Net kills

**Gollum** · 05-04-2005, 04:15 PM

Let's consider the rules relating to net kills, when the shuttle is very tight to the net. I don't believe this has been completely discussed here before.

I've made some illustrations to help make the discussion clear. In these pictures, there is a translucent red surface that extends upwards from the net. Think of it as an imaginary boundary line, that shows whether an object is on your side of the net.

We all know that it is illegal to strike the shuttle on your opponent's side of the net:

Situation 1 - illegal contact

Obviously it's legal to strike the shuttle on your side of the net, even if some other part of the shuttle is still on your opponent's side:

Situation 2 - legal contacts

We also know that it's legal to follow through your stroke over the net, provided that the intial point of contact was on your side:

Situation 3 - a legal follow through

There's one more possible situation, however. Is it legal to strike the shuttle with part of your racket (the top of the head) intruding into your opponent's court? The point of contact is in your court, but part of your racket is not.

Situation 4 - is this legal?

Let's look at the relevant laws from section 13:

Originally Posted by The Laws of Badminton

13. Faults

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:

13.4.2

invades an opponent's court over the net with racket or person except as permitted in Law 13.3;

So what do you think?

I'm inclined to think this ought to be legal, but it's not clear to me what the laws say about it. It rather depends on how strictly "invading the opponent's court" is interpreted.

**Loopy** · 05-04-2005, 04:22 PM

To me it seems legal, but all in all, it's up to the judge to decide on which side the point of contact has been made. For a net kill and for that last particular situation, it would be very very very very hard to see, unless the judge can see images at 60 frames per second

BTW, nice CG drawings!

**Gollum** · 05-04-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Loopy

To me it seems legal, but all in all, it's up to the judge to decide on which side the point of contact has been made. For a net kill and for that last particular situation, it would be very very very very hard to see, unless the judge can see images at 60 frames per second

BTW, nice CG drawings!

Good point. But what if the player is waiting at the net, with his racket already in this position? In this situation, the shuttle is taking a long time to cross the net (eg, a high mishit that lands very close to the tape). Is it legal for the player to get ready in this position (partly intruding), in order to kill the shuttle?

It may also become more relevant if cameras are used in the future to assist judges.

**Aleik** · 05-04-2005, 04:29 PM

You've gone right to the wire here Gollum. It isn't splitting hairs; it raises a valid point for those who judge faults for the sake of judging faults. At any level other than the highest, is it possible to define a net kill fault with this issue in mind (I'm thinking purely about human judgement and its errors, not about the rigours of the Laws)?

In reply to your initial question, Gollum, it is absolutely legal.

Aleik.

**Gollum** · 05-04-2005, 04:38 PM

One reason I am interested in this extreme case is that I know there are times that I perform such a shot.

Not very often, but it does happen. The other players have no way to tell whether I intruded over the net, but I know it as surely as I know which hand my racket is in.

It's peculiar, perhaps, but I feel it's important to develop my attitude towards playing with the rules in mind. I'm not only thinking about "what can I get away with?", but more importantly, "am I breaking a law?"

I tend to be very aggressive with attempting net kills, but I don't want to play shots that are illegal. For the same reason, I will never play a drive serve, even though there's no service judge to penalise me.

**Dill** · 05-04-2005, 04:51 PM

I would think it comes close on both sides but my inclination would be illegal.

A part of the racket has come over the net before striking the shuttle so it is not a legal follow through because the racket has gone over before the shuttle is struck.

Accompanying this there is the hinderace of the opposition playing their shot, if they would go to play a lift then your racket is in the way and there might be a clash.

**cooler** · 05-04-2005, 04:55 PM

I dunno about the exact ruling but if i go by the letter of 13.4.2, it would be illegal. For those who says it is legal, what percentage of racket invading opponent side is considered legal, 1% 10%, 25%, 50%? What make 5% more legal than say 50% over the opponent side? It is hard enough for judge to make regular (legal) net kill call already, having racket invasion before shuttle contact makes the call even more fuzzy.

Of course, i have seen many cases (6 stars tournament) where this was call legal.

similar in volleyball, can i hang my arms over the net onto opponent side on a jump block even though the ball contact (the block) occured on my side of the court?

**Loopy** · 05-04-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Gollum

.. But what if the player is waiting at the net, with his racket already in this position? In this situation, the shuttle is taking a long time to cross the net (eg, a high mishit that lands very close to the tape). Is it legal for the player to get ready in this position (partly intruding), in order to kill the shuttle?

