Results 1 to 17 of 77
Thread: Is it legal to block the net?
06-27-2002, 08:07 AM #1
What is the rule about holding your racquet up close to the net during play? It would be similar to playing the block in volleyball. I am not talking about playing a shot, merely holding the racquet there to attempt to block back a lob, net shot or even a kill. I seem to remember that it is not permitted and you need to actually be playing a shot.
06-27-2002, 08:14 AM #2
You can do that, just rem that your racket must not cross over the net or touch the net.
06-27-2002, 09:03 AM #3
....and keep in mind that you are NOT allowed to annoy your opponent! For instance, if he smashes at the net and complete the stroke thus crossing the net after impact and hit your racket - then it's your fault! And if he feels annoyed by your racket while hitting - then it's your fault!
But it is a thin red line: annoying, not annoying. If you prepare a block shot close to the net , consider the risk of your opponent breaking his and your racket and then correctly blaming you......you'd have to pay for his racket!
Another way of annoying your opponent is making faces and shouting during play. This is also repulsive and illigal! Even if you hit the net and the duel continues, dont say sorry until after the duel , because it is just soooooooooo annoying! Anyway at our level it is quite common to do it and shouldn't always be called luck. You know; the more you practise, the luckier you get!
...think about it!
06-27-2002, 04:03 PM #4
The rule actually is about obstructing an opponent's legal shot. And since the opponent's racquet can legally go over to your side of the net in the course of completing a stroke that hits the shuttle on his/her side, you are not allowed to hold your racquet in such a position that it would obstruct (or block) opponent's completing the stroke.
I have heard IBF-certified umpires make this interpretation: based on the above, if no opponent is close enough to the net to cross it w/ the racquet, it doesn't matter how close to the net you hold your racquet, because it's impossible that you are obstructing the opponent.
I don't think moving the racquet of holding it still has anything to do w/ the rule, because you could wave the racquet back and forth and still obstruct.
06-28-2002, 07:02 AM #5
I cannot pinpoint the exact rule..
BUT.. very often in Denmark when people hit a net drop.. and the birdie falls below the top of the net.. then you will see the player who hit the net drop place his racket close to the net.. on his own side.. hoping that the opponent will try to lob the birdie to the back in a flat curve.. which will allow the racket to block the birdie...
I've seen this several times - also in competition.. and the referees accept it...
I guess that is because the opponent's swing - because the birdie is under the top of the net - even in the follow through cannot be bothered by the blocking racket.
06-28-2002, 06:05 PM #6
Blocking in v'ball & badm
In volleyball, blockers are allow to break the vertical plane above the net & contact the ball on the opponent's side of the net. Contact is not allowed on the opposing side in badminton. Tennis does have one special case where contact is permitted on the other side of the net. In v'ball, blockers cannot interfere with the setting of a ball (close to the net) and are not allowed to attack the ball before it has broken the (vertical) plane of the net as it is coming toward their side. They may only contact the ball BEFORE it has broken the plane after an opponent has hit a ball that is meant to be an attack.
In badminton, there is some question as to whether any block is permitted. The previous reply states that they have seen blocks in competition that are permitted by the refs. However, I've heard of numerous other instances where it was called as a fault. I have been told by several differnt sources that blocking smashes or clears close to the net are not allowed. The defending player cannot hold their racket in place to make the block; however, the can time the movement of their racket to intercept the shuttle. This says that a static block is a no-no whereas a dynamic (or kinetic) block is perfectly acceptable.
The wording of the Laws is rather ambiguous. Law 13.4.4 :
It is a 'fault'... if, when the shuttle is 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.
Any other takes of this or any other Laws that might apply?
06-28-2002, 06:10 PM #7
Reply to modius
actually, the Laws of Badminton DO allow your racket to encroach in your opponet's space when following thru. however, you are not allow contact the shuttle of their side. u r correct in stating that one is not allowed to touch the net (until the bird is dead).
01-16-2003, 12:21 PM #8
is this legal?
Didn't know how to search this topic so if someone answer this already, sorry.
My situation is sometime when the shot is just above the net so basically I can do whatever I want to score a point but then the opponent at the net puts his racquet up and either shadows the bird on his side or wave it in front of my face. Basically if I smash the bird or anything, the momentum of my swing would hit his racquet or even a body part sometime. Is my opponent's action legal? It sure is distracting and annoying for me whenever he does that.
