Net blocking / distraction

**amleto** · 06-02-2012, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by CantSmashThis

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.

No, there is no difference according to the rules!

If you hold your racket still and it obstructs - fault.
If you dont hold your racket still and it obstructs - fault.

Exactly the same.

Of course different situations are more or less likely to result in a fault. But that is not the point.

**Tactim** · 06-02-2012, 02:31 PM

This kind of goes back to my point earlier. Yes, you may be right in that the rules don't explicitly state a difference in holding your racket still and attempting a shot. But then you also must ask yourself, who interprets those rules? The chair umpire. Regardless of what the rules say on paper, it is ultimately up to the chair umpire to make those distinctions where the areas are grey.

Intention doesn't play a role in the exact words of the rules, but it does play a role in how an umpire sees the situation and what call they will make (though intentions can sometimes be misread).

**CantSmashThis** · 06-03-2012, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by Tactim

This kind of goes back to my point earlier. Yes, you may be right in that the rules don't explicitly state a difference in holding your racket still and attempting a shot. But then you also must ask yourself, who interprets those rules? The chair umpire. Regardless of what the rules say on paper, it is ultimately up to the chair umpire to make those distinctions where the areas are grey.

Intention doesn't play a role in the exact words of the rules, but it does play a role in how an umpire sees the situation and what call they will make (though intentions can sometimes be misread).

This is what I'm kinda playing at.

What I'm saying is if you hold your racket at the net, it is immediately a fault for obstruction. If you attempt a swing, it's not an immediate fault for obstruction. If the umpire does rule it an obstruction, he will call it a fault. But the player's INTENT was to attempt to return a shot, so not immediately an obstruction call.

If a player goes up for a net kill, and I put my racket there still, if the shuttle ricochets off my racket and goes over, too bad, fault for obstruction. If they attempt a net kill, and I swing right back near the net but without obstructing my opponent and the shuttle goes over, then the point is mine.

That's why I state, IN THE DISCRETION of the umpire, that can be a legal shot.

It is up to the umpire to decide whether or not it's an obstruction. That is why I said earlier "But it is not considered an obstruction if, in the opinion of the umpire, you are attempting a return shot of the net kill."

IN THE END, if this were to happen in a match, the umpire's call is final. The players can complain all they want, they can call over the referee. Once the umpire tells the referee, I did not see it as an obstruction, regardless of what the whole world says, what video replay says, that is what it is, and that is final.

I have seen it happen before too once at open gym play. High close net shot, player went up to kill, other player took random swing at the bird and got it over. If I were chair umpire in that case, I would not have faulted the player for obstructing.

**chris-ccc** · 06-03-2012, 01:30 AM

.
Sometimes, providing too much info can cause more confusion.

As soon as there is an obstruction (as commented in Post #4), it is then illegal. Here is Post #4;

Originally Posted by chris-ccc

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, then there are 2 relevant laws here;
(1) Your opponent must hit the shuttle with the point of impact on his/her side of the court.
(2) Your opponent is allowed to have his/her racket head to follow through over the net into your side of the court.

If your racket head is so close to the net that it prevented your opponent from doing the follow-through with his/her racket head over the net into your side of the court, then it is illegal.

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

.

**bambino** · 06-05-2012, 08:45 AM

Lee vs. Shon, net play fault (video)

There has been some discussion over distracting your opponent's shots near the net. Am I right to interpret that Lee Chong Wei's fault here is not allowing Shon to complete his stroke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N1NP8Z8WUk#t=209m20s

The link should take you straight to the point in question. It starts at 3 hours 29 minutes 20 seconds or so. The situation is 16-10 for Shon in the first game. There's a good slow motion replay of the situation after the rally.

Clearly Lee Chong Wei was at fault for obstructing Shon's stroke. Even, if Shon fumbles in his shot, LCW may be faulted for distraction.

