Blocking at the net

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by pcll99, Apr 26, 2015.

  1. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,732
    Likes Received:
    630
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
  2. SSSSNT

    SSSSNT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    Here
    Obvious fault. Her racket goes over the net.
     
  3. vkokamthankar

    vkokamthankar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Employed in a company
    Location:
    Pune, India
    It is not a fault.

    LXR's racket did cross the net, but there was no contact with shuttle. Hence it is not a fault and umpire has also not declared fault there.

    Mere crossing of racket in opponents court over the net is not a fault as per rules.

    It is a fault when shuttle and racket makes a contact on opponents side. OR

    Opponent is obstructed in returning shuttle, due to invasion over or under the net.

    RI won the rally here, her tap over the net was legal and landed inside LXR's court.
     
  4. SSSSNT

    SSSSNT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    Here
    Disagree.

    Ratchnok is making a very close tap on the net. LXR racket then not only try to block it on her side, but goes over the net. How is that not fault, can't be more obvious than that.

    The umpire didn't call it because it was in. Or else he would/should.
     
  5. amleto

    amleto Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    UK
    obvious fault from lxr. It interferes with RI's shot.
     
  6. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    Sure it is:

     
  7. vkokamthankar

    vkokamthankar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Employed in a company
    Location:
    Pune, India
    Please refer to bold part of your response.

    Well, umpire has to call a fault whenever it occurs. What happens after the alleged fault is inconsequential. Just imagine if RI's tap goes out or instead of taping RI lifts the shuttle deep and LXR is able to return it comfortably and rally continues.

    In my opinion no fault has occurred and hence umpire also didn't call it a fault.
     
  8. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    [​IMG]

    Let's go through the requirements in §13.4.2:

    - It is a fault if, in play - obviously so
    - a player invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket - our perspective isn't perfect, but in the above picture, it certainly seems that LXR's racket is over the net, if only by a couple of centimeters.
    - except that the striker ... - LXR is not striking the shuttle. RI actually did strike the shuttle, so she is a allowed to move her racket into the opponent's court.

    It's nearly impossible for a human to perceive this though (and be certain of it); LXR had her racket over the net for about the tenth of a second. The umpire therefore can't be sure that a fault has been committed, and reacted correctly according to


    Look at the above picture. LXR's racket is about a meter to the side from RI's. In other words, RI cannot possible hit the shuttle and LXR's racket in one single motion. Therefore, §13.4.4 does not come into play here.
     
    #8 phihag, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  9. vkokamthankar

    vkokamthankar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Employed in a company
    Location:
    Pune, India
    I agree with Phiang !

    I have to agree with Phiang.

    He has taken lot of care and efforts to technically prove his point.

    I also appreciate the fact that Umpire sitting there had to make decision in a fraction of second based on what he has seen for a fraction of second. We are pondering over the decision after two days after seeing stills and videos and rules over and over again.

    Phiang has also made a good observation here that Rule 13.4.4 about obstruction will not apply here.

    Many thanks Phiang ! :D
     
  10. vkokamthankar

    vkokamthankar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Employed in a company
    Location:
    Pune, India
    Rule 13.4.2.

    This is again regarding Rule 13.4.2.

    I would like to know the decision from Phiang and all other experienced forum members in following situation.

    In a doubles game, a player X moves too close to net to intercept the return from opponent. But eventually misses the shuttle and his racket crosses over the net. Player X's both opponents are defending in deep and they are no where near the net.

    Has player X committed a fault under Rule 13.4.2 ?

    My observation is; umpires often ignore such situations and faults since opposing players are far away from the net. Your views please. :confused:
     
  11. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, definitely.

    As I wrote above, umpires are asked not to call a fault if they are not certain, and in most cases it's - like here - a case of fractions of a second and millimeters.

    Additionally, good players will typically not stand directly at the net anyways, since the defenses to the thundering smashes will usually be quite quick themselves. I don't remember ever encountering the situation you describe, but then again I've only umpired about 200 games so far.

