Results 69 to 74 of 74
Thread: Net kills - what's legal?
05-15-2005, 05:01 AM #69Originally Posted by Loopy
"Oh my word! What do you think of that call?"
"That's a tough one for the umpire to call"
05-15-2005, 01:14 PM #70Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
It's something like
"The umpire called a fault on Zhou for hitting the birdie before it crossed the net...
Now let's take a look at this (replay)...
... a marginal call.... That's a little harsh...."
Typically brit no?
06-10-2005, 02:42 AM #71
!Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
More generally, I agree with Mag that nothing in the Laws says situation #4 is illegal.
13.3 is read as follows:
If B then A.
(In parentheses) If C then NOT A.
13.4.2 is read as follows:
If D then A.
If D AND (NOT B) then NOT A.
A = "it is a fault"
B = "the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net"
C = "follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke"
D = "invades an opponent's court over the net with racket or person"
The independence / non-mutually-exclusiveness of these propositions does not allow one to say anything about NOT C.
I.e. You can invade an opponent's court over the net with racket or person if the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker's side of the net with other clauses suggesting you cannot touch any part of the net with the racquet on your follow-through, cannot impede opponent's reply to your shot, etc.
Even if trying to infer the spirit of the rule from C or NOT C, keep in mind that this is in parentheses suggesting one possible exclusion and does not necessarily cover ALL possible exclusions-- else the parentheses would be eliminated.
06-10-2005, 05:48 AM #72Originally Posted by quisitor
Originally Posted by quisitor
Originally Posted by quisitor
that is a mistake
It is always a fault to invades an opponent's court over the net with person.
There is only an exclusion for invading an opponent's court over the net with racket, i.e. C.
and that is the basis of my stance on situation #4
It is only an exclusion if the shuttle goes over the net before the racket.
10-28-2005, 08:42 AM #73
nice discussion all great pics!
i think rule is clear to understand. whenever you intrude on the other side
on the net it is a fault EXCEPT if the motion which goes over the net comes
from continuation of same strike, where ball was hit on own side of the court.
i think that the reason for this exception comes from health reasons....
if i were to smash the ball with power just near the net and i couldn't
swing my hand/arm naturally it may give me injury to my wrist/hand/arm,
thus the exception.
does this sounds clear to you?
10-28-2005, 11:57 PM #74
If I were the umpire, I would treat this case as legal: "my" emphasis is on the contact point of the shuttle.
Originally Posted by Gollum
By CkcJsm in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 11: 02-26-2009, 09:00 PM
By aquaboi in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 10: 03-27-2008, 12:36 PM
By Jumpalot in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 10: 08-04-2005, 08:00 PM
By oab729 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 6: 04-22-2005, 12:13 PM
By Jessica in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 6: 12-04-2001, 11:51 AM