User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 35 to 51 of 85
  1. #35
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Our group started playing badminton 1-2 years ago, so we are reading this topic from the beginners stand point. Similar situations happen within our group quite often and I am still confused after reading 2 pages of posts. Please help to clarify this one more time and provide exact rule if possible:

    I go close to the net to return a shuttle back to my opponents court about 4 feet from the net. Therefore, my opponents' racket will not follow through and cross the net. If I keep my head under the net and only raise the racket to anticipate to block my opponent's shot, is this legal since I am not obstructing my opponent's stroke?

    I am also interested to know any answers to pcll99's question: " is there an official (ie BWF's) explanation as to what is or is not an obstruction?" Thanks.

  2. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterPanPan View Post
    I go close to the net to return a shuttle back to my opponents court about 4 feet from the net. Therefore, my opponents' racket will not follow through and cross the net. If I keep my head under the net and only raise the racket to anticipate to block my opponent's shot, is this legal since I am not obstructing my opponent's stroke?
    Yes, it's legal. Post number 4 explains it clearly. If the opponent can hit the shuttle without fear of clashing rackets, then it's OK for you to block the shot.

  3. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok so I will try to make this as clear as possible, the following is the only line in the rulebook about it, however it was on my umpire exam about certain situations including this one.

    13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except that the striker may follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net;

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

    So, if the shuttle is above the net and on your side, you are allowed to reach over the net as long as you hit the shuttle and follow through (but you cannot touch the net, only go over!)

    If the shuttle is BELOW the net, then your opponent can have their racket by the net as long as they are not reaching over. If the shuttle is below the net, there is NO way you can reach over the net to follow through on your shot. Therefore, in that instance, they can have their racket by the net to wait for a kill.

  4. #38
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CantSmashThis View Post
    If the shuttle is BELOW the net, then your opponent can have their racket by the net as long as they are not reaching over. If the shuttle is below the net, there is NO way you can reach over the net to follow through on your shot. Therefore, in that instance, they can have their racket by the net to wait for a kill.
    I don't understand this part. If the shuttle is very close to the net and slightly below, and if you want to flick the shuttle to the back of the court, then your follow through will pass over the net. If the opponent's racket is so close that you can't play the flick without clashing rackets, then isn't that a fault according to rule 13.4.4?

    There's nothing in the rules that says it makes a difference whether the shuttle is above or below net height.

  5. #39
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,944
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    my understanding is this. If you hold your racket up at (or over) the net before your opponent hits the birdie, then it's an obstruction.

    am i right?

  6. #40
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gee everyone is complicating this. If you are trying to block a shot, you can, just don't put your racket OVER the net. The only time you can put your racket over the net is if you have followed through AFTER hitting the bird on YOUR side of the net. Yes it might distract the player seeing a racket hovering parallel to the net above him, but that is completely legal, just clear it rather than drop shot when his racket already at net height ready for the kill. The END.

  7. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,042
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    my understanding is this. If you hold your racket up at (or over) the net before your opponent hits the birdie, then it's an obstruction.

    am i right?
    no.

    ............

  8. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexh View Post
    I don't understand this part. If the shuttle is very close to the net and slightly below, and if you want to flick the shuttle to the back of the court, then your follow through will pass over the net. If the opponent's racket is so close that you can't play the flick without clashing rackets, then isn't that a fault according to rule 13.4.4?

    There's nothing in the rules that says it makes a difference whether the shuttle is above or below net height.
    Yes, it is still considered high enough where you can make a legal shot. I'm talking about when it's quite below the net and there is no chance for you to reach over. In that case, your opponent my stand with their racket at the net wait for your drop, and perform a legal shot.


    I guess I should make this as simple as possible for everyone.

    If YOU have a chance to reach over the net on a legal shot, your opponent CANNOT hold their racket at/near the net (near enough where a collision could occur, judgemental; )

    In every other instance, your opponent can have the racket at the net as long as they don't touch the net or reach over.

    Which is what exactly 13.4.4 states.

    There's really nothing else to it.

