Net kills

**Neil Nicholls** · 05-15-2005, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Loopy

The commentators said it too, alrthough in a more brit manner.

Was it something like:
"Oh my word! What do you think of that call?"
"That's a tough one for the umpire to call"

**Loopy** · 05-15-2005, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

Originally Posted by Loopy

The commentators said it too, alrthough in a more brit manner.

Was it something like:
"Oh my word! What do you think of that call?"
"That's a tough one for the umpire to call"

lol, not like that...
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?

**quisitor** · 06-10-2005, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

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.

Can't be right as there will be times when your racquet will be completely on your side of the net, contact is made on your side of the net but the top of your racquet head crosses the plane of the net before the shuttle does. E.g. in diagram #4 by Gollum, what happens if the net and vertical plane of the net are transposed to the left such that the tip of the racquet head touches the vertical plane. Then the entire racquet is on your side of the court but since the shuttle is contacting the angled racquet head a few centimetres away from the vertical plane, with the slightest forward motion at all the tip of the racquet head will cross the vertical plane before the shuttle does. Don't think the spirit of the law would want this to be a fault.

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.

Where:
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.

**Neil Nicholls** · 06-10-2005, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by quisitor

... there will be times when your racquet will be completely on your side of the net, contact is made on your side of the net but the top of your racquet head crosses the plane of the net before the shuttle does.

yes. And my contention is that that is a fault

Originally Posted by quisitor

More generally, I agree with Mag that nothing in the Laws says situation #4 is illegal.

I think it does (technically, even if the umpire cannot be expected to see it)

Originally Posted by quisitor

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.

Where:
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"

If D AND (NOT B) then NOT A.
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.

**Boy@n** · 10-28-2005, 07:42 AM

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?

**john10235** · 10-28-2005, 10:57 PM

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

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

Yes. In fact, some world class players can actually kill a net shot which is only "a few" cm above the net, when his/her position on the court is good enough...and I have also done this, although very luckily, when the shuttle is 5 cm above the net.