User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 69 to 85 of 85
  1. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NorCal, United States
    Posts
    865
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BaggedCat View Post
    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.
    If it was closer to the net, he pretty much has to do a net kill, there is no full motion smash for when he is closer to the net or he would hit the net.

  2. #70
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    704
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Want to briefly revive this thread with a most recent net block by Marc Zwiebler



    Fantastic luck for Zwiebler to place his racket in the exact spot and a target for Tago to unconsciously smash at!

    Tago was obviously shocked and tried to protest to the umpire that Zwiebler had blocked his stroke or had obstructed him in some way. But seeing as Tago did a jump smash a couple feet behind the service line, there was no way Zwiebler could have been close enough to physically obstruct Tago.

    There is obviously a more clear answer in this case as it is not as controversial as other moments in the past. I just decided to post it here because I found it amusing that Tago tried to call out Zwiebler for obstructing him.

    Enjoy the clip!

  3. #71
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,204
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ Tks! Yeah, I saw that too. Incredible luck!

    Zwiebler was down one game, and down 18-19 second game. And this helped him extend to rubber game. I think the shuttle hit Zwiebler racket's frame and just dinked over half court. Truly a never say die attitude.

  4. #72
    Regular Member icey_drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Totally legal and nothing wrong with net blocking - as long as shuttle has crossed the net and it isn't obstructing your opponents on the other side

    If you're feeling lucky and daring to try something different, then by all means.

    If you think about it, the racquet head is extremely small, and for the shuttle to hit the sweetspot at over 300km/h from such a distance is really something...

  5. #73
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,583
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactim View Post
    Tago was obviously shocked and tried to protest to the umpire that Zwiebler had blocked his stroke or had obstructed him in some way. But seeing as Tago did a jump smash a couple feet behind the service line, there was no way Zwiebler could have been close enough to physically obstruct Tago.

    There is obviously a more clear answer in this case as it is not as controversial as other moments in the past. I just decided to post it here because I found it amusing that Tago tried to call out Zwiebler for obstructing him.
    .
    I don't think so. I believe that Tago was asking the umpire if Zwiebler's block (point of impact) was on Tago's side of the net.
    .

  6. #74
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etjU9JcR7yc

    What about this one? @4.41. I could make a good argument to view this either way, tough one..

  7. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    as Marc didn't complain, it was probably ok and he wasn't obstructed with his stroke.

  8. #76
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |_Footwork_| View Post
    as Marc didn't complain, it was probably ok and he wasn't obstructed with his stroke.
    What? you have to complain for calls? I thought trying to influence was against the rules.
    If you look at 4.37 onward Marc looks at the umpire a couple times before passing shuttle back and after with a wry smile because he doesn't agree and he's like - serious your not calling that.
    Why do you think he wasn't obstructed? their rackets were crazy close together, there is a massive chance Marc was obstructed, he could have had to stop his racket short (as a natural reaction to seeing a racket go up in his way). The only thing LCW has got going for him is that he raised his racket late therefore giving the impression that he was not blocking so harder for the umpire.
    Last edited by craigandy; 12-10-2013 at 06:41 AM.

  9. #77
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Honestly speaking, I don't believe he was obstructed anyway.
    As I see it (which is hard from the video...), Marc didn't follow through over the net anyways, therefore LCW cannot obstruct him.

  10. #78
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |_Footwork_| View Post
    Honestly speaking, I don't believe he was obstructed anyway.
    As I see it (which is hard from the video...), Marc didn't follow through over the net anyways, therefore LCW cannot obstruct him.
    It is hard to see what is going on from the vid but surely when they are both that close to the net it should just be instantly called. You don't have to make contact to be obstructed just the fact that contact could have happen is obstruction. How can you say Marc didn't adapt his swing because he saw LCW's racket go up? (as a natural reaction not to clash).

    Don't really understand the philosophy at the root of the rule. Is it a safety thing? Or is it that they think it ruins the integrity of the rally(unfair) by just being able to block up really close not allowing the shuttle to pass.

    If at the root is safety then I can understand why examples like this do not get called.

    If at the root it was the integrity(fairness) of the rally then I think examples like these need to be called every time. Like in golf and a staked tree, if you can make a swing to hit the tree then free drop even if it is not the swing you would make.

  11. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PyourK View Post
    Can I get a ruling on holding ones racket still above the net?

    I can see it as obstruction and was under the impression that in order for the "hit" to count, there must have been observable forward motion.

    Thanks
    Anyway its forbidden to hold your racket ACTIVE over the net! your opponent MUST have the chance to hit the shuttle without any hinderance! This means also that he can swing out his racket over the net at your side! any way of irritation is a fault! It's another thing if you want to save your body/head before hit by the shuttlecock passively.

  12. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    1. Anyway its forbidden to hold your racket ACTIVE over the net! 2. your opponent MUST have the chance to hit the shuttle without any hinderance! This means also that he can swing out his racket over the net at your side! 3. any way of irritation is a fault! ...
    1. wrong! you may hold your racket actively above the net in order to block the shuttle!
    as long as you don't
    2. correct!!
    3. wrong. as long as he's far enough (or the shuttle is deep enough...), it is allowed to raise your racket in order to block him. this may irritate him, his problem!

  13. #81
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,583
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow I would have faulted LCW's action straight away

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etjU9JcR7yc

    What about this one? @4.41. I could make a good argument to view this either way, tough one..
    .
    If I were the umpire, I would have faulted LCW's action straight away.

    As I am coaching and playing with my trainees, lots of arguments have arisen about this matter.

    I now tell them this:

    Whenever 2 players are playing at the net, challenging each other in 'netplay' returns; a fault will be called immediately as soon as one player raises his/her racket-head to prevent his/her opponent's 'Swipe' stroke.

    What is the 'Swipe' stroke? I have defined it here:
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...01#post2174101
    .

  14. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |_Footwork_| View Post
    1. wrong! you may hold your racket actively above the net in order to block the shuttle!
    as long as you don't
    2. correct!!
    3. wrong. as long as he's far enough (or the shuttle is deep enough...), it is allowed to raise your racket in order to block him. this may irritate him, his problem!
    sorry, but you are wrong. the most important thing about the "block at the net" is that after you have hit the shuttle, your racket is on YOUR site of the net! the second thing is that your opponent must have the chance to hit the shuttle without any hinderance! that means that he can swing out his racket over the net at your side (of course AFTER the shuttle has passed the net and is at your opponents side!)! if he hits your racket in this moment it a fault from YOU! of course you can hold your racket in the way in case of getting the shuttle. the third thing is about "sportsmenship": If you hold your racket over the net and want to irritate your opponent and then take it back or shout something to him so he hopefully misses the shuttle or makes an error ... it's NOT VERY SPORTSMEN LIKE!!! I think every good umpire will call this as a fault or maybe give you a warning! And this is absolutely correct!

  15. #83
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you're right that the opponent must have the possibility to follow his stroke over the net.

    if i allow him to do so, i may put my racket whereever i want...

  16. #84
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes! you are right! of course you always must do everything what you can an what is ALLOWED to get the shuttlecock! look at the example in the Video (Marc Zwiebler): He just holt his racket still in the direction of the shot whithout interfere his opponent. It was pure luck that his Opponent smashes the shuttle exactly on his racket. Maybe when his opponent has made a "kill" at the net and he holds his racket like this, the umpire will call it as an interferance ... its sometimes a fine line between a fault and "its allowed" ...

  17. #85
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Smashikon, Driveland
    Posts
    593
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    of course i try to block the shuttle if it is allowed to do so...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

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
  •