User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 69 to 77 of 77
  1. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    KL, MAL
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know nothing about the law of badminton but i am pertty sure that Lin Dan won a point by blocking a lift, volley ball style, in a recent tournament. If i am not mistaken, the match was against Peter Gade.

    Going by this prededent, i guess the extremely annoying block is legal.

  2. #70
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,678
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pball
    It seems too much is left to interpretation... for example an opponent rushing the net and making as if to smash could or could not be interpreted as distracting the opponent.

    Holding a stationary racket in front of the net as the opponent is lifting could also be intrepreted either way...

    Which is way most of the interenational level players don't employ therse tatics?

    What you think guys...

    regards
    So who says umpiring a game is easy?

    But I guess much has to depend on circumstances and it needs the vigilant eyes of the umpire to quickly size up the situation and make a verdict according to what he has been trained for under IBF laws.

    In general, a player should be in no danger of commiting a fault if he maintains his body and position on his side of the court, ie, he holds his racket within his own court area without invading his opponent's court by placing his racket across the net such that it may obstruct his opponent's play or he crosses over his opponent's area with his feet or hands.

    So in your first example, when a player rushes to the net to smash or pretending to do so, either in anticipation of a weak return or purely to bluff his opponent, it is all right so long as he does so within his own court area. Of course, if in the process he tries to distract his opponent with his wild antics, then the umpire can warn him. So long as his opponent is not harassed or obstructed into making a clean stroke, it is all right. A clever opponent can capitalize on the situation by making a good fast clear as he rushes forward.

    As for your second situation, it is perfectly all right again so long as you hold the racket on your side of the court and ensure that you are not obstructing your opponent form making a clean stroke. In this case your opponent has the option of crossing the shuttle from the base of the net instead of just lifting it in front of you. He still has space to make his stroke. But if the shuttle has not gone down and he wants to play it at about net tape height, but you are there in close direct proximity, holding your racket in front to block his shot, then you can be faulted for obstruction. He can't make a clean stroke! But if you are further away, say near to the short service line, then you cannot be obstructing his stroke.

    So it really depends on circumstances and you are then at the mercy of the umpire.

  3. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    manila
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    So who says umpiring a game is easy?

    But I guess much has to depend on circumstances and it needs the vigilant eyes of the umpire to quickly size up the situation and make a verdict according to what he has been trained for under IBF laws.

    In general, a player should be in no danger of commiting a fault if he maintains his body and position on his side of the court, ie, he holds his racket within his own court area without invading his opponent's court by placing his racket across the net such that it may obstruct his opponent's play or he crosses over his opponent's area with his feet or hands.

    So in your first example, when a player rushes to the net to smash or pretending to do so, either in anticipation of a weak return or purely to bluff his opponent, it is all right so long as he does so within his own court area. Of course, if in the process he tries to distract his opponent with his wild antics, then the umpire can warn him. So long as his opponent is not harassed or obstructed into making a clean stroke, it is all right. A clever opponent can capitalize on the situation by making a good fast clear as he rushes forward.

    As for your second situation, it is perfectly all right again so long as you hold the racket on your side of the court and ensure that you are not obstructing your opponent form making a clean stroke. In this case your opponent has the option of crossing the shuttle from the base of the net instead of just lifting it in front of you. He still has space to make his stroke. But if the shuttle has not gone down and he wants to play it at about net tape height, but you are there in close direct proximity, holding your racket in front to block his shot, then you can be faulted for obstruction. He can't make a clean stroke! But if you are further away, say near to the short service line, then you cannot be obstructing his stroke.

    So it really depends on circumstances and you are then at the mercy of the umpire.
    Hmm.. in that intrepretation.. he/they would be at fault then, as he/they usually hold the rackets at about 4 to 5 inches away from the net... sometimes even less...

  4. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's with all this interpretation?! IBF, amend the laws so we have clarity, for Pete's sake! Put it on your to do list right after "Move to KL".

