User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 18
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    tampa
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question 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.




    http://www.badmintonbible.com/articles/rules/faults.php says
    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.
    All 4 players agreed that my racket was well within my side of the court. Since my opponent lifted a shuttle that was well below the net level, his follow through would have never crossed over to my side where it would have collided with my racket that was over 2 feet above the net on my side of the court.


    Is my action a fault according to rule 13.4.4?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    929
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, it is not a fault.

  3. #3
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mallulover View Post
    his follow through would have never crossed over to my side where it would have collided with my racket that was over 2 feet above the net on my side of the court.
    Ok so the guy was well below net level and at the net and your racket was only 2 feet above the net and you were at the net. If he played a lift how on earth did you intercept it? Assuming everything you have said is correct you must have been hovering your racket above his shot? did you make contact with the shuttle on your side of the net??

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    from Indonesia, now in China
    Posts
    2,457
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    929
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    tampa
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    Ok so the guy was well below net level and at the net and your racket was only 2 feet above the net and you were at the net. If he played a lift how on earth did you intercept it? Assuming everything you have said is correct you must have been hovering your racket above his shot? did you make contact with the shuttle on your side of the net??
    Yes. I made the contact on my side of the net. All players agreed to this. He took the shuttle below the net level but it was not a tight net shot like you are imagining. He was actually lifting to the back and had the room to do so. Sorry about the confusion.

  7. #7
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mallulover View Post
    Yes. I made the contact on my side of the net. All players agreed to this. He took the shuttle below the net level but it was not a tight net shot like you are imagining. He was actually lifting to the back and had the room to do so. Sorry about the confusion.
    No problem, I got that he was lifting to the back it was just if he was at the net lifting(well below net level) to the back and you were at the net how did you intercept it? If he was a good bit away from the net when lifting i can see how you could if it was a flattish lift but then there would be no question of obstruction.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Canada, BC, Burnaby
    Posts
    763
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As long as the shuttle was on your side admit impacts your strings

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    929
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdsadas2008 View Post
    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.
    that's just plain wrong. all of it!

  12. #12
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,508
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |_Footwork_| View Post
    that's just plain wrong. all of it!
    i agree, completely!

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    14,197
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    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.
    Thanks for that clarification. I need to go back and look at videos again. Sometimes the umpires do give a fault, when a player just holds a racquet up and the shuttle bounces off it. I often wonder why but need to find the right example to reference to.

  14. #14
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mallulover View Post
    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.
    Hey mulluover just saw this and thought of you. Is this what happened ??
    see 2:15 to 2:18
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UHVA...eature=related

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger View Post
    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)
    this is incorrect. you can do what you want unless it is deemed deliberate distraction or blocking a stroke. if you are not blocking a stroke, you can hover all you want.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post

    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.
    true. but theres more to the story. its not just if they are entitled to. its if they were likely to. it depends on how far away the person doing the net kill is and if it was possible to follow through if they wanted to. if you did a net kill at full stretch jumping from the behind the serve line, there is little likelyhood that you could follow through with a full racket length, so the oponent is allowed to block the shot closer to the net. if you are already right up against then net and do a net kill, you now have the possibility of following through, so the opponent arguably cannot block so close.

    and this is the trouble. there is human judgment involved in deciding if a stoke 'could have' followed through and got blocked.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

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
  •