Badminton rule dispute

**AllisterBrimble** · 09-15-2005, 07:15 AM

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

**Jinryu** · 09-15-2005, 07:27 AM

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.

**Gollum** · 09-15-2005, 07:38 AM

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.

**AllisterBrimble** · 09-15-2005, 08:09 AM

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??

**silentheart** · 09-15-2005, 08:18 AM

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.

**txyu** · 09-15-2005, 08:41 AM

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

**Neil Nicholls** · 09-15-2005, 08:52 AM

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

**silentheart** · 09-15-2005, 08:56 AM

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).

**txyu** · 09-15-2005, 09:20 AM

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?

**Quan** · 09-15-2005, 09:27 AM

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.

**Neil Nicholls** · 09-15-2005, 09:32 AM

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

Originally Posted by txyu

Am I interpreting this original post wrong?

I don't think so

**bigredlemon** · 09-15-2005, 09:46 AM

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!?

**DarthHowie** · 09-15-2005, 09:50 AM

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)?

**AllisterBrimble** · 09-15-2005, 09:54 AM

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

Allister

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?

**silentheart** · 09-15-2005, 09:55 AM

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.

**txyu** · 09-15-2005, 09:58 AM

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

**Neil Nicholls** · 09-15-2005, 10:01 AM

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