User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 25
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    M'SIA
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default shuttle hitting motionless racket

    I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
    Can anybody clarify this for me.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    fluke is part of the game.. so i think think u guys should have gotten the point..

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default It's a fault

    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen luv
    I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
    Can anybody clarify this for me.
    Yo 15 luv,

    In the Law of badminton for Umpires, we identify that as a fault. Law 13.4.4 stipulates that you are obstructing your opponent ie preventing him from making a legal stroke as your racquet stay motionless. Hence the umpire awarded a pt against you. It is also rare too witness such play by professionals players. Hope that is clear for you.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    CKLEE is correct provided that when you went and put your racquet up at the net, the purpose was to potentially (hoping you'll win the lottery) have your opponet hit the shuttle right into your racquet....

    ...by definition, "you are" obstructing your opponent's shot.

    If it was the case, you made a poor shot at the net, realize you can't move & you're stuck at the net, your opponent is about to pound the shuttle between your two eye-brows...

    ...you raise your racquet in front of your face/head, your opponet smashes/drives/etc. bounces the shuttle off your racquet and falls "IN" onto the floor of your opponent's court ...

    ...your lifting of the racquet to your face is perfectly legal, plus you guys get a point!

    The major difference is that you are protecting yourself (your face) versus trying to block your opponent's return.

    Cheers!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Richmond-BC
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    that rule is just crazy. but it makes perfect sense XD. however, only gonna be enforced with an ump around cuz there aint gonna be some 5th person in a doubles game during drop-ins just to watch whether the rackets r in constant motion.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    next time wiggle your racquet about

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    M'SIA
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by __Lam
    next time wiggle your racquet about
    Thank you very to everyone of you for the info.
    thanks and thanks again................

  8. #8
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,684
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Blocking a Shot Vs Obstructing a Stroke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Break-My-String

    ...by definition, "you are" obstructing your opponent's shot.

    ...you raise your racquet in front of your face/head, your opponet smashes/drives/etc. bounces the shuttle off your racquet and falls "IN" onto the floor of your opponent's court ...

    ...your lifting of the racquet to your face is perfectly legal, plus you guys get a point!

    The major difference is that you are protecting yourself (your face) versus trying to block your opponent's return.

    Cheers!
    Hi fifteen luv,

    Care has to be taken to explain this.

    Firstly, we have to define "SHOT" and "STROKE".

    SHOT = Flight of the shuttle.
    STROKE = Swing of the racket.

    You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE.

    If the shuttle is very close to the net, your opponent can hit the shuttle with the point of impact on his/her side of the net and have his/her racket follow-through over the net, with the rackethead finishing over the net into your side of the court.

    Your racket must have been so close to the net that it prevented your opponent from doing the follow-through with his/her racket over the net.

    Usually the umpire makes the decision by judging whether the rackets will clash or not.

    My advice is... still block the shot, but block it further away from the net, so that no clash of rackets can occur. It is then a LEGAL BLOCK. But it's easier said than done.

    Cheers... chris@ccc

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    244
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fifteen luv
    I was playing double at local tournament match yesterday.When my partner try to do a net shot, it was too high in frt of the net squatting down. My opponent went for a smash. I quickly hold up my racket in frt of the net.The shuttle hit my string potion of my racket and fall into the opponent court, we just with joy because we thought we got a point. But the umpire gave the point to our opponent.The umpire say that because my racket was motionless so no point can be awarded.
    Can anybody clarify this for me.
    Your umpire is at fault.

    A shuttle hitting a motionless racquet is NOT a fault.

    If your were obstructing your opponents shot by preventing them following through with their stroke, the umpire should have said so.

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsk
    Your umpire is at fault.

    A shuttle hitting a motionless racquet is NOT a fault.

    If your were obstructing your opponents shot by preventing them following through with their stroke, the umpire should have said so.
    So i suppose putting up the racquet motionless along the net, in the direction of the opponent's shuttle or racquet is ok? I think the law means that the intentional positioning the racquet in a motionless way that it impede the fair play of the shuttle over the net, is not right.

    At net play, if opponent follow thru his/her stroke, then the racquet shouldn't cross the over the net which can come into contact with the motionless racquet, then that's another law which is the crossing over net fault.

    my 2 cents...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,966
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k.o.b
    So i suppose putting up the racquet motionless along the net, in the direction of the opponent's shuttle or racquet is ok? I think the law means that the intentional positioning the racquet in a motionless way that it impede the fair play of the shuttle over the net, is not right.

    At net play, if opponent follow thru his/her stroke, then the racquet shouldn't cross the over the net which can come into contact with the motionless racquet, then that's another law which is the crossing over net fault.

    my 2 cents...
    actually, a followthrough of a stroke is allowed to cross the net, the contact point however must be on your side.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    971
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is often a certain level of ambiguity in such cases, and it's left for the umpire to judge. but i think most probably the point should have been awarded to u. in the fast pace of doubles it's not at all uncommon to have shots blocked at the net, whether it's luck or not, motionless or not. at least that's what i think

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Delaware, USA
    Posts
    165
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Simple, the volleyball-type blocking is not legal in Badminton. The umpire is correct.

    There is no way you can block the stroke. To block the stroke, either you have reach into to the opponents court or (s)he has to reach over into your court, either of which would already be a fault.

    The rule posted above clearly means you cannot block the shot. You can anticipate and block the shuttle AFTER the shot is made by your opponent.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,237
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    how is it anticipation if it is AFTER a stroke was produced by the oppoenents?
    perhaps fifteen luv and his partner just knew where his opponents were going to put the shuttle better than the opponent himself? (obviously not the case, but the umpire doens't know this!)

    clearly the rule stated stroke.
    stroke is racquet movement. fifteen luv's friend did not interfere with the making of the stroke of the opponents.
    he merely put his racquet up towards the net in a blocking motion as to intercept the path of the shuttle.

    if the racquets up at the net long before the opponents make the shot, but yet still decides to smash at the upraised racquet, the opponent's stupidity alone makes losing the point a well deserved loss.

    besides, from the sounds of it, fifteen luv's partner wasn't even that close to the net. if he was close enough to the net, he wouldn't have been spooked by the net kill since he'd be protected by the net itself from the shuttle, correct?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Darwin, Australia
    Posts
    265
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is a legal shot. The umpire was wrong. 13.4.4 in the current rules on the IBF website:
    "obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net"

    As mentioned earlier STROKE as opposed to SHOT. You can't make rules to outlaw luck.

    Unless your racquet was in the way of a stroke that may have followed through over the net, there was nothing illegal about it.
    Last edited by Russki Bear; 08-07-2006 at 07:57 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,966
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the strikerís side of the net. (The striker may, however, follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke);

    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, ie prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;

    so your opponent is allowed to follow through his stroke on your side, and if you block that your at fault...

    I have some lucky ones liek that aswell. but those were returned netkills when I stood 2ft away and crouched down, then they luckily hit it at my racket.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    aujerbajan
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The umpire was right. Its called that way at every level. Maybe some people here are misinterpretting the rules. Your racket must be in motion when contacting the bird or else the shot is a fault.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Accuracy when hitting shuttle?
    By KuroyamaAkihito in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 11
    : 07-05-2011, 05:28 AM
  2. hitting a shuttle before it tip to the other side
    By kooixh in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 14
    : 04-06-2010, 01:04 AM
  3. LOOK (observe) & THINK before HITTING the shuttle
    By kmusalim in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 14
    : 08-28-2008, 12:48 PM
  4. Hitting the shuttle when receiving
    By ljq in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 1
    : 10-09-2002, 12:02 PM
  5. Shuttle hitting the roof
    By Birdie in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 7
    : 07-20-2001, 12:25 AM

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
  •