A very difficult and doubtful decision going by the laws. The Umpire has to establish whether WYH's stroke would carry over the net into the opponent's (SN) space. This could be verified by the slow motion video action of WYH's stroke. SN moves into position to anticipate WYH's shot. With her racket held high she is facing WYH directly but from a distance divided by the net. How far is this distance deemed necessary to avoid an "obstruction" fault? It seems to be the distance that the striker's normal stroke would carry over the net without hitting it. WYH has a choice to make a cross-court net instead of a lift or a push down the line and avoid hitting into SN's racket. Indeed this the decision by one umpire I know who considers such a scenario not a fault against the receiver, ie. SN. Then SN should win the point instead of being faulted.
I just took a second look at the video, after watching it live the other day. My first impression was that it was a geniune, attempted block anticipating the net-kill from WYH. Now here is the transcription of the commentary immediately after Goh faults Saina and Saina objects. IW: Too slow, that drop! WYH able to take it early. GC: Well, Saina Nehwal has been called a fault by Goh See Yang of Malaysia. (Slow-mo review plays...) IW: Yeah, she didn't play a shot with it. She just put her racquet there. That's a fault. I watched the same slow-mo review and it appeared to me that although Saina brought her racquet up, she held back momentarily to allow WYH to commit to her shot, before she began the forward motion of the push/block. Now that I notice that hold, it's quite debatable whether it was actually a fault or not, in my mind. However, I also recognise that the umpire does not have the benefit of hindsight and needs to make a call in real-time, and there is no appeals/review system. So, whatever's happened, has happened.
cobalt, what a coincidence! i was just looking at it again too! 14-12 saina vs wang g1 at around the 3:00 hr mark of the bwf youtube video yeah, looks like a possible obstruction was called, as wyh with her super long arms would have hit sn's racket if she hadn't shortened her stroke so 13.4.4 applied in this case, as you had stated so if sn had her racket 1 foot back, she wouldn't have been called
"IW: Yeah, she didn't play a shot with it. She just put her racquet there. That's a fault." Why is putting a racket up considered a fault? Is there anything in the Badminton Laws that said so that the shuttle must be struck by the receiver before it could be considered a point won?
^^^ nah, iw didn't know what he's talking about... there's no such law as he stated... because of what he said, that's what got us confused but if you listen to the umpire tell sn, he called her for "blocking", meaning obstructing wyh's stroke
I suppose that's the reason why you see most of the MS players in similar circumstances move well away from the net to counter a net-kill, or crouch low with the racquet held above and behind their head in preparation for an attempted return. IN either case, they would ensure that A) their body was away from the net to allow for freedom of movement, and B) the racquet position was away from the net to ensure no fault can be called. Go to 3:01:35 to watch it unfold. The girls were lucky not to have clashed racquets, that's for sure!
Good. So it could only mean that in the umpire's considered view, SN is obstructing WYH's stroke execution as her stroke would have crossed some distance over the net had it not been "obstructed" by SN's upheld racket. Now this last point is debatable. Debatable because SN rushed in to block in anticipation. Debatable because WYH, on seeing SN moving in, could have used the net cross or other shots. WYH has an option not to hit directly into SN's racket. In most cases one would expect a player to hit the shuttle away from his opponent where the latter will find difficulty in retrieving.
. Here is a clearer photo of the incidence. As for me (if an umpire), I would have faulted Saina Nehwal even before Wang Yihan commenced her stroke. .
. Here is another photo (although not as clear - but showing how close Saina is to the net) of the incidence. Again, for me (if an umpire), I would have faulted Saina Nehwal even before Wang Yihan commenced her stroke. .
I'm completely surprised by your second remark. I think if you were the umpire you would have done a great injustice to SN The first picture is misleading but the second is clearer as it shows the position of the players relative to the net. WYH seemed to have completed her stroke and nowhere can it be said that SN was obstructing her.
An umpire needs to follow the laws . Comment: I'm completely surprised by your second remark. I think if you were the umpire you would have done a great injustice to SN. Reply: Well, you should know what I have said about SN (Post #5) in SN's thread (some 5 and a half years ago); But here, in this discussion, we are talking about the Laws of Badminton. An umpire needs to follow the laws (regardless who the players are). Allow me to give you 2 examples; (1) In Soccer, once I see a player intentionally jumps forward towards an opposition player's back from behind (to tackle/clash onto him), I would have blown the whistle before the clash happens. Why? Because a player is not allowed to tackle another from behind. (2) In Squash, once I see a player intentionally stands in front of an opposition player (to obstruct a stroke swing), I would have called 'fault' even before the stroke happens. Why? Because a player is not allowed to obstruct another's stroke/swing. Law 13.4.4 is similar to the Squash Laws; therefore when I see SN intentionally holds up her racket near the net to obstruct WYH's stroke swing, I would have called 'fault' even before WYH does her stroke. Some comment given is - Shouldn't WYH do another stroke swing so that their rackets to not clash? The answer is "NO". SN must allow WYH to do any stroke. That's why I posted earlier (Post #359); .
