Sorry, but I've got to take this post to town it's just so bad. There's only so many ways to dissect 'prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke'. If there exists a legal shot that could have been played, and the striker was prevented from making this shot, then the receiver has 'prevented an opponent from making a legal stroke'. Your arguments are based on grammatical folly.
Deciding on whether a stroke has been prevented, without knowing if the stroke was completed or not has to be subjective.
"so? Every time a shuttle lands near a line a judgement has to be made. Making judgement calls is nothing new." It is totally different because the shuttle actually hits the ground and there is a line to judge against, This is more like someone catching the the shuttle 6 feet off the ground(if that were allowed) and then the umpire trying to decide whether the shuttle was going to land in or out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfPNeEwXfSw&feature=BFa&list=PL537988A7C8D2C9E7&lf=plpp_video Ok look at this video 1.50 ish(I know it is a bad angle but just assume they were very close. All I want to know since you seem to understand the rule in black and white is to explain this. The striker claims he was prevented. Nobody except the striker knows if he had completed his natural stroke and if he was to continue swinging he could have hit the defenders racket(just take that as true even though camera is bad). So does the umpire decide based on whether he would have hit with the full follow through possible before his racket would hit the top of the net or does he decide based on whether his natural stroke looked like it was just going to be a short action so no fault? That is what I can't gather.
You are fixating on *the* shot played, but that is not the rule. The rule explicitly mentions *a* shot. Therefore if there is *any* shot that could have been *legally played*, but was obstructed, then it is a fault.
so the full follow through that would be physically possible then. this rule get called really badly in that case
You fellas won't have to bicker... If the rule were changed to require racket clashing for a fault to occur.
I am not sure why so much fuss over this. I don’t know about you guys, to me it is very clear but subjected to umpire decision. If you watch Youtube matches at international level, so often I heard about service above waist not faulted. Even Yang Yang commented on a game about umpire decision to call for fault service due to different players have different waist height playing in the same match. Just for benefit of doubt to the shorter player. They allowed it but for flick service, they will fault you. Subjective Umpire? Someone mentioned this before, If you play a tight game at the front and given that kind of opportunity, and avoid touching the net, would you have such a big swing as to the entire racket would go over the net? Just observe many of the matches on Youtube and you will see. Just this afternoon, another Youtube commentary by Zhao Jian Hua, commented that players whose leg cross over the line is contributing to a fault, just like touching the pole. The block at the front, there is no such thing as a stroke must be execute to block. So many times, racket can be in front blocking except no obstruction to opposing players. Again, subject to umpire decision not forgetting if you opposing players complain, or you are deem as a disturbance/distraction to opposing players.
I'm pretty sure i've seen a youtube video of a international match. The shuttlecock was at mid court and he smashed it but then the opponent predicted the shot and just kneeled right behind the net and raised his racket and it just bounced off the racket to the smasher's court. I'm sure the blocker got the point for that.
That's the million dollar question, How big was the players follow through going to be? and to what common standard do they judge that? Thats how it differs from serve there is a common standard to judge, it is if the shuttle is below the waist (bottom rib)
Yes, I saw that a few times already. Front guy knee in front with racket up at the back of him facing the smash and it came right over the night to score the point. That is legitimate and nothing illegal. It is the obstruction counts
Frankly, you simply has to play according to whoever the umpire decide. No choice, even in international matches. Who are we to say what when umpire override. Just play according to the official in charge. Just to share, I recalled last year while representing my company in a mixed doubles match where the last point of the 1st game. I send the shuttle to hit the top of the pole and the umpire counted that in and awarded the match to me. However he failed to realise something else. My opponent raise the alarm, so do I. Why? because the shuttle landed outside the court and then roll inside the court. Umpire didn't see it at all and insisted play goes on start of 2nd match insisting that shuttle hitting the pole is legal but fail to realise it went outside the court before going in. We simply at the mercy of the umpire. So with regard to the swing you are referring to, the best answer despite the rule lies with the umpire. What we can say is only so much
