Leg Under the Net

[random.badmin1]

A friend of mine asked if there was any rule regarding a player's leg going under the net. Is it a fault? Any thoughts?

[krysser]

It is only regarded a fault if you eighter touch the net, or the bodypart, racket etc. distracts the opponent.
See rule 13.4.3 in the rule book.
http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=22513

/Krysser

[chris-ccc]

It is only regarded a fault if you eighter touch the net, or the bodypart, racket etc. distracts the opponent.
See rule 13.4.3 in the rule book.
http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=22513

/Krysser

.
This is incorrect.

13.4.3 says;

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;

If this rule is not included, players could play havoc under the net.
.

[Resistor]

I am not sure if I do agree with Chris..

Just imagine a very tight drop where you will need to make the slice action with the racket. It will usually pass slightly under the net.

And when you lunge for a kill, your feet might be slightly over too.

[chris-ccc]

I am not sure if I do agree with Chris..

Just imagine a very tight drop where you will need to make the slice action with the racket. It will usually pass slightly under the net.

And when you lunge for a kill, your feet might be slightly over too.

.
Believe it or not, this is a fault. It's not just my opinion, it's in the Book of Badminton Laws.

Just ask any certified/qualified umpire.
.

[krysser]

.
Believe it or not, this is a fault. It's not just my opinion, it's in the Book of Badminton Laws.

Just ask any certified/qualified umpire.
.

Hmm I would have to disagree this is not automatically a fault, it is only a fault if this action distracts or obstructs the opponent, it says very clearly in the rule, so it is all up to the umpire to decide if the intrusion is a fault or not

Ask any umpire

/Krysser

edit typos

[Gollum]

Krysser is correct here.

Invading the opponent's court under the net is only a fault if it distracts or obstructs the opponent. If the opponent is not distracted or obstructed, it's not a fault. Read the rule more carefully, and you'll see that's what it means.

Obviously it's up to the umpire to determine whether the action was distracting or obstructive.

[cobalt]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought to myself "what an exciting topic!" Sadly, it is a bit more mundane than I hoped!

In any case, what's the correct term for a "leg under the net" position/situation?

Could it be "footsie?"

[chris-ccc]

Hmm I would have to disagree this is not automatically a fault, it is only a fault if this action distracts or obstructs the opponent, it says very clearly in the rule, so it is all up to the umpire to decide if the intrusion is a fault or not

Ask any umpire

/Krysser

.
Then IMHO this law needs to be changed.

Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?

I have always given a fault to players when their feet go over into their opponents' court (under the net). And I will continue to do so.
.

[cobalt]

.
Then IMHO this law needs to be changed.

Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?

I have always given a fault to players when their feet go over into their opponents' court (under the net). And I will continue to do so.
.

Then you would be faulting LCW in almost every game he plays.

[chris-ccc]

Then you would be faulting LCW in almost every game he plays.

.
Hahaha... When I look under the net to give a fault to a player, I am objective in my call. It doesn't matter if the player is LCW, LD, PG, TH, or even myself.
.

[krysser]

.
Then IMHO this law needs to be changed.

Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?

.

Well that would be a step back in time, since in the good old days it was not allowed to cross under the net

I think you have misunderstood something about umpireing, since it is all about the umpires judgement. It is his/her split second decisions and interpretation/knowledge of the rules.

/Krysser

[cobalt]

Well that would be a step back in time, since in the good old days it was not allowed to cross under the net

I think you have misunderstood something about umpireing, since it is all about the umpires judgement. It is his/her split second decisions and interpretation/knowledge of the rules.

/Krysser

Well said. It is what umpires are really meant for: to make those "judgement calls" which since olden days were supposed to be based on observation, common sense, even courtesy and sound values. The umpires are not just decorative figures who update the score like a town crier!

Rules are primarily meant to ensure fair play and general conduct, among other things. If the rules become stifling in their context and interpretation, they defeat the purpose of "play" and "sport" and umpires are there to ensure that "sportsmanship" is practised.

[druss]

I think the "under the net" rule can be found analogous to the over the net with a follow through rule.

As the rule is written, it's pretty clear that it's a fault if it's obstructive or a distraction but not a fault if it isn't.

"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"

pretty clear english to me...

.
Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?

There are quite a few rules which depend on an umpires judgement. Delay of service, distracting an opponent... etc. In reality, all the rules depend on the umpires judgement. Touching the net with racket or body can even fall into this category since the umpire needs to see it first, then decide whether it was air movement, the shuttle or the actual person/racket which made the net move.

In casual play, a person won't even notice that you've invaded their court under the net UNLESS it actually distracts them so it's an easy call IMO.

[chris-ccc]

I think the "under the net" rule can be found analogous to the over the net with a follow through rule.

As the rule is written, it's pretty clear that it's a fault if it's obstructive or a distraction but not a fault if it isn't.

"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"

pretty clear english to me...

There are quite a few rules which depend on an umpires judgement. Delay of service, distracting an opponent... etc. In reality, all the rules depend on the umpires judgement. Touching the net with racket or body can even fall into this category since the umpire needs to see it first, then decide whether it was air movement, the shuttle or the actual person/racket which made the net move.

In casual play, a person won't even notice that you've invaded their court under the net UNLESS it actually distracts them so it's an easy call IMO.

.
Of course, we are not talking about casual play, but talking about tournaments (let's say International tournaments).

When I posted: Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?; I meant exactly every word of it.

When I play in a game and if an opponent has his/her leg and/or racket coming under the net into my side of the court, I would be distracted. This is a fact: I would be distracted.

I don't need an umpire to tell me:- "No, you shouldn't be distracted because your opponent wasn't meant to distract you; It was only an accidental occurrence".

Hope you see what I mean.
.

[druss]

.
When I play in a game and if an opponent has his/her leg and/or racket coming under the net into my side of the court, I would be distracted. This is a fact: I would be distracted.

Hope you see what I mean.
.

Not really, when I played competitive, I would only be distracted if I actually noticed it. In the heat of play with the concentration required, I would not notice if my opponents foot was on my side of the court unless it was actually in my way. I'm concentrating on the shuttle not my opponents foot...

I don't know how you can say with such conviction that "I would be distracted". Maybe your downward peripheral vision is just that much better than mine is but I could not say with such conviction that I would even notice it, much less be distracted by it.

.
Of course, we are not talking about casual play, but talking about tournaments (let's say International tournaments).

YOU are talking about tournaments, who's to say that the OP was? He asked if it was a fault, he did not say in what setting... Regardless of where the conversation has led, the reason we responded to this thread was to answer the OP and help him.

.
When I posted: Why have a rule that depends on an umpire's judgement?; I meant exactly every word of it.
.

Really?? You think that there are no other rules that rely on the umpires judgement?

[chris-ccc]

I don't know how you can say with such conviction that "I would be distracted". Maybe your downward peripheral vision is just that much better than mine is but I could not say with such conviction that I would even notice it, much less be distracted by it.

.
Because I always pay attention to my opponent's feet (ie his footwork) so that I can plan where to place my next shot (to wrong foot him/her).

Similarly, for the rackethead of where my opponent is positioning it, so that my next shot won't be intercepted/blocked.

Rules should be made as clear and as precise as possible. If not, different outcomes will come out from different umpires.

This is just my opinion.

.