Let me attempt to shed light on the reasons why that is a fault. It is an obstruction to WYH's shot. WYH may have other options, but by seeing that racket there, she hesitates. If I were playing you in a tight net exchange, I do a high shot, but I leave my racket there to block it, would it be fair to you? You would most likely hesitate. That's why there is a fault in that case, with or without you swinging your racket. Like Chris has stated above, she should be allowed to do any shot, not be forced to do another shot. She blocks WYH's chance to kill the shuttle and win the point, yes WYH may end up crossing or lifting, but the rally could still be clearly alive after that, since if she can net kill the shuttle clearly, there is a lower chance of the rally continuing. WYH does not need to attempt to swing, she can clearly point out to the umpire that she got obstructed and hesitated to make her shot, throwing her off. (Or she could clearly swing and hit Saina's racket on purpose anyways) So it makes no difference if she does attempt a swing. What Ian White meant by having her racket in a stationary position is that she is obstructing that way. It is NOT an obstruction if Wang Yihan attempted a shot and clashed into Saina's racket while Saina shows that she is ATTEMPTING to return the shuttle. In that case, if that does happen in a split second (which is quite hard), I would not fault either side. WYH has attempted a legal shot, Saina attempted a legal return. If Saina's racket clashes into WYH's racket while Saina is attempting a return, I would not fault that either as I have explained in this thread. http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php/104147-Obstructing. I'm not quite sure if I have made this any more clear for any of you guys. Feel free to keep asking questions and I will try to answer.
Thanks for your explanation, CantSmashThis. As always, it is clear and helps clear up any misconceptions. How about this one? Do you think 13.4.4 should have been invoked here? [video=youtube;Zl5LqhiYgyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl5LqhiYgyo&feature=youtu.be[/video]
On this one it is quite hard to tell. And can be argued by both sides on this. But slowly replaying this, it looks like it would be a fault because his racket was up at the net before Taufik was given a chance to play the shot. But this all happens quickly. There is no "holding and waiting at the net" in this scenario. If Taufik was allowed his shot attempt FOLLOWED by Lin Dan's attempt to return, then that would be legal. But it shows like Lin Dan didn't give Taufik his full chance to make his shot before attempting to block the shot. (He had his racket up at the net 1st for a split second, then attempted to return the shot. If he did not have his racket up for that half a second, and just attempted to return, then it would be legal) But as an umpire, this all happens within a split second. Most likely the point will end before the umpire has his final decision since he has to quickly process it. This can technically go either way depending how the umpire sees it. This is different than SN's positioning her racket there. But if it can be clearly shown that what I explained in the above paragraph was done, then there shall be no fault. Taufik must be given his full chance to play his shot, then Lin Dan can attempt to block his shot. With correct anticipation, this still can be done, I have seen it done before, but of course is quite hard. I type this out as what comes to mind, as how much it makes sense to you the reader, I'm not quite sure, so feel free to ask for me to further explain this if you wish.
I would have faulted Lin Dan . Another good example (at the 28th second of the video). I would have faulted Lin Dan. Although Taufik Hidayat did not complain; I can believe that if Lin Dan had not stick up his racket-head, Taufik would have done a better stroke to keep the shuttlecock in. Lucky for Lin Dan that I wasn't the umpire. .
Badminton is neither squash nor soccer. Each has its own rules. In badminton it is not unusual to find opposing players standing directly opposite each other at close quarters. Some elect to challenge net duels and anything that goes an inch or so higher than the net may be attacked or smashed at. The receiver may choose to cover his face for protection and if the shuttle should hit his strings and bounce back to the other side without a response, it becomes an unexpected lucky return for him. Now it seems the question of obstruction comes in because SN is obstructing WYH from making a legal stroke. IMO the pictures did not confirm that. So it is a question of opinion. The umpire seemed to rule it as an obstruction according to the laws. I see it otherwise. And despite attempts to say that WYH is restricted to that killing shot at that time, it must be fair to say that she actually has other options like net crossing. SN did what was natural in such a situation and that is to protect her face with the hope that WYH's shot would hit her racket and bounce back into play. And her hope came true but the umpire saw it otherwise. WYH could have smashed the shuttle in the open space and not directly at SN. Sure, it is commonplace that a situation like this has more often than not been called a fault. And unfortunately the "victim" normally accepts his fate (even our friend extreme) and people just attribute it to "obstruction". But is it really obstruction in every case? Especially when one is playing in his own court and did not invade the opposition? The umpire has to make a decision in a split second and does not have the luxury of hindsight or a replay of the scene in slow motion. So often line calls were wrongly made because of this.
Like stated before, Wang Yihan is not allowed to have all options available. Yes, she can make another shot, but by seeing the racket there, it could also have caused her to hesitate. Plus, like I said before, SN is taking away WYH's best choice of shot. If she chose to cross, or hesitates and is forced to clear, SN is more capable of staying in the rally, as opposed to WYH doing a straight net kill. And sometimes it is hard to smash the shuttle into open space. Players get hit in games all the time, you can't tell the player to hit into an open space next time. If not obstruction, then distraction, causing the player to hesitate in that instance. If someone holds their racket at the net, and you see it, don't tell me you won't hesitate, and will immediately know what to do. It's natural instinct to most. The photo clearly shows that Saina is still very close to the net. And I would believe you would have your racket near your face to protect your face. Otherwise I can have my racket right at the net and then claim I am blocking the shuttle from going over the net so that it won't hit my face. As an umpire myself, if I were to see that happen in a match, I will not hesitate to immediately call a fault there. "Especially when one is playing in his own court and did not invade the opposition? The umpire has to make a decision in a split second and does not have the luxury of hindsight or a replay of the scene in slow motion. So often line calls were wrongly made because of this. " I did not watch the video, but as others were saying and how Ian White put it, the fact that she held it there, did not attempt a swing, and to me does not attempt to block her face in the picture, CLEARLY shows that she was attempting an obstruction. With the video cobalt posted, I said, yes in the fact that it happens so quickly, that can be argued both ways since it happens in a split second. But in this case, there was no attempt to return, there does not seem like she is protecting her face, it shows to me that she is obstructing.
