Badminton rule dispute

**RealMad** · 09-18-2005, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by john10235

My opinion: UNLESS the shuttle passes through the red area AND lands INSIDE the court, it is a fault.

This is all moot since the rule is that you can indeed hit a shot wide of the posts into the opposing half without clearing net height.

But John's statement cannot be implemented as you will never be able to measure if the shuttle cleared the net, wide of the post. Two feet over the net or two feet under, if there's no tape, who's to say if it cleared?

**fast3r** · 09-20-2005, 03:19 PM

[on-topic] The shot is legal if the net posts are placed directly above the lines of the court. I know this for a fact because a few weeks ago, 4 of our courts were out of action for a day because the net posts (which are placed inside holes drilled into the ground, [apparently this is because these net posts are international regulations, so we have these so the club can hold international tournaments]) had to be moved 1 inch so that they were directly above the lines, for the sake of this very law.

[off topic] The process invovled removing the planks of wood around the holes, extensive drilling, taking out metal holders placed into the ground filling in the existing holes, drilling new holes, replacing the wood around the holes, placing the net posts in the new holes which is more complicated than it looks

**tinkerbella122** · 09-20-2005, 03:48 PM

This is sort of like hitting a shot when it's clearly out isn't it

? ; it is legal if it goes over, from your side of the net to the your opponents. Although it's rather a dumb shot to hit, it is perfectly legal.

**fast3r** · 09-21-2005, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by tinkerbella122

This is sort of like hitting a shot when it's clearly out isn't it

? ; it is legal if it goes over, from your side of the net to the your opponents. Although it's rather a dumb shot to hit, it is perfectly legal.

thats exactly what it is

**jerby** · 09-21-2005, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by silentheart

It is legal. It is also legal for all other sports uses a net to devide the court.

nope, not i volleybal

**Natrificial** · 09-21-2005, 12:26 PM

Like its been said... u can curve it around the post (and lower than the post) in tennis and its legal... I've done it before.

I'm sure theres a fluke where u can curve a legal shot thats been hit to you, not just ones that are going out, around the net in badminton (with the help of a brisk draft)

Originally Posted by RealMad

The shot is legal. The net does not represent a never-ending barrier dividing each half of the court.

Btw, the shot is legal in tennis as well. Especially now, with players looking to hit the ball at very acute angles, I've had more than one opportunity to squeeze a shot around the post but below net level. It's actually easier in tennis, even though the net extends past either side of the court.

***kwun*** · 09-21-2005, 02:00 PM

this has been discussed before. and it is perfectly legal. many people want to have their own views of what is legal or not, but the definitive source is always the official rules so any discussion on legality should have cited the relevant clauses in the rules, in this case:

It is a ‘fault’:

13.2 if in play, the shuttle:
13.2.2 passes through or under the net;

13.2.3 fails to pass the net;

13.2.6 touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;

and that's it. the net is what is physically there, there are no mention of imaginary net extensions in the laws so the shuttle going through the sides is not illegal.

***kwun*** · 09-21-2005, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Natrificial

Like its been said... u can curve it around the post (and lower than the post) in tennis and its legal... I've done it before.

I'm sure theres a fluke where u can curve a legal shot thats been hit to you, not just ones that are going out, around the net in badminton (with the help of a brisk draft)

it is possible to curve the shuttle without the help of any wind. the error margin is very very small though. i believe Taufik has done it once in one of the all england with a crazy rearcourt-to-rearcout backhand that curved back into the court and lands right on the sideline.

**tinkerbella122** · 09-21-2005, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by kwun

this has been discussed before. and it is perfectly legal. many people want to have their own views of what is legal or not, but the definitive source is always the official rules so any discussion on legality should have cited the relevant clauses in the rules, in this case:

It is a ‘fault’:

13.2 if in play, the shuttle:
13.2.2 passes through or under the net;

13.2.3 fails to pass the net;

13.2.6 touches any other object or person outside the immediate surroundings of the court;

and that's it. the net is what is physically there, there are no mention of imaginary net extensions in the laws so the shuttle going through the sides is not illegal.

Thanks for clearing this up kwun

**AllisterBrimble** · 09-21-2005, 07:33 PM

hehe, never did I think my message would have caused so much trouble

I now owe my friend a bottle of wine as he bet me a bottle he was right about the shot being legal.

Next week he loses 15-0 though

**__Lam** · 09-21-2005, 08:30 PM

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.

hehehe... so im not the only one who watches prince of tennis on bf... anyways why would someone do that? its already there point, why waste energy to hit a cheap shot that could potentially be returned?

**egibooga** · 09-22-2005, 07:50 AM

the shots LEGAL. period.

**keith_aquino** · 09-25-2005, 11:42 PM

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!?

Nope, it's a fault.

13.2.2 It is a fault if in play the shuttle: Passes through or under the net

**__Lam** · 09-26-2005, 12:13 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

how would it be a cheap point if it was already their point but they risked the shot to have a chance of being out or returned?

**__Lam** · 09-26-2005, 12:15 AM

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?

why shouldnt it be legal, the guy hitting it was already his point, he just waste energy and give you a chance to return it or give you the point if its out.

**CWB001** · 09-26-2005, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by keith_aquino

Nope, it's a fault.

13.2.2 It is a fault if in play the shuttle: Passes through or under the net

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how a shuttle passing around the net is "passing through or under the net?

As has been explained several times on this thread (with quotes of the relevant law), the shot was bizarre but perfectly legal.

**taneepak** · 09-26-2005, 02:04 AM

The two posts holding the net are placed directly above the lines. In addition the two sides of the net are secured flush with the two sides of the net, so that a shuttle will not pass through any gap between the sides of the net and the posts.
I believe that a shuttle that crosses over the net between the two posts, even if hit from outside the court, is legal. However, in the unlikely situation where the shuttle, hit from outside the court, takes a line of flight that is obviously higher than the net but appears to be marginally outside the sideline but lands on the line, then it will probably be judged in. This may be subject to the umpire and/or linesman's ruling.
A shuttle that is taken 1-2' off the ground from outside the side court, and it goes around, not over, the net is a fault.