Results 18 to 22 of 22
Thread: racquets passing over the net
10-24-2005, 10:18 PM #18Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
As for around the net, the poles are usually located well outside the court so that it makes it nearly impossible to reach around...
Not true for official events. The poles should be planted on the doubles line on each side. I suppose one reason for this is that if the poles are set apart otherwise, there will be a distortion to the height at the ends and in the centre of the net.
In this connection you may be interested to know that if the shuttle is hit from outside the striker's court and it travels around (or outside) the net post (not over the net) and lands on the opponent's court, it is a legal shot and a winning point if the opponent does nothing about it.
Last edited by Loh; 10-24-2005 at 10:30 PM.
10-25-2005, 02:22 AM #19Originally Posted by Nephrus
I'll try to remember to check tonight, unless someone else can confirm it before then.
10-25-2005, 02:29 AM #20Originally Posted by Loh
If you want to consider the hand is part of the racquet, then I will say you have an illegal racquet under Law 4.3
10-25-2005, 05:13 AM #21Originally Posted by OniMenoKyo
"The posts shall be placed on the doubles side lines as in Diagram A irrespective of whether singles or doubles is being played."
10-25-2005, 05:40 AM #22Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls
But I think on another matter, if the opponent's shuttle touches your racket, then it is a fault against you as the racket then forms part of your body (Law 13.2.5). It is this example which prompted me to say that since the arm is part of the body and the racket in this example also forms part of the body, therefore arm and racket are synonymous (faulty argument? ).
However, I have to admit that if in the unlikely situation the striker allows his racket holding arm to extend way beyond the normal cross over the net as a follow through action, this may tantamount to 'invading the opponent's court over the net', which is a fault under Law 13.4.2.
On account of Law 13.4.2, I tend to agree with you on hindsight that the example given by Lam is a fault, especially if the striker was aggressive and thoroughly pumped up in his action. How the umpire perceives the situation has a bearing on his judgement.
By jamesshieh88 in forum Chit-ChatReplies: 3: 01-28-2011, 05:43 PM
By marmoset in forum General ForumReplies: 13: 12-16-2009, 06:17 PM
By kmaster26 in forum General ForumReplies: 9: 11-21-2009, 07:56 AM
By Silver Bullet in forum Buy & Sell - Read the rules sticky before you postReplies: 7: 03-10-2009, 08:59 PM
By oab729 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 9: 01-23-2005, 11:34 AM