User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 26
  1. #1
    Regular Member jajvirta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tampere, Finland
    Posts
    53
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Lee vs. Shon, net play fault (video)

    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. #2
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,844
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jajvirta View Post
    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.
    .
    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.
    .
    Last edited by chris-ccc; 01-06-2012 at 01:23 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,246
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by visor; 01-06-2012 at 01:47 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,844
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Actually, the ump only called it after Shon complained.
    .
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    Allow me to give you 2 examples;

    (1) In Soccer, once I see a player intentionally jumps forward towards an opposition player's back from behind (to tackle/clash onto him), I would have blown the whistle before the clash happens. Why? Because a player is not allowed to tackle another from behind.

    (2) In Squash, once I see a player intentionally stands in front of an opposition player (to obstruct a stroke swing), I would have called 'fault' even before the stroke happens. Why? Because a player is not allowed to obstruct another's stroke/swing.

    Law 13.4.4 is similar to the Soccer and Squash Laws.
    .
    Last edited by chris-ccc; 01-06-2012 at 01:55 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member drew tze en's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,250
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it is a fault because LCW's racket wasn't over the net. but it was out anyway.

  6. #6
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,246
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #7
    Regular Member drew tze en's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,250
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    but in the video it didn't look as if he did obstruct shon wan ho

  8. #8
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,246
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #9
    Regular Member drew tze en's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,250
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh ok That makes sense.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    in the eyes of the umpire, the potential for an obstruction is already a fault
    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...
    Last edited by serviceover; 01-20-2012 at 01:10 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    937
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have clearly stated why it is considered a fault in this discussion thread: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...-18-Dec/page22

    This case would be no different. I would fault LCW for obstructing the shot.

  13. #13
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,844
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow An umpire should never call (before what might happen)

    Quote Originally Posted by serviceover View Post
    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...
    .
    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. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,253
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    kelowna, BC
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i agree that it's an obstruction

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Melaka
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,253
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    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.
    .
    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?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SHON wan ho serve
    By lilyaks in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 1
    : 10-01-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. SHON Wan Ho racquet
    By lilyaks in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 1
    : 09-29-2010, 11:05 PM
  3. What fault is it? Receiver fault?
    By pascal123 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 57
    : 01-13-2009, 01:48 AM
  4. Shon Seung-Mo
    By Eurasian =--(O) in forum Thomas Cup / Uber Cup 2006
    Replies: 3
    : 05-04-2006, 03:26 AM
  5. Shon Seung Mo
    By yuval_ba in forum Korea Professional Players
    Replies: 4
    : 08-25-2005, 10:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •