Lee vs. Shon, net play fault (video)

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by jajvirta, Jan 6, 2012.

  1. jajvirta

    jajvirta Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Programmer
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    There has been some discussion over distracting your opponent's shots near the net. Am I right to interpret that Lee Chong Wei's fault here is not allowing Shon to complete his stroke?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N1NP8Z8WUk#t=209m20s

    T
    he link should take you straight to the point in question. It starts at 3 hours 29 minutes 20 seconds or so. The situation is 16-10 for Shon in the first game. There's a good slow motion replay of the situation after the rally.
     
  2. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    33
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    .
    Yes, it's a fault. And I would call it an obstruction, instead of a distraction.

    LCW cannot obstruct Shon Wan Ho's racket-head's path of follow-through. And the umpire has called it correctly.
    .
     
    #2 chris-ccc, Jan 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  3. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Actually, the ump only called it after Shon complained. :).

    This is exactly the same as Saina's fault from 2 weeks ago. What LCW and Saina did was probably the best they could do given the situation. Better to do that to protect yourself and show some aggression, instead of cowering down in complete humiliation. :p
     
    #3 visor, Jan 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  4. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    33
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    .
    That shows how slow the umpire was to detect the 'fault'.

    As I have said in other threads before, I would have made the 'fault' call, when SWH was making his stroke.

    .
     
    #4 chris-ccc, Jan 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2012
  5. drew tze en

    drew tze en Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    London
    I don't think it is a fault because LCW's racket wasn't over the net. but it was out anyway.
     
  6. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Of course it's a fault. One of the laws says that you cannot obstruct the stroke of your opponent, even if your opponent follow thru over your side after they strike the bird on their side.
     
  7. drew tze en

    drew tze en Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    London
    but in the video it didn't look as if he did obstruct shon wan ho
     
  8. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    lee's racket was practically 6 inches away from the net, if shon hadn't held back his follow thru and struck the way he would've normally a net kill, there would have been a clash of rackets

    in the eyes of the umpire, the potential for an obstruction is already a fault
     
  9. drew tze en

    drew tze en Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    London
    Oh ok That makes sense.
     
  10. serviceover

    serviceover Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Logistics
    Location:
    Germany
    In my opinion, the action at the net isn't a fault from LCW..

    Schon had nearly completed his complete stroke (shuttle had been struck) and did not act in a manner to show he was distracted. He only complained to see what would happen, an got away with it..

    This is easy to say after watching the replay, but always remember, the umpire doesnt have that luxury.

    The umpire was at fault by not clearly and quickly calling the fault (weather you agree with it or not), which caused confusion.
     
  11. serviceover

    serviceover Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Logistics
    Location:
    Germany
    An umpire should never call what might happen, but what has happened...... The only exception is to call a Let when something may injur or interrupt play, like a shuttle landing in the court...
     
    #11 serviceover, Jan 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  12. CantSmashThis

    CantSmashThis Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    124
    Location:
    United States
  13. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,902
    Likes Received:
    33
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    An umpire should never call (before what might happen)

    .
    Exactly. :):):)

    What has happened was as soon as LCW held his racket-head up at the net, the umpire should call a fault (even before Shon started swinging his racket to hit that shuttlecock above the net).
    .
     
  14. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,732
    Likes Received:
    630
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    LCW had his racket up high over (or at) the net before Shon made the shot. This is a classic and textbook example of an obstruction of 13.4.4.
     
  15. tranqq

    tranqq Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    kelowna, BC
    i agree that it's an obstruction
     
  16. icecoldcoke

    icecoldcoke Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melaka
    I cant remember what the title of the video is,but i think it's peter gade vs marc zwiebler.. In a match marc intercepted the net kill(infront of the net)from peter gade in front of the net..
     
  17. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,732
    Likes Received:
    630
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    what if Shon's racket head was way down under when LCW's racket was up high over (or at) the net, and there is no possibility of clashing of rackets, would that still be a obstruction fault?
     
  18. bambino

    bambino Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KL
    I would say LCW is clearly at fault bcos his racket is obstructing Shon's play. Whether or not, Shon hit the shuttle into the net or out of play, LCW should be faulted at the very first instance. I think it is fair for the umpire to rule it correctly after Shon's complaint because it can happen very fast.
    The rule is designed to prevent a player from attempting to disrupt an opponent's netkill when he has played a loose net dribble(a hopeless situation). Otherwise, it will be abused by menacing racket movements after a loose net dribble. preventlng the opponent to the right to obstruction/distraction-free play. Follow-through over the net is a natural and permissible racket motion in a netkill.
     
  19. bambino

    bambino Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KL
    I think it is not a fault if LCW's racket head goes above the net after the shuttle drops below the net. This is a very fine timing, perhaps not detectable unless with slow-motion replay. It is a fault by LCW if his racket is above the net when the shuttle is also above but on the other side of net.
     
  20. BaggedCat

    BaggedCat Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Video Games Designer
    Location:
    UK
    wasn't he complaining that LCW racket came over the net to hit the shuttle (which he didn't, he hit it on his side, just the follow through went over the net, which is allowed), not the fact he was obstructing? LCW didn't HOLD his racket there, it was part of his shot stroke follow through, so not obstruction. otherwise no net shots will be allowed!!!
     

Share This Page