised racquet, the opponent's stupidity alone makes losing the point a well deserved loss.

    besides, from the sounds of it, fifteen luv's partner wasn't even that close to the net. if he was close enough to the net, he wouldn't have been spooked by the net kill since he'd be protected by the net itself from the shuttle, correct?
     
  15. Russki Bear

    Russki Bear Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Darwin, Australia
    It is a legal shot. The umpire was wrong. 13.4.4 in the current rules on the IBF website:
    "obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net"

    As mentioned earlier STROKE as opposed to SHOT. You can't make rules to outlaw luck.

    Unless your racquet was in the way of a stroke that may have followed through over the net, there was nothing illegal about it.
     
    #15 Russki Bear, Aug 7, 2006
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2006
  16. jerby

    jerby Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    EU
    13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker’s side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, ie prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;

    so your opponent is allowed to follow through his stroke on your side, and if you block that your at fault...

    I have some lucky ones liek that aswell. but those were returned netkills when I stood 2ft away and crouched down, then they luckily hit it at my racket.:D
     
  17. Eurasian =--(O)

    Eurasian =--(O) Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    aujerbajan
    The umpire was right. Its called that way at every level. Maybe some people here are misinterpretting the rules. Your racket must be in motion when contacting the bird or else the shot is a fault.
     
  18. vlkbad

    vlkbad Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    HBC
    Yeah, it is called that way a lot. But I don't think the umpire was right. It is fair enough to call a fault when there is obstruction, which you can easily tell when it happens because it makes the person who is smashing change their stroke, or they end up clashing racquets. But if the smasher is surprised that the shuttle came back, they were clearly not obstructed, and it would be grossly unfair to penalize an extraordinary defensive play. While I was umpiring, I tended to give the benefit of doubt to the defenders.
     
  19. msharpes

    msharpes Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wirral
    Not a fault

    Just checked all the rules and nothing in the faults section about a motionless racket being a fault. It used to be a fault as you used to have to play a stroke but things got changed a long time ago (10 years plus), the same way that hitting the frame rather than the strings used to be a fault. If the Umpire gave the point because your racket was motionless then he was clearly wrong, if on the other hand your racket could have prevented the opposition from following through then it would have been a fault under rule13.4.4.
    Golden rule is always have a copy of the rulebook in your racketbag and know them, then when you are right then you can inform your opposition (or even the umpire) and point to the right law. Final word, just make sure that you don't fall foul of rule 16.6.3 or 16.6.4
     
  20. sala_ryan

    sala_ryan New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    i think that the umpire is correct...
    because your racket was motionless and therefore strokeless...
    which would make the whole game complicated...
    i guess...
     

Share This Page