Obstructing.

[craigandy]

Ok so there is a net exchange going down, you hit a poor net shot the opponent is right their and smashes it from their side following his racket over to your court which is fine. The problem is his smash clips the net tape heavily taking everything out of the smash you are still at the net and want to return the shot instantly but opponent is still obstructing you from his legal follow through he made a split second ago, or he has brushed over the shuttle followed through shuttle has been overbrushed so no speed and you want to brush it straight back but you can't his rackets in the way from the legal brush he made. Is it a fault? or is it the one time you are legally allowed to obstruct your opponent on their side of the court?

[visor]

he will only be at fault if you hit his racket in your attempt to hit your shot... which means nobody knows until you try your shot

i know you're risking a racket clash, but it's a split second decision you have to make in order to establish your right of way

[craigandy]

Sorry found this thread that talks about a similar situation
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...3-Net-blocking Just the difference is that the defender in my scenario did not block but was blocked by the attacker on return.
Still I think it is grey when the defender becomes the attacker and has right of way and also when the attacker becomes the defender.

[CantSmashThis]

The fact that this all happens in a split second is near impossible from my imagination.

In this case, I would allow the "obstruction" because his shot was legal. Yes, his racket is in the way, but the fact that the rule book states he is allowed to reach over the net in a follow through shot, I cannot penalize him for obstruction as he is just doing what he is allowed to do. Like I said, this has to happen all in a split second, otherwise it would probably be obvious he has had his racket there for too long and keeps it there, and I would call a fault for obstruction.

But like I said, I think it's near impossible unless you are standing at the net knowing that the person isn't gonna smack it back in your face and then at the same time you predict where the shuttle will be at and then swing back at the same time as he is following through.

[amleto]

he will only be at fault if you hit his racket in your attempt to hit your shot... which means nobody knows until you try your shot

i know you're risking a racket clash, but it's a split second decision you have to make in order to establish your right of way

an obstruction fault is not defined by the act of clashing.

[craigandy]

The fact that this all happens in a split second is near impossible from my imagination.

In this case, I would allow the "obstruction" because his shot was legal. Yes, his racket is in the way, but the fact that the rule book states he is allowed to reach over the net in a follow through shot, I cannot penalize him for obstruction as he is just doing what he is allowed to do. Like I said, this has to happen all in a split second, otherwise it would probably be obvious he has had his racket there for too long and keeps it there, and I would call a fault for obstruction.

But like I said, I think it's near impossible unless you are standing at the net knowing that the person isn't gonna smack it back in your face and then at the same time you predict where the shuttle will be at and then swing back at the same time as he is following through.

Thank you CST. I have same view as you on this I think the obstruction may be allowed but was wondering technically say on a coach training course what the answer is. It is very possible with the brushing scenario no real shuttle speed may be involved.