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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
"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.
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.
in this scenario, you will normally loose the point due to desparation. why stress and bother. Just hope for mistakes.
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.
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.
You can block the SHOT, but you cannot block/obstruct the STROKE . 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; .
[h=2]Lee vs. Shon, net play fault (video)[/h] 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.
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
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)
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!