    And while you're at it, put a time limit on how many seconds a server can take to serve. And for that matter, how many seconds a receiver can take to get into ready position.

    And include the lighting specs (angle and illumination) and acceptable noise levels so court owners can build courts without blind spots and karaoke bars!

    Man, there really shouldn't have to be so much speculation, interpretation, analysis of the rules. It just leads to arguments on the court that can't be decided with any finality. Rules should be clear and comprehensive.
    Last edited by annab; 12-17-2004 at 01:54 AM.

  5. #73
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    36,148
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    this is the way i interpret it. take a look at these 3 rules:
    It is a ‘fault’:

    13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker’s side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

    13.4 if, 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; the logic is as follows:
    latter part of 13.3 tells us that the striker near the net is allowed to invade the air space of the opposite court if it is a follow through.

    13.4.4 tells us that the receiver is not allowed to prevent the striker in rule 13.3 from making a legal stroke (legal according to 13.3).

    the only way in which a receiver can prevent the striker from making a legal stroke is to block it. and since a follow through is at most a few inches into the opposite end, then the receiver is not allowed to block a few inches from the net, or however far is considered an interference.

    if you follow my logic so far, the only ambiguity is how much is considered an interference. it is 3 inches, or a foot? or 2 feet?

  6. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun
    this is the way i interpret it. take a look at these 3 rules:
    latter part of 13.3 tells us that the striker near the net is allowed to invade the air space of the opposite court if it is a follow through.

    13.4.4 tells us that the receiver is not allowed to prevent the striker in rule 13.3 from making a legal stroke (legal according to 13.3).

    the only way in which a receiver can prevent the striker from making a legal stroke is to block it. and since a follow through is at most a few inches into the opposite end, then the receiver is not allowed to block a few inches from the net, or however far is considered an interference.

    if you follow my logic so far, the only ambiguity is how much is considered an interference. it is 3 inches, or a foot? or 2 feet?
    Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.

    Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.

    I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.

  7. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Who is going to perform a proper shot when the follow through could potentially result in a broken racquet, because some fool is blocking the net with his racquet?
    It's no surprise that the only people who perform this shot are intermediate at best, and tend to have a whole array of cheap, querky techniques such as the foul serve I mentioned in another thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by gerry
    Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.

    Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.

    I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.

  8. #76
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    manila
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annab
    What's with all this interpretation?! IBF, amend the laws so we have clarity, for Pete's sake! Put it on your to do list right after "Move to KL".

    And while you're at it, put a time limit on how many seconds a server can take to serve. And for that matter, how many seconds a receiver can take to get into ready position.

    And include the lighting specs (angle and illumination) and acceptable noise levels so court owners can build courts without blind spots and karaoke bars!

    Man, there really shouldn't have to be so much speculation, interpretation, analysis of the rules. It just leads to arguments on the court that can't be decided with any finality. Rules should be clear and comprehensive.

    Annab (puso mo..peace)

    Being a part owner of a court and am on the organizing committee for our tournaments I whole heartedly agree...

    PS: that Karaoke thing been fixed yet??

  9. #77
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    manila
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gerry
    Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.

    Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.

    I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.
    Could you kindly post the reply/ies here.. it would help a lot, also about the rushing thing, it is just to obvious a distraction ploy.. just wonder if it would be allowed in a tournament... and if a warning is issued by the umpire, how would the point go, or is it a let??

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Similar Threads

  1. New kid around the block
    By Smackin in forum Introduction
    Replies: 6
    : 03-26-2007, 08:39 PM
  2. Block Smashes
    By xVinhX in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 3
    : 05-04-2006, 12:57 PM
  3. Anyone know where I can do Block Booking?
    By Swakoo in forum Singapore
    Replies: 3
    : 10-04-2005, 05:39 AM
  4. im d new kid n d block
    By nightviper in forum Introduction
    Replies: 3
    : 12-15-2004, 12:18 AM
  5. Please block him!
    By LazyBuddy in forum Forum Feedback
    Replies: 2
    : 11-01-2002, 02:17 PM

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
  •