Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread: Obstruction at the net
03-18-2014, 11:59 AM #1
Obstruction at the net
LXR vs Intanon at All England 2014.. at 15:35 to 15:52...
should it be a fault??
03-18-2014, 12:12 PM #2
No fault, LXR didn't interfere with Ratchanok's stroke.
03-18-2014, 02:38 PM #3
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.
03-18-2014, 10:11 PM #4
but Ratchanok's racket could have hit LXR's racket, no??
craigandy liked this post
03-19-2014, 02:20 AM #5
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...
03-24-2014, 07:25 AM #6
03-24-2014, 07:59 AM #7
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...
03-24-2014, 08:12 AM #8
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"
03-24-2014, 08:27 AM #9
03-24-2014, 08:34 AM #10
03-24-2014, 08:39 AM #11