User Tag List

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 74
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Raise racket to block net kill ?

    Hi all,

    Is it allowed to raise racket for blocking the net kill?

    Ex: I played the net kill, my friend raised the racket. The shuttle bounced back to my court.

  2. #2
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,094
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    By law your friend firstly cannot block your follow thru stroke if you so decide to clash rackets with him.

    And secondly, your friend must hit the bird with a stroke, ie not just block with a static racket.

    But in social games, without an umpire present, you really can't apply these rules effectively.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Blocks being forbidden and a stroke being necessary is an often-repeated myth. In fact, it's so common that it was explictly addressed in my umpire's seminar. There is no such rule.

    The only applicable rule in this situation is:

    13.3.4 It shall be a fault if, in play, a player obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net

    If you could not play the kill shot as you wanted to avoid a clash of rackets, your opponent has commited a fault, and the rally ends right there.

    But it sounds like you played the kill shot just fine. In that case, the game continues, and if you are unable to return the shuttle that bounced back into your court, that's a point for the opponent.
    Last edited by phihag; 06-17-2014 at 03:25 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,092
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    question has been answered so many times in this forum already

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    689
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    question has been answered so many times in this forum already
    Feels like 100000 times...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about in the Japan Open when Lee Chong Wei was playing Kenichi Tago (I think) and Kenichi Tago blocked the shuttle sort of unintentionally and LCW won the point?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, this happened during LCW's match against Chen Long at this year's All Englands. Wasn't called fault.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rob3rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seems that some umpires call it a fault and some don't.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,092
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    depends how far the 'blocker' is away from the net and how close the striker is to the net.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,207
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this happens very often when LCW is involved. Sometimes it is committed by him and sometimes against him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HDB
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post

    And secondly, your friend must hit the bird with a stroke, ie not just block with a static racket.
    Visor, which part of law saying one must hit the bird with a stroke? Please enlighten me/us. Thanks

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HDB
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    depends how far the 'blocker' is away from the net and how close the striker is to the net.
    Amleto, from your answer it seems there must be some standard measured 'distance' in the badminton law for one to call fault which i don't think i ever read it. Could you justify?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HDB
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob3rt View Post
    Seems that some umpires call it a fault and some don't.
    Rob3rt, normally umpires wont. I think
    But if they call, i believe it is because the other is raising his/her racket over the net and that is a fault!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    689
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BaoQingWang View Post
    Amleto, from your answer it seems there must be some standard measured 'distance' in the badminton law for one to call fault which i don't think i ever read it. Could you justify?
    No fixed rule. It's up to the umpire to judge whether one player obstructed the other players stroke or not. Yes, this rule is ambigous! Like many others in many sports...;-)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    HDB
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |_Footwork_| View Post
    No fixed rule. It's up to the umpire to judge whether one player obstructed the other players stroke or not. Yes, this rule is ambigous! Like many others in many sports...;-)
    exactly, couldn't agree with you more

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Western Hemisphere
    Posts
    1,065
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can't charge someone with murder if no one died. Basically, you have to swing your racket in your follow-through to make contact with your opponent's racket to establish the fact that you were obstructed by your opponent. Otherwise, no harm, no fault. Morten Frost made the point quite clearly in his commentary.

  17. #17
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,856
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedShuttle View Post
    You can't charge someone with murder if no one died. Basically, you have to swing your racket in your follow-through to make contact with your opponent's racket to establish the fact that you were obstructed by your opponent. Otherwise, no harm, no fault. Morten Frost made the point quite clearly in his commentary.
    If that were the case (and it's not, because faults have been given without contact) that would be a very irresponsible rule(having to make contact).

    In answer to the OP there is a rule that states you can not impede a follow through, sadly nobody knows how to apply it. There is no pattern that can be drawn from when it is called or not by umpires and the rule itself is in no way specific enough for an answer to be given.
    @Footwork I can only think of blocking in squash(not even as ambiguous) but I am struggling with any other sports rules as ambiguous as this one. This rule is applied so inconsistently it is pointless

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •