LXR vs Intanon at All England 2014.. at 15:35 to 15:52... should it be a fault?? [video=youtube;ORFhylb5dvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORFhylb5dvU[/video]
It wasn't a fault - but I think Ratchanonk - should've followed through over the net when she saw LXR put up her racquet - that would've created a fault.
obv no fault! (of course, you could theoretically think of a stroke with which she might have hit her opponent's racket on purpose. ) but did the chinese obstruct the stroke? no way...
Well the rules state that you can't prevent your opponent from making a legal stroke. LXR did prevent RI from playing a range of legal strokes, maybe not the avoiding brush shot she had to use but none the less she did prevent her from playing a range of legal strokes. So "obv no fault" is just wrong. The rules are not clear enough to make a decision, Not by you, not by me and not by the umpire.
Taking the rule THAT literally is pure nonsense! Let me explain why: If you take the rule literally, you would never be allowed to stand, say, 1 meter close to the net! Because that would always prevent me from swinging my racket, in a somewhat exaggerated, but LEGAL stroke over the net. Therefore, the rule of course has to be taken with some kind of sensible judgement to put it down to "reasonable" or "natural" strokes. Otherwise, I could always thinks of a LEGAL stroke by which I somehow reach over the net and touch you...
Rules are supposed to be taken literally otherwise they become pure opinion, which is what you are using and then it all falls down. It's almost the definition of a bad rule. My solution is on the forum I won't keep repeating it. In this example RI could have without doubt hit LX racket with a "natural stroke"
Disagree - She's too far away! she's pretty much fully extended her racket arm anyway. There's no way she can get the racket head further over the net AND not hit the shuttle straight down on her own side. No fault.
That's rubbish. aside from the fact your opponent must always be standing right next to the net to be within reach, you would also have to be standing upright. You're just taking a ridiculous statement with not truth or logic behind it and associate it with the side of the argument you are against. How very disingenuous.
If you could proof it I would except it. Factor in any hesitation from RI when she saw the racket go up. I still don't see how the umpire can make in anyway an accurate call in real time.
