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.
. Yes, it's a fault. And I would call it an obstruction, instead of a distraction. LCW cannot obstruct Shon Wan Ho's racket-head's path of follow-through. And the umpire has called it correctly. .
Actually, the ump only called it after Shon complained. . This is exactly the same as Saina's fault from 2 weeks ago. What LCW and Saina did was probably the best they could do given the situation. Better to do that to protect yourself and show some aggression, instead of cowering down in complete humiliation.
. That shows how slow the umpire was to detect the 'fault'. As I have said in other threads before, I would have made the 'fault' call, when SWH was making his stroke. .
Of course it's a fault. One of the laws says that you cannot obstruct the stroke of your opponent, even if your opponent follow thru over your side after they strike the bird on their side.
lee's racket was practically 6 inches away from the net, if shon hadn't held back his follow thru and struck the way he would've normally a net kill, there would have been a clash of rackets in the eyes of the umpire, the potential for an obstruction is already a fault
In my opinion, the action at the net isn't a fault from LCW.. Schon had nearly completed his complete stroke (shuttle had been struck) and did not act in a manner to show he was distracted. He only complained to see what would happen, an got away with it.. This is easy to say after watching the replay, but always remember, the umpire doesnt have that luxury. The umpire was at fault by not clearly and quickly calling the fault (weather you agree with it or not), which caused confusion.
An umpire should never call what might happen, but what has happened...... The only exception is to call a Let when something may injur or interrupt play, like a shuttle landing in the court...
I have clearly stated why it is considered a fault in this discussion thread: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...s-Finals-Day-5-(Finals-Day)-Sun-18-Dec/page22 This case would be no different. I would fault LCW for obstructing the shot.
An umpire should never call (before what might happen) . Exactly. What has happened was as soon as LCW held his racket-head up at the net, the umpire should call a fault (even before Shon started swinging his racket to hit that shuttlecock above the net). .
LCW had his racket up high over (or at) the net before Shon made the shot. This is a classic and textbook example of an obstruction of 13.4.4.
I cant remember what the title of the video is,but i think it's peter gade vs marc zwiebler.. In a match marc intercepted the net kill(infront of the net)from peter gade in front of the net..
what if Shon's racket head was way down under when LCW's racket was up high over (or at) the net, and there is no possibility of clashing of rackets, would that still be a obstruction fault?
I would say LCW is clearly at fault bcos his racket is obstructing Shon's play. Whether or not, Shon hit the shuttle into the net or out of play, LCW should be faulted at the very first instance. I think it is fair for the umpire to rule it correctly after Shon's complaint because it can happen very fast. The rule is designed to prevent a player from attempting to disrupt an opponent's netkill when he has played a loose net dribble(a hopeless situation). Otherwise, it will be abused by menacing racket movements after a loose net dribble. preventlng the opponent to the right to obstruction/distraction-free play. Follow-through over the net is a natural and permissible racket motion in a netkill.
I think it is not a fault if LCW's racket head goes above the net after the shuttle drops below the net. This is a very fine timing, perhaps not detectable unless with slow-motion replay. It is a fault by LCW if his racket is above the net when the shuttle is also above but on the other side of net.
wasn't he complaining that LCW racket came over the net to hit the shuttle (which he didn't, he hit it on his side, just the follow through went over the net, which is allowed), not the fact he was obstructing? LCW didn't HOLD his racket there, it was part of his shot stroke follow through, so not obstruction. otherwise no net shots will be allowed!!!