    If you are nevertheless certain that this has happened, please contact the referee of your tournament after the game (maybe phrase it politely as a question about the rules in this situation). Admittedly, that won't help you in the current game, but it will prompt the referee to instruct the umpires to be more vigilant. Chances are that a team or club which commits this specific fault once will do so again, and that may happen in your next game.
     
    #11 phihag, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  12. vkokamthankar

    vkokamthankar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Employed in a company
    Location:
    Pune, India

    Thanks Phiang for your reply and advise. You are indeed umpiring veteran with loads of umpiring experience ! :)
     
  13. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,732
    Likes Received:
    630
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    I don't understand this last part very well.

    "a meter to the side"? I thought the two rackets would clash?? no?

    have a look at the video, please.

    [video]https://youtu.be/xb08P69UDXE?t=3979[/video]

    thanks.
     
  14. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    In the above picture, the distance is about a meter if you look at the players' feet, and both rackets are in front of them.

    Reviewing from another perspective, it's indeed much closer:

    [​IMG]

    Still, the rackets don't come into contact, and RI is able to hit just fine. I can't find a picture good enough, but I'd have doubts about faulting LXR per §14.4.4 here, and as mentioned multiple times, an umpire should not call fault if they are in doubt.

    I do think it's way harder to discuss a video than a still picture. Can you post the pictures you think show the fault? For what it's worth, the video at the position you referenced (https://youtu.be/xb08P69UDXE?t=3979) is totally useless in deciding this case:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    It is just stupid how umpires let these things slide and it sends such a bad message to non umpired badminton. This was clearly obstruction to the point where IR had to totally brush across the shuttle sending it left (that's why the rackets ended up 1metre apart if you actually watch the video).

    This is a serious problem because I can understand the defending player covering their face out of safety but since the umpiring on these cases is so bad the best way for the attacker to be assured the point is to just completely smack their opponents racket. What kind of message is that to be sending??
    Players should feel comfortable relying on the umpire to call an obstruction fault. This was such a plain clear cut case and still nothing. When the players stop being so nice and make a point of this by clashing or clashing by accident people gonna get hurt. Bad accident waiting to happen.

    Maybe these umpires need one of those dramatized health and safety videos shown to them but this one has rackets smashed at the net and shards of carbon spike into the players eyeballs and blinds them. It is really irresponsible.

    As soon as the racket goes up at the net in front of the shuttle if it is within swinging distance of the shuttle fault should be called before the stroke is made.
     
  16. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,732
    Likes Received:
    630
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    Yes, that's what I thought too.

    I thought what LXR did was the epitome of obstruction as per 13.4.4.

    btw, is covering one's face out of safety a valid excuse for obstructing as per §13.4.4?

    "obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;" §13.4.4

    Finally, I would have thought that the fact that the two rackets did not clash would not of itself suggest there was no obstruction. (Sorry for the triple negatives :p )

    The question is always this: did LXR prevent RI from making a legal stroke?
     
    #16 pcll99, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  17. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    Of course covering your face is no excuse with regards to the rules it's still a fault. I am not sure if you thought otherwise because of my post, if so please read again. But unless you want to risk a shuttle in the eyeball it is the best thing to do.
    The point is the fault should be getting called and getting called earlier. It's one of these rules where everybody will just stand by untill a bad accident happens then be all shocked when it does. It really is the height of Idiocy.
     
  18. pcll99

    pcll99 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,732
    Likes Received:
    630
    Occupation:
    Cylon
    Location:
    N/A
    The commentator of my local tv station, who was previously the head coach of the Hong Kong team, said that covering one's face in such a situation is permitted. He is implying (though he did not say so expressly) that if covering your face to protect yourself was your intent, then it is not a fault.

    But I agree with you; it should still be a fault.

    But I can see the rationales on both side of the debate. Perhaps a let is the best answer!!! :D
     
  19. craigandy

    craigandy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    UK
    No by sticking your racket up like that to protect yourself is effectively conceding the point. the attacker earned it. "Let" would be crazy.
     
  20. SSSSNT

    SSSSNT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    Here
    They don't always do it though. This is a clear fault as pointed by everyone.
     

Share This Page