01-16-2003, 12:43 PM #9
I can't answer this question completly, but I think I know some parts of it, I was told all the following by an experienced guy from 1 of my clubs:
1. racket should never pass the net unless it's a continue motion after swing, but can't hit the net (is there any length or height limitation, I think so, but don't know)
2. Body should never pass or touch the net
3. Before opponent hit the bird, racket have to be held with certain limitation in distance and height away from the net. Sorry, don't know the exact number.
4. Certain motion with racket, say, waving before opponent hit the bird, etc are illegal, i think.
01-16-2003, 12:50 PM #10
thanks LB, as far as i know from the rulebook it just states you can't distract opponent while they are hitting but not sure how that's defined. In no instance was my opponent's racquet or body part over or touching the net, he's just there standing so that if I hit it the way I want to hit it, I would hit him, which I don't want to do.
01-16-2003, 12:51 PM #11
This is a good question and I've often wondered the same. I've asked others this same question, and I think we agreed that as long as the defending player does not cross the net with his racket, he can do anything with it, including holding the head of the racket just in front of the net to block a close net shot. Is anybody out there an umpire?
01-16-2003, 02:29 PM #12
From the rule/laws
it is a 'fault':
13.4 if, when the shuttle is in play, a player:
13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, ie prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.
01-16-2003, 02:58 PM #13
I see. So this implies that there is a zone in front of the net where the defender should not stand, reach into, play with his racket, or otherwise occupy, since if he were in this zone and I was the attacker, it would be his responsibility to get out of the way rather than attempt to defend, for fear of getting hit and being faulted. This being the case in spite of the fact that we are talking about a zone which is technically in the defender's half of the court?
A similar question is posed on badders.com under "Ask the Umpire" but I'm not sure the answer given addressed the question exactly.
Another question is, can a defender's attempt to play/defend/return the attacker's net smash/push/drive be technically defined as "obstruction?" Theoretically, an opponent with long arms and naturally outrageous follow through could cut a 2 foot swath over the net, and this doesn't seem to be fair either.
01-16-2003, 04:03 PM #14Originally posted by coupii
This being the case in spite of the fact that we are talking about a zone which is technically in the defender's half of the court?
Theoretically, an opponent with long arms and naturally outrageous follow through could cut a 2 foot swath over the net, and this doesn't seem to be fair either.
2. Well, according to the rule, I believe we make the std. base one where the racket is (most likely should be in front of body), but not the body part.
01-16-2003, 10:57 PM #15
hmmm, my interpretation of the rule would be that it is a fault if your racquet connects with the opponents, this would be and obstruction.
i know a few peopl who use this tactic and it rarely works - or results in a fault - the only time it is realy playable is when your opponent plays an net return while ur stood there then tries to make up for his mistake.
01-17-2003, 09:09 AM #16
so according to the rule, what my opponent did would be considered a fault since his racquet is usually within a foot of the net and obstructing any of my attempt to hit and follow thru. thanks for all the input.
as for the 2 foot follow thru that was mentioned, maybe that's gotta be a fault too, shouldn't be able to reach over to your opponent's side that much.
01-18-2003, 02:44 AM #17
Actually, there are 2 types of harassing the opponent's concentration of the netting.
I can see that this type is the 1st type. The second type is where the opponent stand very close to the net and the opponent is immediately afraid of hitting the shuttle to high and the opponent can tap.
My friend does that, and 50% of the time, he taps it into the net.
Anyway, back to the topic, it the opponent put the racket such that the head of the racket is just above the net, and in front of you, this can be called as obstruction.
However, if it is very high above the net( the racket), i dun think it can be called as obstuction. The opponent could say he always put the racket that high.
These are not according to the books, it was what i found out from my coach, so it must be right.
By Smackin in forum IntroductionReplies: 6: 03-26-2007, 08:39 PM
By xVinhX in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 3: 05-04-2006, 12:57 PM
By Swakoo in forum SingaporeReplies: 3: 10-04-2005, 05:39 AM
By nightviper in forum IntroductionReplies: 3: 12-15-2004, 12:18 AM
By LazyBuddy in forum Forum FeedbackReplies: 2: 11-01-2002, 02:17 PM