Net kills - what's legal?

[Loh]

I think Situations 1-3 are legal as the striker hits the bird from his own side of the court first and his follow-through over the net comes later without the racket touching the net.

Even in Situation 4, when the point of contact is on striker's side of the court but the racket head tilts slightly over the opponent's side at the net, it is still legal as it is quite a natural stroke and angle to put the bird downwards, so long as contact is first made on the striker's side.

Your question on invasion could invoke some doubt if the player just stands at the net with his racket raised above the net and placed slightly over his opponent's court during a rally and there was no net duel between them. Say, the opponent was retrieving a low mid-court drop shot. It could be construed as invading an opponent's court.

However, if both players are duelling at the net, a player can raise his racket above the net to anticipate easy kills without crossing his racket over his opponent's court. This cannot be considered an intrusion, invasion, intimidation, harassment, obstruction, etc, as his opponent is at liberty to play a net shot away from him with a cross or a lift. I used to think this is a fault as the player seems to be obstructing his opponent from making a good shot but I was told that the receiver can still play his shot away from his opponent at the net.

[Neil Nicholls]

I was going to raise this issue a while back, but decided it was a bit too pedantic even for me .
But now it's here, I believe that if the racquet goes over the net, before contact with the shuttle, it is a fault irrespective of which side of the net the shuttle is on.
Also, if the racquet goes over the net, before the shuttle goes over the net, it is a fault irrespective of which side of the net you hit the shuttle on.

The only time it is legal to have your racquet go over the net is
You hit the shuttle on your side of the net,
the shuttle goes over the net,
and then, only after both those things have happened, your racquet can go over the net if it is a continuation of the same stroke.

That, I believe, is the exact interpretation.

But I think it is too hard for the umpire to rule on this, unless cameras and slow-motion replays are used. And that would interfere with the flow of play.

[m_poppema]

The only time it is legal to have your racquet go over the net is
You hit the shuttle on your side of the net,
the shuttle goes over the net,
and then, only after both those things have happened, your racquet can go over the net if it is a continuation of the same stroke.

That, I believe, is the exact interpretation.

I totally agree with Neil..very well put Neil!!

[Gollum]

I think Situations 1-3 are legal as the striker hits the bird from his own side of the court first and his follow-through over the net comes later without the racket touching the net.

Er, situation 1 should definitely be illegal

Even in Situation 4, when the point of contact is on striker's side of the court but the racket head tilts slightly over the opponent's side at the net, it is still legal as it is quite a natural stroke and angle to put the bird downwards, so long as contact is first made on the striker's side.

Your question on invasion could invoke some doubt if the player just stands at the net with his racket raised above the net and placed slightly over his opponent's court during a rally and there was no net duel between them. Say, the opponent was retrieving a low mid-court drop shot. It could be construed as invading an opponent's court.

However, if both players are duelling at the net, a player can raise his racket above the net to anticipate easy kills without crossing his racket over his opponent's court. This cannot be considered an intrusion, invasion, intimidation, harassment, obstruction, etc, as his opponent is at liberty to play a net shot away from him with a cross or a lift. I used to think this is a fault as the player seems to be obstructing his opponent from making a good shot but I was told that the receiver can still play his shot away from his opponent at the net.

Yes, I think this makes sense. I believe the term "invasion" implies more than just intruding a small amount into the court, in order to play a good shot. I think it implies some form of obstruction or distraction of the opponent.

I'm not sure about holding your racket in the way of an opponent's net shot. What if he decided to play a lift instead? Then you would be obstructing his follow through, which violates law 13.4.4 .

[Gollum]

I was going to raise this issue a while back, but decided it was a bit too pedantic even for me .

What can I say - I'm a philosopher, and therefore represent the pinnacle of pedantry

[Break-My-String]

...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?

In volleyball, the rules of breaking the vertical plane is a little different. The defender/blocker can extend over the net "only after the 3rd hit has been made" and does not have to wait for the ball to pass through the vertical plane.

So yes, after the 3rd hit (ex/spike) has been made, the blockers can extend their hands past the net and make contact with the ball on the striker's side of the net, forcing the ball down winning the rally.

Cheers!

[Break-My-String]

I think we are now questioning...

As part of stroking the shuttle, before the initial contact is made, can the racquet break the vertical plane?

Cheers!

[hcyong]

I agree with Neil Nicholls here. Let's look at the rules again.

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;

13.4.2 says that invading the opponent's court is illegal, and this includes even the tiniest bit of intrusion. But there is an exception.
13.3 says you can invade if you follow the shuttle over the net, meaning after you have hit the shuttle. Before the moment of contact, any intrusion will be deemed illegal.

[Aleik]

I think situation four, as described, is legal. However, it is near-on impossible to do. If you look carefully at the position of the racket and the path it is assumed to be taking, the shuttle's skirt will naturally touch the illegal part of the racket after the legal part has contacted the cork. I'm sure that it is impossible for a kill with enough force to touch the cork alone.

Aleik.

[silentheart]

I would like to know when is badminton going to start instant replay judge.

[Gollum]

I think situation four, as described, is legal. However, it is near-on impossible to do. If you look carefully at the position of the racket and the path it is assumed to be taking, the shuttle's skirt will naturally touch the illegal part of the racket after the legal part has contacted the cork. I'm sure that it is impossible for a kill with enough force to touch the cork alone.

Aleik.

Brush net kill: the racket is held briefly, then swiped sharply from right to left along the net. This sideways motion generates enough power to produce a very tight kill without touching the net. The racket barely moves forward at all.

It's bizarre, but it works.

[coops241180]

Brush net kill: the racket is held briefly, then swiped sharply from right to left along the net. This sideways motion generates enough power to produce a very tight kill without touching the net. The racket barely moves forward at all.

It's bizarre, but it works.

yes, i've seen this done, robert blair is quite adept at it.

i think i've also seen an umpire call the 4th situation a fault also. anthony clark was faulted on a net kill - from a distance he appeared to be a long way from the net, i can only assume that he just crossed the net with his racquet before hitting the shuttle. but it must have been very slight, and i certainly think he contacted the shuttle on his own side of the net...

shame there wasn't an action replay

no. 4 is defo a fault tho..

cheers

Neil

[cooler]

In volleyball, the rules of breaking the vertical plane is a little different. The defender/blocker can extend over the net "only after the 3rd hit has been made" and does not have to wait for the ball to pass through the vertical plane.

So yes, after the 3rd hit (ex/spike) has been made, the blockers can extend their hands past the net and make contact with the ball on the striker's side of the net, forcing the ball down winning the rally.

Cheers!

ok
i'm not keen in volleyball as i dont play or watch it much

[Aleik]

Brush net kill: the racket is held briefly, then swiped sharply from right to left along the net. This sideways motion generates enough power to produce a very tight kill without touching the net. The racket barely moves forward at all.

It's bizarre, but it works.

Corrected and humbled!

Aleik.

[Gollum]

The problem with brush net kills is that I believe they require "situation 4" to be legal. Otherwise you can't really use them effectively.

In any situation except the tightest of net kills, there's no need to use a brushing motion. You can just use a very small tap downwards with the fingers. The reason for brushing the kill is to avoid this forward movement of the racket head - because you will hit the net.

[Loh]

[QUOTE=Gollum]Er, situation 1 should definitely be illegal

Sorry mate, you are absolutely right. Your colourful illustrations 'invaded' my senses and made me colour blind.

PS: I love your illustrations and just wonder how you did them.

[Gollum]

PS: I love your illustrations and just wonder how you did them.

I used a program called LightWave to model the objects. Some years ago, LightWave was a professional 3d graphics suite, used for films and television. It probably still is, though I'm sure they have a much more modern version out now. But I'm out of touch with the current techniques of CG.

Anyway, I used to play around with this stuff to make pictures and animations when I was a teenager. I had a thing about cool spaceships

It was fun to play with it again

*edit* Here's the LightWave website: http://www.newtek.com/