Results 1 to 17 of 18
08-06-2012, 08:26 PM #1
Law 13.4.4: Is this obstructing an opponent?
We were playing doubles at a local gym. I was in the front and shuttle fell below the net level in opponent's court. Anticipating a lift, I raised my racket. He lifted the shuttle and to everyone's surprise the shuttle hit my racket and went to opponent's side. Opponent stopped the play saying it's fault.
13.4.4: obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;
Note that your opponent is allowed to put his racket in the path of the shuttle. He is not allowed to block your stroke, but he is allowed to block your shot. Itís a subtle distinction: your stroke is the movement of your racket; your shot is the movement of the shuttle.
Is my action a fault according to rule 13.4.4?
08-06-2012, 08:53 PM #2
No, it is not a fault.
08-08-2012, 08:25 PM #3
08-08-2012, 08:39 PM #4
as far as I understand, you cannot intercept opponent's move before he hit the shuttle (eg, hovering your racket in front and above of the net)
however you could intercept it once your opponent make a shot (the shuttle touch your opponent's racket)
08-09-2012, 03:14 AM #5
It is legal if somehow what he described was correct. The physics behind it though, I'm not sure, but if he says he didn't reach over, and somehow he blocked the shot without obstructing, then it's a legal shot.
craigandy liked this post
08-10-2012, 03:12 PM #6
08-10-2012, 06:44 PM #7
08-11-2012, 04:25 AM #8
As long as the shuttle was on your side admit impacts your strings
10-25-2012, 10:49 AM #9
I don't think that's the correct rule to apply here. During the olympics some players also did what you had done and they got a fault called from the umpire. It's because you are not returning using a stroke or whatever but rather just block/obstruct it with your racket. I don't know which rule specifically but the umpire in the olympics themselves called it fault. So i'm quite sure your action was a fault, the pro players themselves got the point given away because of that.
To my understanding, what the rule means is that if you lift your racket after your opponent's racket touched the shuttle, then it's considered a block. Otherwise what you did was a fault since you were only waiting for the shuttle on your side with your racket up, and that's exactly what the olympic players did in London.
10-25-2012, 10:01 PM #10
Like I have stated above, physics aside, it is a legal shot. It was part of my national level umpiring exam. You are not obstructing(blocking) your opponents' shot in any way. You are also not distracting your opponents' shot. He is allowed to play any shot he/she wants (is capable of). So therefore neither rules have been broken.
Unlike when the shuttle is above the net and leaving your racket there, you are not allowing your opponent a full follow through of their shot, which is why it's considered obstructing.
However, if you were standing there waving your racket around crazily, it could be considered distracting and be called a fault then. Otherwise this shot is totally legal.
Otherwise, you are claiming that if I were to stand still (near the middle of the court) and hold my racket up, doing nothing, while my opponent is going to smash, it ricochets off my racket and over the net would be considered illegal since I am not returning the shuttle, just "blocking" it.
10-26-2012, 04:31 AM #11
10-29-2012, 01:02 AM #12
10-29-2012, 01:37 AM #13
10-29-2012, 10:14 AM #14
I think a good clarification for this (not sure what is on your course cantsmashthis) but if the attacker is playing an "overhead"(above or level with net) shot at the net, then the receiver can't hold his racket up anywhere within a rackets length of the net (because your racket could, in theory follow the shuttle over about 60cm). I can't physically see how the rule can be applied if an "underarm" shot is being played as it would be impossible for the racket to follow through over the net if it were "underarm"(below net level).
So the fact is when playing a "net kill" even though nobody actually follows through 60cm over the net, they are entitled to and if you are stopping this as an option, by holding your racket in the way then it must be called fault.
11-21-2012, 07:57 PM #15
12-05-2012, 05:11 AM #16
12-05-2012, 05:29 AM #17
and this is the trouble. there is human judgment involved in deciding if a stoke 'could have' followed through and got blocked.