Interesting situation came up few days ago while playing MD.
I had made a desperate backhand return of a drive and my drive return was heading loosely towards the net. However it didn't cross the net, only to hit the net on my side about 3 inches below tape. The opponent front player saw the loose return and leapt to intercept it, but only to hit the bird *through* the net.
Who should get the point?
Him, because my shot is already a fault having hit the net and started falling to the ground on my side? But it hadn't hit the ground yet.
Or me, because he faulted on hitting the net?
The question is when is the rally over: when the bird hit the net and started falling on my side, or when it hit the ground?
I think I know, but he gave me the point anyways...
What kwun said is correct. I guess it's more of, if you're 100% ascertain that the shuttle is not going to cross over the net, and your opponent then hits the net, then the rally has already ended.
Ah, but it doesn't matter whether I knew or not it wasn't going to cross the net, but more importantly the opponent didn't know it was not going to cross the net and hit it thru the net, thinking that it was going to cross.
The question then becomes when do we decide the rally is over in this case, when it falls by 1 inch or more, or? In any case, iirc I think he hit the net the moment the shuttle hit the net, so the shuttle hadn't had a chance to fall yet, so the rally wasn't over yet at that moment.
we have to realize that the net is not a solid wall. usually when the shuttlecock hits it, there is a certain "dwell" time in which the shuttlecock is "caught in the net", and then after that it starts falling. that amount of time is the buffer zone between your opponent trying to take a risk or just late at hitting it.
in other words, the rule was actually quite well thought out. interpreting it literally means that it prevents the hitter from just blindly hitting the net at this type of situation.
amleto, if in the next little while, I start to whack at the net every time my opponent's shot hit the net on their side and starts to fall, I'll see how successful I can be in arguing that I should get the point.
geez, just buy a new net without such a big hole, you cheapos! (just kidding ).
i think it's his point too?
btw, i've faced a somewhat similar situation: opponent did what visor did, i was already in place, it was easy shot. i'm prone to showing off a bit now and then so i temporarily averted my gaze to look at my team with an 'i've nailed it, this guy's toast' expression, stood there like a traffic policeman with a stop sign (the racket being the stop sign), so the birdie would make contact with the racket and fall while i just stand like a statue. because of the draft or whatever, it got ever so slightly delayed and landed on the net, but my racket was only a few millimeters away, perfectly 90 degress vertical, WITHOUT crossing it; the bird landed on the net, then hit my 'frozen' racket, then fell on his side and i got the point. but the opponent's team watching from near the net protested (umpire was one of us, it was a friendly match) that because of the movement of the birdie, it pushed the net and the net touched my racket and thus, it was a fault.
what do you guys think? i never crossed or touched the net with my racket or any part of the body, i was quite sure of it. i didn't want to yell back to them 'it was the net that made contact with my racket' as it'd sound crazy if taken out of context lol so i just let him have the point as it'd not affect the game's outcome.
i know, i was just trying to have some fun with that sentence .
just putting this out there to get your opinions:
eventhough a player is standing there, albeit real real close to the net but definitely not making contact with it, and the birdie hitting the net forced the net (let's say the cord of the net is a little wobbly) to move 1-2cms towards him and touched his racket, would you say it's a fault technically?