I can also cite another situation where you're at the net making a drop shot, your opponent barely makes it in time and you know he's going to make a net drop shot, so you wait with your racket on the top of the net to make your net kill.
For me, if at that moment when you wait and your racket is on your opponent side, it is illegal, because you're in breach by rule 13.4.2 and you haven't made a stroke yet, so you cannot invoke the exception in rule 13.3

**Break-My-String** · 05-04-2005, 05:07 PM

Nice drawings Gollum!

I think the question goes back to, "did the head of the racquest break the vertical plane of the net before the shuttle has entered into your side of the court".

In the example...

1) just as the shuttle has broken the vertical plane
2) the tip of the racquet then extends over the net
3) then the shuttle contacts the sweet spot on the racquet (your last pic)
then I would conclude the shot as legal.

Cheers!

**Gollum** · 05-04-2005, 05:19 PM

I should also point out the implication of this question.

If it is legal, then any net shot, no matter how tight, can be killed - provided the player is ready for it.

If it is not legal, then extremely tight net shots (the ones that trickle over the tape) cannot be killed. At best, they can be driven flat, because the racket cannot be pointing in a downwards direction.

Alternatively, you could try hitting with the very top of the strings

**Dill** · 05-04-2005, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gollum

I should also point out the implication of this question.

If it is legal, then any net shot, no matter how tight, can be killed - provided the player is ready for it.

If it is not legal, then extremely tight net shots (the ones that trickle over the tape) cannot be killed. At best, they can be driven flat, because the racket cannot be pointing in a downwards direction.

Alternatively, you could try hitting with the very top of the strings

Or hit the shuttle off the frame of the racket to make it fall straight down

**silentheart** · 05-04-2005, 05:45 PM

good pictures. i assume the racquet will cross the net first before contacting the shuttle. therefor make it illegal. however, in a tournament, ref will not be able to make a definite call unless there is a instant replay. thanks for the good question. i will not be able call if it is legal or not...

**krantikt** · 05-04-2005, 06:08 PM

I agree with the below description.

It is very close margin to have the shuttle already on your side of the court,
and make a shot crossing your racket over.
This is perhaps the reason, why most players tend to almost drive when hitting shuttles that are just flipping over, and not make a downward shot with the racket reaching over.
IMO, it would be illegal. (the answer to the original question, I mean.)

Originally Posted by Loopy

I can also cite another situation where you're at the net making a drop shot, your opponent barely makes it in time and you know he's going to make a net drop shot, so you wait with your racket on the top of the net to make your net kill.
For me, if at that moment when you wait and your racket is on your opponent side, it is illegal, because you're in breach by rule 13.4.2 and you haven't made a stroke yet, so you cannot invoke the exception in rule 13.3

**Hawkefire** · 05-04-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Gollum

Let's consider the rules relating to net kills, when the shuttle is very tight to the net. I don't believe this has been completely discussed here before.

I've made some illustrations to help make the discussion clear. In these pictures, there is a translucent red surface that extends upwards from the net. Think of it as an imaginary boundary line, that shows whether an object is on your side of the net.

We all know that it is illegal to strike the shuttle on your opponent's side of the net:

Situation 1 - illegal contact

Obviously it's legal to strike the shuttle on your side of the net, even if some other part of the shuttle is still on your opponent's side:

Situation 2 - legal contacts

We also know that it's legal to follow through your stroke over the net, provided that the intial point of contact was on your side:

Situation 3 - a legal follow through

There's one more possible situation, however. Is it legal to strike the shuttle with part of your racket (the top of the head) intruding into your opponent's court? The point of contact is in your court, but part of your racket is not.

Situation 4 - is this legal?

Let's look at the relevant laws from section 13:

So what do you think?

I'm inclined to think this ought to be legal, but it's not clear to me what the laws say about it. It rather depends on how strictly "invading the opponent's court" is interpreted.

it looks like it would be legal because contact is still being made on your side of the court. As you can see, the shuttle is still across the red line that extends from the net.

**lorus_blue** · 05-04-2005, 07:46 PM

if i were the ref i'd call a "Let"

**ants** · 05-04-2005, 07:51 PM

Good illustration. In terms of situation 4. IMO its legal due to the contact of the shuttle is in your side. I've seen some slow motion netshots by the pros. They have similiar shots and the umpire didn't rule out anything.

**cooler** · 05-04-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by ants

Good illustration. In terms of situation 4. IMO its legal due to the contact of the shuttle is in your side. I've seen some slow motion netshots by the pros. They have similiar shots and the umpire didn't rule out anything.

that's what i see too but that just mean no one try contesting it.

if u violate 13.4.2 first to comply with 13.3, to me, 13.4.2 prevail over 13.3