If the shuttle is hit by a throw when it is on in our side of court and lands on the opponents court, does it count... Example: player A hits a dropshot that will land near the net on player's B court. Player B who is far from the net than throws his racket, hits the shuttle, and the shuttle goes over to player's A court. Is that a point... Is the trajectory of the racket thrown considered as a stroke so if player A tries to intercept the shuttle and then is hit by the raqcket thrown it is counted as an obstruction...
Haha, Well this is the definition of a stroke according to BWF, Stroke A movement of the player’s racket with an intention to hit the shuttle. and the rules regarding this example 13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except that the striker may follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net; 13.4.3 invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted; So I suppose there is still movement of the players racket with intention to hit as it is hurling through the air, so it is still during the course of a stroke. If not obstructing or distracting why not.
This is my thinking 1.when Player B throw the racket, the trajectory untill the racket stops is a stroke. 2. The shuttle that is then hit by the racket thrown, goes over the net (it can be a point if it lands to the ground) 3. The racket thrown which goes over the net after it hit's the shuttle is still considered a stroke 4 . A stroke cannot be obstructed, so if player A tries to hit the shuttle that goes over and then hit the racket thrown, it's a fault, the point still goes to player B what do you think...
Lol... I've tried this a few times myself out of desperation... and it has never worked once. Neither have I seen it work in all the online videos of pro matches I've seen.
Lol, I think... if you tried to call this on a club night you would get lynched! Point number 4 is interesting, I have raised that before under a different circumstance, when does it switch to being an obstruction to the other side with regards to the allowed follow through? follow through is not defined in the rules, so I am unaware how long that can last before the rules go in favour of the other side. Under a certain circumstance there is a chance where both side will be in fault of the obstruction rule equally. Anyways I think you are right to say what you say, but obviously it is not the spirit of the rule and I suppose the umpire could call let for unforeseen situation
discussed ad nauseam here http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php/143547-Raise-racket-to-block-net-kill
I'd guess if you throw the racket near the net, the racket would touch the net and this is as far as I know an error, isn't it? Otherwise, if the racket would not touch the net, it would land on the opponent court side and, I don't know the exact rule but, this should be another error, or not?
So do you think a stroke is not legal unless you hold onto the racket? Forget about crossing the net for a minute and just think about throwing your racket at the shuttle and the shuttle goes over. Or are you saying you interpret the highlighted as, together with the racket?
Sorry i should've been clear. I was alluding to the case when the air borne racquet crosses the net. In case the racquet crosses the net during the follow through, the stroke should be legal only if it is held by the striker, is what I think. The other case where a player throws the racquet to the other side, intentionally or unintentionally, should be considered a distraction.
Didn't @trihnity throw a racquet in his latest video in the "post videos of yourself" thread? It was a spin/juggling style such that he caught it. Man I wish that had connected. I suspect its not the first time he's done that so what was the call if its ever worked?
There is nothing in the rules to say you can't throw your racket or that you have to be holding the racket during contact. So don't see why or how it could be called a fault.
There is also no mention of whether or not throwing stones at your opponent is legal, in the rules. Doesn't mean you can. You can and should throw the racquet if it helps your cause, as long as it doesn't cross the net and potentially hit your opponent on the head.
There is. It breaks many players codes of conduct including physical abuse and also brings the game into disrepute. Hardly the same as this example, just imagine the opponent had to dive to the back to get the shot and is on the ground off the court when you throw your racket to hit the shuttle and it crosses nowhere near him.
You're using a highly improbable example to justify an event that can present itself in so many other forms. What if the racquet does actually hit the player across the net? And anyway, would you not be distracted by a flying racquet coming your way, if lets say you were on the receiving end of it?
Of course I am using highly improbable examples just to try separate what would be allowed. In your example above, if it were to hit or distract the opponent you are correct a fault all the way.
