User Tag List

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 105
  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Badminton rule dispute

    Hi

    I have recently had an argument with a friend about a shot that he played.
    He hit the shuttle around the side of post, 2 feet under the height of the net and the shuttle landed in.

    Is this legal?

    Thanks in advance
    Allister

    www.badmintonexeter.co.uk
    Last edited by AllisterBrimble; 09-15-2005 at 07:17 AM. Reason: spelling mistake

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    463
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badm...ew/82/56/1/11/





    13. FAULTS

    It is a ‘fault’:

    13.2 if in play, the shuttle:

    13.2.3 fails to pass the net;

    That shot is not legal-- even if he accidentally hit a bird that was going out, it has to cross over the net for it to be considered within bounds i beleive. I was looking for a better phrased part of the rules but this was the best I could find.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,981
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The shot is legal. Nothing in the laws contradicts it.

    It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.

    It's your own fault for hitting the shuttle wide. If your shot had been going in, he could never have passed the post.

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    The shot is legal. Nothing in the laws contradicts it.

    It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.

    It's your own fault for hitting the shuttle wide. If your shot had been going in, he could never have passed the post.

    That's two different answers on this forum now. Anyone else??

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AllisterBrimble
    That's two different answers on this forum now. Anyone else??
    It is legal. It is also legal for all other sports uses a net to devide the court.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Back in Sudbury, ON
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal?

    Who would argue that?

    Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

    Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txyu
    Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point
    errrrr
    if it's obviously out, then it doesn't come any cheaper than not hitting it and letting it land out

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txyu
    two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal?

    Who would argue that?

    Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

    Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point
    1) why he hitting it if it is out? it is his point already. it is not a cheap point. what if the shuttle does not land inside of the line? it become your point.
    2) why do you give up a point just because the other person does not know the rule?
    3) anything that does not specificly defined as fault in the rule book is legal untill ibf change the rule (s-serve is a good example).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Back in Sudbury, ON
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

    From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

    I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
    My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
    He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
    It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

    and that's legal?

    Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

    Am I interpreting this original post wrong?
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by txyu; 09-15-2005 at 09:31 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA, USA
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txyu
    it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point
    ...
    and that's legal?
    yep

    Quote Originally Posted by txyu
    Am I interpreting this original post wrong?
    I don't think so

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    717
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quan
    i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.
    off-topic:
    His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).

    on-topic:
    I'd count the point, but why would your opponent hit it in the first place if it was clearly wide and out (that's the only way i can see this shot being pulled off)?

  14. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To clarify, it went at the angle you showed in the diagram but at 1 or 2 feet below net height.

    Allister

    Quote Originally Posted by txyu
    it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

    From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

    I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
    My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
    He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
    It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

    and that's legal?

    Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

    Am I interpreting this original post wrong?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredlemon
    What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?
    No, this is a fault and you know it. This is a totally different subject.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Back in Sudbury, ON
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarthHowie
    off-topic:
    His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).

    on-topic:
    I'd count the point, but why would your opponent hit it in the first place if it was clearly wide and out (that's the only way i can see this shot being pulled off)?
    There are times, you just don't know where you are on court and are just running and swinging...I exaggerated my explanation to make sure I was clear on my interpretation of things

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredlemon
    What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?
    13.2.2
    It is a fault if in play the shuttle passes through or under the net

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    : 10-16-2011, 05:17 PM
  2. Badminton Rule Check - The Ceiling
    By raymond in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 16
    : 07-18-2010, 05:54 PM
  3. Badminton rule question
    By kan2005 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 11
    : 08-21-2008, 04:12 PM
  4. Badminton Rule Dispute - Addendum
    By Neil Nicholls in forum General Forum
    Replies: 17
    : 10-03-2005, 09:09 PM
  5. Badminton RULE question.
    By David in forum General Forum
    Replies: 3
    : 11-17-2001, 09:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •