User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,255
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Holding your racket up at the Net

    Is it a fault to hold your racket at the net up high with the intention of blocking opponent's shot ? If yes, which rule does it offend? thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    13. FAULTS
    It shall be a "fault":
    13.4 if, in play, a player:
    13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    209
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe it is also a fault if:
    1) you strike the shuttle whilst it's over the opposition's side of the net.
    2) you don't actually move the racket head. I.e. it hits your static racket and bounces over.

    It is however, perfectly legal for you to follow through to over the net, as long as you've hit the shuttle when it was on your side.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Line & Length View Post
    I believe it is also a fault if:
    1) you strike the shuttle whilst it's over the opposition's side of the net.
    2) you don't actually move the racket head. I.e. it hits your static racket and bounces over.

    It is however, perfectly legal for you to follow through to over the net, as long as you've hit the shuttle when it was on your side.
    The first I agree with, the second I don't. Blocking a shot back can be done from far enough back that it does not impede the racket of the opponent whether you swing or not. Only when you're obstructing the racket of the opponent would it be a fault.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sketchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Westcountry
    Posts
    707
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One situation I see from time to time, is where someone plays an extremely tight net shot, and then anticipating that you will be forced to play a very steep lift, they hold their racket up very close to the next (but still on their own side) such that it's difficult to avoid it.

    Some people even try and "mirror" the shuttle when they play a very loose net shot, in the hopes of getting a lucky deflection or just putting the opponent off as they're about to smash it (I think they learn not to do that fairly quickly though, as they're asking to get the shuttle smashed in their face).

    As far as I know, both are perfectly legal, but not very clever...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sketchy View Post
    One situation I see from time to time, is where someone plays an extremely tight net shot, and then anticipating that you will be forced to play a very steep lift, they hold their racket up very close to the next (but still on their own side) such that it's difficult to avoid it.

    Some people even try and "mirror" the shuttle when they play a very loose net shot, in the hopes of getting a lucky deflection or just putting the opponent off as they're about to smash it (I think they learn not to do that fairly quickly though, as they're asking to get the shuttle smashed in their face).

    As far as I know, both are perfectly legal, but not very clever...
    They are legal as long as you don't interfere with the stroke of the opponent, even if he's following through on his stroke onto your side of the net.

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

    In your first case there is no issue at all as there is no way for the opponent to have a follow through from below the net to across the net. On the second though, if the opponent goes for a kill shot and you stick your racket into his stroke path then I'd call that a fault even though you stay on your own side of the net, the opponent making the kill can legally follow the shuttle over the net with the racket (as long as contact was made on his side of the net).

    Basically, you can block a shot in any method you want to as long as you don't obstruct the racket of an opponent.
    Last edited by druss; 03-10-2011 at 01:43 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,109
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Line & Length View Post
    I believe it is also a fault if:
    1) you strike the shuttle whilst it's over the opposition's side of the net.
    2) you don't actually move the racket head. I.e. it hits your static racket and bounces over.

    It is however, perfectly legal for you to follow through to over the net, as long as you've hit the shuttle when it was on your side.
    Quote Originally Posted by druss View Post
    The first I agree with, the second I don't. Blocking a shot back can be done from far enough back that it does not impede the racket of the opponent whether you swing or not. Only when you're obstructing the racket of the opponent would it be a fault.
    yeah, #2 is not a fault. Don't know where this came from, because you're not the only person that thinks this.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,011
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    yeah, #2 is not a fault. Don't know where this came from, because you're not the only person that thinks this.
    I've heard that argument too, and never understood the reasoning.
    One fellow believed a player faulted because "he had no intention/hope of returning the shot with that desperate action". If I could only count the points I got on purpose, my record would be a lot worse than it already is.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    209
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have vague memories of being taught that a static racket wasn't deliberate, therefore not a "proper shot". Can't find anything in the rules against it (section 13.4 is most relevant) & have never seen it applied, so must be one of those old interpretations that is long since redundant. Sorry for posting something so far out of date.

    As for desperate actions, I firmly believe that you should always make the oppositon play one more shot, even if it's an easy kill. I've lost count of the number of occasions where an experienced player puts an easy kill/smash into the net.

    My 'worst' winner came after I'd played a loose net shot to the centre of the opponents court. This was driven flat, but hit the handle of my racket (not my fingers, see rule 13.3.5) and bounced back over the net!

Similar Threads

  1. Holding the racket
    By cl427x in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 4
    : 11-10-2008, 09:20 AM
  2. Non-Racket holding Arm
    By IvanM in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 6
    : 10-19-2005, 09:07 AM
  3. Racket Holding... my incorrect way =)
    By YawneXpensive in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 6
    : 05-16-2005, 06:54 PM
  4. Holding A Racket...Properly...
    By MonarchPryde in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 12
    : 03-15-2004, 01:26 PM
  5. Holding the racket
    By JChen99 in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 38
    : 03-24-2003, 09:44 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
  •