Let's say you're in the middle of a double's rally when one of your opponents' racket slipped from his hand and went to your side of the of the court passing under the net (without touching it), but close enough for him to retrieve his racket back. Is this fault? Once the racket is retrieved, is it okay to still continue the rally?
Seems like it would be a fault. The opponent is "invading" your side of the court and obstructing and/or distracting you.
That's precisely what I said. But his rebuttal was that the crossover was accidental and that he immediately retrieved his racket without crossing the our side of the court. But I still declared it as fault. I just need a confirmation from anyone here. Thanks.
If either the racquet or the player has "invaded" under the opponent's side of the net, it is a fault only if the act has in any way obstructed or distracted your opponents. If your opponents continue to play then, in the absence of an umpire, the presumption is that there was no obstruction or distraction, in which case it is not a fault.
I guess for venkatesh, this mean you should step on his racket next time. Since it's not obstructing you.
Okay. Let me pour in more details. The rally was actually long. I really didn't see when my opponent's rackt slipped. I just suddenly realized that, after hitting a shot, there was a racket on the floor 2 to 3 feet away from me. Upon seeing that, I just stopped palying. My partner continued, though ... probably because we were attacking and their defenses were getting weaker and weaker. But during my partner's continuous fire of smashes, I was calling a fault already, until my partner's smash hit the net and didn't cross over. Our opponents said that the point should go to them, but I said that even before my patner hit the net, they have already crossed our side of the court. As regards your post, my question is, "Was my stopping in the middle of a rally enough to declare that I was distracted?" And, "If overreaching is a fault, shouldn't 'underreaching' be a fault, too?"
just a thought but i would probably play on as i would think of it like a follow through of a shot, as you can go over the net in a follow through. if it hit you or prevented u from putting your foot into a particular position definately fault tho.
From the explanation Venkatesh gives it is clear that this falls within the definition of what we mean by diistraction. Seeing Venkatesh stop playing as he describes it, an umpire would have called a fault. As a rule it is not enough to just stop playing and claim a point for being distracted or obstructed. However, we do normally not allow a situation like this to continue beyond the first return shot. If the racket has not been retreived by then a fault will certainly be called by any umpire. From the way Venkatesh describes it looks as if the racket was there for two or more smashes and was still there when his partners shot hit the net. Claiming a fault is that case is absolutely justified. However, a racket sliding under the net does not as a rule constitue a fault. It will always remain a judgement call and will therefore continue to cause discussions between players in matches which are not umpired.
The sportsmanlyship way in a situation like that would just have both sides agree to replay the point
I would say.. ..based on reading the official badminton ruling, and from what i've read it was probably an accident, in professional competition it would be called "Lets": 14.2.7 Unforeseen or accidental situation has occurred. But it could be called another way... http://www.internationalbadminton.org/statues-pdf/law.pdf And as mentioned in the above post, if you guys were simply playing for fun, the spirit of sportsmanship, at least for me, would suggest to replay the point.
In my opinion it was not a fault as there was no distraction (remember, you did not even see your opponent's racquet slipping under the net into your court). So, insofar as the racquet falling onto the floor was concerned there likely was no distraction or obstruction. The next question to ask is when the opponent retrieved his racquet, did it pose any distraction or obstruction? If no, then I don't think there was any fault.
Well, it is that second question which is precisely the point. As I understand it, the racket has been there for more than one return stroke. Nothing coming into a coourt from the outside is intended to stay there, whether it is a shuttle coming in from an other court, a racket sliding under the net, or a players' foot coming through under the net in the course of a stroke, is as such of no consequence. It should disappear immediately. If it does not, an umpire shall always consider that to be an obstruction and stop play in the appropriate manner which then can either be a fault or a let, as the situation requires.
What would happen if you were to hit the shuttle and it hit your opponents racket while it was on the floor...
It may have to come down to what is meant by "distraction" and "obstruction". The first has something to do with diverting your attention or focus, and the second preventing you from doing what you were about to do, both with detrimental consequences. If no detrimental consequence took place, specifically in regard to distract and obstruct, then it would appear harsh to call it a fault. The laws on above the net and below the net are different, the one above the net is "active" whilst the one below "passive". An "active" above the net racquet that goes over the net before the shuttle is hit is a fault, even if there is no distraction or obstruction. The "passive" one is only a fault if there is either a distraction or an obstruction. BTW, most slipped racquets do not go deep into the opponent's court. Part of the slipped racquet head is over the net on the floor and part stays on the right side. I have seen this happen a few times.
I admit that it wasn't an obstruction at all. However, it distracted me because the whole racket went on our side of the court and I could have easily stepped on it. And for my opponent to retrieve it, he literally had to crawl under the net and cross our court. That's the reason why I stopped.
I think it should definitely be considered a fault considering how long it was on the other side of the court on the floor. I also have a question though, is it a fault to throw your racket in order to hit a shuttle that's too far away? I know it sounds very stupid and I probably wouldn't do it, but I was curious. Because I was too far away from the shuttle and I was pretty sure I could hit it if I threw it lol. Just curious.
I haven't seen this happened yet, but I think it's not a fault, as long as your racket doesn't hit or go over the net.
Well, given Venkatesh 's explanation I think we can conclude that it was indeed a fault. The racket was in the wrong court for to long and caused distraction. i agree with Venkatesh on Pyaarawala's question. I have seen a few such attempts, but none were succesful.
