Results 1 to 10 of 10
03-04-2005, 01:25 AM #1
Rules question: In play, foot invades opponents court under net
A lurker (I think) asked me this question:
If, while rushing to return a drop, your forward momentum causes your foot to cross over into the opponent(s)' court, under the net. Is this a fault? Nearest I could find in the rules is:
It is a fault if:
13.4.3 invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted;
03-04-2005, 01:30 AM #2
as 13.4.3 says
it is only a fault if the opponent is obstructed or distracted
as to what constitutes a distraction and what doesn't, we'd need input from an umpire.
03-04-2005, 03:29 AM #3
Let us start with when it is NOT a fault for the scenario that you have outlined.
Simply, you opponent could be at the back of the court himself or at best not close to where you have dropped the shuttle back to him. The issue of obstruction does not arise so: NO fault.
You could also return the drop with a clear. Your opponent has no cause to be distracted by your foot going under the net. He should be following the shuttle as it heads away from the net and your foot and towards the back of the court. Yet again: NO fault.
On the otherhand, your opponent is close to the net and you return a drop with drop and your foot goes under the net to his side there is the possibility of a fault.
It WILL be a fault if he attempts to hit the shuttle when it is close to the floor and your foot is also there! It will NOT be a fault if there follows a close interchange of play at the top of the net. Your foot has invaded but the focus is on the shuttle. Players have not been distracted and so therefore yet again No fault has occurred.
Definitive conclusion: For it to be a fault either obstruction or distraction or both have to occur. Given the speed of the game, such circumstances happen less frequently than one may think.
03-04-2005, 11:49 AM #4
Excellent. Thanks for the input, Neil, Fault.
03-04-2005, 05:24 PM #5
Would the same situation apply to your racket crossing over to the opponent's court without touching the net?
03-04-2005, 06:23 PM #6
Here's the rule on that.
It is a fault if:
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);
03-04-2005, 11:28 PM #7
Only the racket can go beyond the net in the FOLLOW THROUGH (usually after a net kill, I cannot think of others). All parts of the body and racket CANNOT go beyond the net or touch it under all other circumstances.
However, can my racket hand (not racket) go beyond the net in the follow through?
03-05-2005, 02:00 AM #8
Originally Posted by john10235
13.4.1 racquet, person, clothing, cannot touch the net or the supports
13.4.2 racquet, person, cannot go over the net (except racquet, and only racquet, as part of follow through)
13.4.3 racquet, person, can go under the net if it does not cause obstruction or distraction
no law says that going around the side of the net and supports is a fault, therefore it must be ok to do so (presumably as long as you do not obstruct or distract)
Originally Posted by john10235
03-06-2005, 04:20 AM #9
Obstruction and Distraction.
Let’s begin with the original question. Would it be a fault if your racket crossed over to the opponent's court without touching the net?
The answer to that is NO, as long as this happened in the process of playing a shot ie., that the player has followed the shuttle over the net in the course of playing a stroke.
Given the way that the game has developed it is more and more common an occurrence for players, whilst they are close to the net, to ‘flash’ at a shuttle as it is cleared over them. In the course of this attempt to play a stroke, which invariably is missed, the player’s racket does pass over the net, but not in the process of following the shuttle. Strictly speaking and taking the Law as it is written this is a fault – but it is rarely called.
As I say, an attempt – BUT, is it a realistic attempt to play a shot or a swish in hope that this is going to be that 1 in 10 occasion or an attempt to distract the opposition or is such an action as likely to distract your partner? Now, apply the Law!
This whole thread started with obstruction and distraction. The issue of the racket going over the net in the course of a stroke is more likely to be a fault against the receiving side, for it is they that can and so often obstruct.
The important issue with the Laws when it comes to Lets or Faults is where the shuttle is when something occurs.
If the shuttle is close to the net but below the top of the net on the striker’s side and the receiver positions his racket, as close as he can, to and above the net so as to cut of the return, it is NOT a fault. He has not prevented a stroke from being made.
Doing exactly the same thing but this time with the shuttle above the net IS a fault. It is a fault immediately this action has been taken. No further stokes need to take place. The fact that the player would be prevented from following through over the net in the course of making a stroke is the issue.
It is NOT a fault if there is sufficient distance between the players such that a stroke could be made and followed over the net.
03-11-2005, 03:10 AM #10
just thot of something interesting.. if you hit the shuttle on ur side of the net, but on the followthrough over the net you distract/obstruct or hit your opponent, its a fault right? i dont see any ruling on that tho.. i think.. (its 1am kinda sleepy )
By kohch99 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 14: 01-13-2008, 01:32 PM
By michael_khong in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 5: 08-12-2007, 01:56 PM
By jgao_net in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 4: 08-09-2006, 11:16 PM
By fred51 in forum General ForumReplies: 7: 02-27-2006, 10:41 AM
By ploppers in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 0: 04-07-2005, 05:07 PM