  9. #43
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for everyone's contribution. I think CantSmashThis makes this quite easy to follow. On a different note, post#22 said " ... you always have to make a hitting action. That would mean that simply blocking the net is a fault, as you make no hitting action. ... " I also heard similar comments from 2 different sources. Is there any rule to support this? Thanks.

  10. #44
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToniZ View Post
    Yes it might distract the player seeing a racket hovering parallel to the net above him, but that is completely legal, just clear it rather than drop shot when his racket already at net height ready for the kill. The END.
    There's your answer: You simply distract someone by having your racket almost against the net. People are afraid to play any kind of shot. That cannot be the purpose. If you're threatening by "being there and ready to pounce", that's ok. You'd have to make a quick racket action and finish the shuttle. Not by just holding your racket there. That's just simply annoying and illegal in my opinion!

  11. #45
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterPanPan View Post
    Thanks for everyone's contribution. I think CantSmashThis makes this quite easy to follow. On a different note, post#22 said " ... you always have to make a hitting action. That would mean that simply blocking the net is a fault, as you make no hitting action. ... " I also heard similar comments from 2 different sources. Is there any rule to support this? Thanks.
    I've heard that too, even from international referees. However, I can't find any rule to back that up. Maybe it was an old rule. I still think it would be logic.

  12. #46
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the point about making a hitting action as opposed to holding your racket up to block a shot without a hitting action is merely to distinguish how umpires see the intent, not necessarily any specific rule to differentiate the two.

    If you make a hitting action, that usually means that you are not trying to interfere with the person's kill attempt (though it's debatable) so as long as your racket is not blocking the opponent's swing to begin with.

    Making no hitting action is more likely to have the umpire interpret your intent to block the swing of your opponent.

    That's at least how I see it, it's more of the non-literal parts of the rule from what I can see.

  13. #47
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,042
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tactim, I think it is deeper seeded than that.
    I've had more than one person tell me that it's a fault not to 'play a shot' (ie you are not allowed to just hold your racket out). They are absolutely wrong, but they don't know it.

    It's a ridiculous would-be rule because it would outlaw any net shots where you do a double-bluff show (e.g. show a straight net really early, and then just keep your racket there and actually play a straight net).

  14. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The hitting action makes it a bit more confusing...

    But it is not considered an obstruction if, in the opinion of the umpire, you are attempting a return shot of the net kill. As in you aren't just leaving your racket at the net, but you are swinging your racket to try to return it. However, even if you end up returning the shuttle but clash rackets with your opponent at the same time, your opponent gets the point because you did not allow him to fully follow through into his shot.

    Very confusing, I know. A lot of grayness to this unfortunately.

  15. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,042
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "But it is not considered an obstruction if, in the opinion of the umpire, you are attempting a return shot of the net kill"

    That is not accurate.
    No where in the rules does intention affect whether or not obstruction happens. And no where in the rules is a clash of rackets a requirement for obstruction.

    In short, whether you hold your racket still, or make a short stroke, it makes no difference. It just matters whether you obstruct or not.

  16. #50
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    910
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is a difference between holding your racket waiting at the net, and being near the net but attempting a swing. If you are holding your racket close to the net, it is a fault regardless. If you are attempting a swing near the net, and make it over without rackets clashing or obstructing, then it is a legal shot.

    It's hard to understand but there is a difference. Hence why other members will point out that they have heard "you must attempt a hitting action", which Ian says himself.

  17. #51
    Regular Member extremenanopowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SG. Go for NCAP-L2 certified coach.
    Posts
    11,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    in this scenario, you will normally loose the point due to desparation. why stress and bother. Just hope for mistakes.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Net blocking
    By jwu42 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 39
    : 09-22-2011, 07:51 PM
  2. Distraction
    By DeadlyDuck in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 7
    : 03-30-2009, 03:05 AM
  3. Blocking
    By bad_fanatic in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 16
    : 12-03-2007, 11:11 PM
  4. Distraction for players during matches
    By chorlaw in forum Singapore Open 2007 / Indonesia Open 2007
    Replies: 44
    : 05-09-2007, 11:32 PM
  5. Blocking
    By neilpais in forum General Forum
    Replies: 3
    : 05-08-2002, 09:42 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
  •