Is it legal to have racket crossed over and Under the net?

**blindfury** · 09-17-2009, 12:31 AM

Is it legal to have racket crossed over and underneath the net? for example, retrieving a very tight netshot rolled over top of the tape, the racket goes over under the net a bit.

this occured to me in a single's game few days ago, no bragging intended, i managed to net roll back his net roll, he is a cocky player, does not apologize for net rolls and instead, he usually giggles and gives the opponent a very, very cocky smiling.

at first he was going to do his routine of cockiness, but after i rolled it back, he instantly yelled out "ooooh!! illegal!!!"

anyone familiar with this legal status?

**Shifty** · 09-17-2009, 12:50 AM

If you do it on the follow through, over the top, it's legal. As for the bottom, I pretty sure it's legal. As long as the shot was made on your side of the net, what happens to the racquet afterwards doesn't actually matter. Since by definition your shot was on your side of the net, it's not illegal. Smack him with your racquet to prove it

**qinglong** · 09-17-2009, 12:59 AM

If contact point between the racquet and shuttle was before the other side of the net, it is legal. In this instance, the rules allow for intrusion of the racquet into the other court after contact point.
It is illegal if the player played his racquet to intrude overhead into the other court in order to impact the shuttle.
Maybe you were seen to have touched the net with your racquet while doing so. Any touching the net at any time of play, except for the shuttle, is illegal.

**chrisnchips** · 09-17-2009, 01:54 AM

i say when retrieving those tumbling net drops.. make a drop or net shot back.. and as the guy comes up to the net to kill it.. u go under the net and whack him real fast...(if there's an umpire.. extra fast).

u may lose the point for illegality, but it sure will make him want to be cockier and hopefully throw off his game :P

**Neil Nicholls** · 09-17-2009, 08:49 AM

Law 13.4.3
It shall be a fault, if, in play, a player invades an opponent's court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted;

so in theory the shot in question could be legal, but it would appear that it distracted the opponent enough to make him shout about it - therefore a fault

but if he'd known it was "legal" it shouldn't have distracted him, so his lack of knowledge of the rules wins him the point

**silentheart** · 09-17-2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

Law 13.4.3
It shall be a fault, if, in play, a player invades an opponent's court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted;

so in theory the shot in question could be legal, but it would appear that it distracted the opponent enough to make him shout about it - therefore a fault

but if he'd known it was "legal" it shouldn't have distracted him, so his lack of knowledge of the rules wins him the point

I like you logic. Winning on stupidity...

**micky78** · 09-20-2009, 10:45 AM

i used to play double, occation saw opponent hint a net shot and the racket touch the net after the shoot... a few time i was looking at my partner... he dont seem said it was fault..

i wonder is the racket allow to touch to net after a shot had make?

**Distanc3** · 09-20-2009, 10:49 AM

^ anything touching the net other than the birdie is a fault.

**mettayogi** · 09-20-2009, 10:50 AM

No. It's a fault for a racket to touch the net while the shuttle is still in play.

Originally Posted by micky78

i used to play double, occation saw opponent hint a net shot and the racket touch the net after the shoot... a few time i was looking at my partner... he dont seem said it was fault..

i wonder is the racket allow to touch to net after a shot had make?

**limsy** · 09-20-2009, 11:24 AM

if i smash down the birdie,the birdie hit the court before i hit the net,fault?

**singnflip4life** · 09-20-2009, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by limsy

if i smash down the birdie,the birdie hit the court before i hit the net,fault?

should not be a fault, because once the birdie touches the ground, play is over.

Though i would try counting on the birdie to hit the court before your racket hits the net.

**limsy** · 09-20-2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by singnflip4life

should not be a fault, because once the birdie touches the ground, play is over.

Though i would try counting on the birdie to hit the court before your racket hits the net.

no way the birdie is slower than ur racket when u smashed it,right?
my hand cant swing the racket 200km/h++

**Distanc3** · 09-20-2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by limsy

no way the birdie is slower than ur racket when u smashed it,right?
my hand cant swing the racket 200km/h++

Not sure if there is a rule about hitting the net after the bird has touched the net, but I think it's more reasonable if your racket touch the net on the same swing(follow thru) it's should be a fault. My reason being it's will prevent players taking a big wack at the net hoping the bird to go over and potentially putting their oppnents at risk to injuries (hit in the head)

**limsy** · 09-20-2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Distanc3

Not sure if there is a rule about hitting the net after the bird has touched the net, but I think it's more reasonable if your racket touch the net on the same swing(follow thru) it's should be a fault. My reason being it's will prevent players taking a big wack at the net hoping the bird to go over and potentially putting their oppnents at risk to injuries (hit in the head)

i believe the move u describe call tap right?
i mean smash,i didnt jump,but still a smash,not tap.

and not,birdie hit the court,not net

**singnflip4life** · 09-20-2009, 03:51 PM

well, it depends on the distance the birdie has to travel vs the distance the racket has to travel. say the racket has half the speed, but the birdie has to travel more than twice the distance. At that point, the racket will get to the net before the birdie his the floor.

Though Distanc3 makes an interesting arguement.

**venkatesh** · 09-22-2009, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

Law 13.4.3
It shall be a fault, if, in play, a player invades an opponent's court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted;

so in theory the shot in question could be legal, but it would appear that it distracted the opponent enough to make him shout about it - therefore a fault

but if he'd known it was "legal" it shouldn't have distracted him, so his lack of knowledge of the rules wins him the point

Wow! I guess this answers my question here
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...&highlight=net

**shihman** · 09-23-2009, 12:10 PM

i also need a clarification on this rule as well. i was told or read some where that when the shuttle hits the floor or the net the point is over. therefore the racket touching the net will not be counted as a fault.

example, when your opponent tries a backcourt drop shot and as you approach the net to lift, on your up swing your racket touch the net. but the shuttle did not clear the net and was hit into the net first before your racket hits the net. this is not a fault because once the shuttle hits the net, the point is over. correct?