I was watching some newbies playing and side A (for easier clarification) had executed a drop, the drop was very short and would have landed on their side. However a player from side B had anticipated and had postioned herself in front of the shuttle's path. Her racket struck the shuttle underneath the net, before it hit the ground. Then both sides started, insisting it should have been a fault for the other side. I'm thinking the fault is on side B. Correct?
I would think that it's side B's fault also. That's kind of the same senario as like how the shuttle can be clearly out but if you touch it then it's your fault and the other side is awarded. Well that's what I think.
i was thinking no fault on either sides. Side B didn't have her racket hitting the net or hitting after the bird has landed on her side or protrude her racket to opponent's side, then what is her fault ?
Side B, as she reached under the net to strike the shuttle. If the strike occured on the other side of the court, it is a fault.
according to ibf laws, it shall be a fault when in play the player; 13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except that the striker may follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net;
The shuttle is out of play after it hits the floor. In the situation described above, side B is at fault.
Yeah it's not out of play yet as the shuttle has not touched the floor. Side B simply hit the shuttle under the net on the opponents side. How did they do that without touching the net? Were they squatting down or something?
From what I saw, the girl from side B was late in getting to the net, and was lunging. Probably her spatial perception was not that good, she went for the lift and her racket clipped the bird under the net, before the shuttle hit the floor.
unlike tennis, in badminton, shuttle is dead only when it hit the floor. If u hit it wrongly, it is your fault. It is like if the shuttle is flying outside the line and u hit it back anyway, the shuttle is still in play. So, side B faulted.
but did her racket invade the opponent's ground when her racket contacts the bird ? if she hits it at the opponent's court, then obviously she is at fault. then again, how did she execute such a trajectory?
Sorry, but I could not get the logic of the arguments so far. If the shuttle is below the net but not hit the floor yet it is still in play. If that is the case then, if you hit accidently hit the shuttle below the net but on your court side and the shuttle goes back to your opponent court side over the net then by the same argument, the shuttle is still in play! This is not right since your opponent never hit the shuttle over the net. If it is correct, then if your opponent hit the shuttle under the net and it hit your leg before dropping to the floor, then you loose the rally! Anyone has any comment?
The shuttle is in play until it hits the floor or a fault is called. If you intrude your opponents' court, either bodily or with your racquet, a fault has occurred, and the shuttle is out of play. You lose the point. Doesn't matter if you actually hit the shuttle after that.
you are getting a little confused with the facts.... Side B went to the net and lunged forward and hit the shuttle in the opponent's side of the court. The shuttle did not even pass over the net to Side B. So obviously Side B is at fault as her racket went under the net. Now what you're thinking is that the shuttle went over the net (which didn't happen in this case) to Side B and Side B hit the shuttle and it went under the net to Side A.
I think I was misunderstood. I was saying that the rule is a little strange. I agree that the rule says that Side B is at fault. But using the same rule, if side A hit the shuttle under the net into Side B, and the shuttle hit the opponent in Side B before dropping to the floor that point goes to Side A! If it land in Side B without hitting anybody, then point goes to Side B. This is strange as anyone can see that the shuttle did not goes over the net. The rule however make more sense if the shuttle goes above the net to Side B and if Side B hit it, Side B cannot claim it is out of bound as nobody can be sure unless the shuttle hit the ground.
It is a fault when: 15.4 If in play, the shuttle: 15.4.1 Lands outside the boundaries of the court; 15.4.2 Passes through or under the net; So, Side A would have already faulted if the birdie went under the net, so it would not matter if the birdie hit anyone on side B. But that's not the scenario presented. OP stated that the birdie did not make it over to Side B, yet Side B hit the birdie, thus it's Side B's fault.
100% side b's fault, if the shuttle was still in the air and i ran onto the oponents side and smashed it straight at teh ground, would it be my fault? side b invaded while shuttle was still in play, thats the end of that.
Since side B hit the shuttle in side A's court, the shuttle has yet to pass under the net. Side B faulted before side A could, and therefore lose the point.
the situation is quite confusing and i posted the wrong answer before, so im hoping that this one is correct (crossing my fingers) It shall be a ‘fault’: 13.3 if in play, the shuttle: 13.3.3 fails to pass over the net; clearly side A is at fault already when the player in side A hit the shuttle and the shuttle failed to pass over the net, we can not apply rule 13.4.3 which states that; 13.4 if, in play, a player: 13.4.3 invades an opponent’s court under the net with racket or person such that an opponent is obstructed or distracted; yes, the player in Side B invaded the opponent's court but did he/she distracted or obstructed the opponent? i think not, and besides, rule 13.3.3 occured first so i think its pointless to apply rule 13.4.3 anymore..imho