**bambino** · 06-05-2012, 09:00 AM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Vns9ySN7g#t=20m00s

I am pleased to share net block fault, this time committed by Saina Nehwal( at time 20:17 against Wang Yihan in the BWF Masters superseries final Dec 2011.

**bambino** · 11-26-2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by bambino

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Vns9ySN7g#t=20m00s

I am pleased to share net block fault, this time committed by Saina Nehwal( at time 20:17 against Wang Yihan in the BWF Masters superseries final Dec 2011.

Another example of a net block that is ruled illegal by the umpire. In this classical case, Juliane is penalised for disrupting Wang Yihan's right to play her shot, even though Wang hit the shuttle out of play.
Please see the fault at 41:42 in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRmTiIkNA6w#t=41m10s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRmTiIkNA6w

**craigandy** · 11-27-2012, 09:26 AM

There was a good example posted on here a good while ago that showed how it can be achieved legally. I think it was sho sasaki(maybe Tago) returning the net kill and as the opponent made forward motion sasaki pulled racket back then quickly forward, even though both were very close to the net obstruction never occurred. (if I remember correctly he crouched down a lot)

**|_Footwork_|** · 11-29-2012, 12:58 AM

to be honest, i wouldn't call juliane's and saina's blocks faults! they are far away from the net with their rackets imho. wang should not be obstructed to do her stroke by these blocks!

**Blazers OTK** · 12-04-2012, 11:44 AM

Just saw this clip. Fault or no fault? I think the point was given anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=4r6H9mUgcA8

**vixter** · 12-04-2012, 04:02 PM

Wow what a point. The fault would be to call a fault after such an amazing point.

The other player didn't seem hindered in his swing so I think there was no fault

**craigandy** · 12-04-2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Blazers OTK

Just saw this clip. Fault or no fault? I think the point was given anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=4r6H9mUgcA8

wow! Kinda hard to tell from camera angle but looking at the angle of both players distances from net - it looks like the attackers racket would hit the net before he could contact opponents racket, therefore making an obstruction not feasible in theory. Therefore in may opinion no fault.

**|_Footwork_|** · 12-05-2012, 01:51 AM

this is never ever a fault...

**BaggedCat** · 12-05-2012, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by |_Footwork_|

to be honest, i wouldn't call juliane's and saina's blocks faults! they are far away from the net with their rackets imho. wang should not be obstructed to do her stroke by these blocks!

saina's block is debatable. it was barely 5 cm from the net. wang had right to claim obstruction as she had to do a tap kill as any follow through of a full stroke would have hit sainas racket.

julianes was no way a fault. to the point i would say it say clear cut a wrong call. wang had already made a full stroke and was pulling her racket back so would no way have hit julianes block.

**logicalguy** · 12-05-2012, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by jamesd20

And if it annoys you that much, get an old metal racket & hammer it when he does it next, smashing his Arcsaber/Nanospeed/Amortec rcket into many peices....

I need to buy me a cheap metal racquet made of lead..

**CantSmashThis** · 12-05-2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Blazers OTK

Just saw this clip. Fault or no fault? I think the point was given anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=4r6H9mUgcA8

Oh this one is tough. My ruling would be it is not a fault since the shuttle is well above the net. If it were closer to the net, I would have called a fault on the guy on the ground since he is blocking a full stroke rather than attempting to return it. He put his racket up for too long.

**BaggedCat** · 12-06-2012, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by CantSmashThis

Oh this one is tough. My ruling would be it is not a fault since the shuttle is well above the net. If it were closer to the net, I would have called a fault on the guy on the ground since he is blocking a full stroke rather than attempting to return it. He put his racket up for too long.

no fault. i disagree it was a tough call. the smasher had already made a swing and from the type of shot, any possible follow through was impossible, without hitting the net. when the shot was blocked the smashers racket was already traveling downwards on their side of the net.

if it were closer to the net, i would still say not fault if the smasher did the same shot. if the smasher did a flick or tap kill than there may be a call for a blocking fault.