Badminton rule dispute

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AllisterBrimble

New Member
Hi

I have recently had an argument with a friend about a shot that he played.
He hit the shuttle around the side of post, 2 feet under the height of the net and the shuttle landed in.

Is this legal?

Thanks in advance
Allister

www.badmintonexeter.co.uk
 
Last edited:
The shot is legal. Nothing in the laws contradicts it.

It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.

It's your own fault for hitting the shuttle wide. If your shot had been going in, he could never have passed the post.
 
Gollum said:
The shot is legal. Nothing in the laws contradicts it.

It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.

It's your own fault for hitting the shuttle wide. If your shot had been going in, he could never have passed the post.
Click to expand...


That's two different answers on this forum now. Anyone else??
 
two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal? :eek:

Who would argue that?

Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point
 
txyu said:
Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point
Click to expand...
errrrr :confused:
if it's obviously out, then it doesn't come any cheaper than not hitting it and letting it land out
 
txyu said:
two feet under the net and around the side of the post and it's Legal? :eek:

Who would argue that?

Personally, I wouldn't bring out a rule book just to argue that point...If I hit that shot, I'd concede the rally...If I was on the receiving end of that shot and they insisted it's legal...I'd do the same thing back to them so see how they like it

Otherwise, people would be hitting shots that were obviously out, around the post, as low as possible to get a cheap point
Click to expand...

1) why he hitting it if it is out? it is his point already. it is not a cheap point. what if the shuttle does not land inside of the line? it become your point.
2) why do you give up a point just because the other person does not know the rule?
3) anything that does not specificly defined as fault in the rule book is legal untill ibf change the rule (s-serve is a good example).
 
it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

and that's legal?

Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

Am I interpreting this original post wrong?
 

Attachments

  • untitled.gif
    untitled.gif
    8.2 KB · Views: 668
Last edited:
i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.
 
What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?
 
Quan said:
i remember an episode of prince of tennis where kaido uses the boomerang snake in badminton... the bird went around the post and landed in... but the shot was called out... maybe this'll help.
Click to expand...

off-topic:
His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).

on-topic:
I'd count the point, but why would your opponent hit it in the first place if it was clearly wide and out (that's the only way i can see this shot being pulled off)?
 
To clarify, it went at the angle you showed in the diagram but at 1 or 2 feet below net height.

Allister

txyu said:
it's not where it's hit but rather how it went over is my point

From the original post, with some modifications and some exaggerations

I hit a shot that was clearly out and over onto the adjacent court
My opponent then ran towards it and hit the shuttle when it was about an inch off the ground
He hit a drive shot so it flew nice and low about 1/2 inch above the ground
It flew under the adjacent courts net (meaning still outside the posts of our court) and landed on our court, my side, and in

and that's legal?

Once again, not where the person hit the bird but the route the shuttle took to land in

Am I interpreting this original post wrong?
Click to expand...
 
bigredlemon said:
What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?
Click to expand...

No, this is a fault and you know it. This is a totally different subject.
 
DarthHowie said:
off-topic:
His shot was called in.. If you want..i can track down the episode number. He pulled this shot off when playing both singles and doubles (with Inui).

on-topic:
I'd count the point, but why would your opponent hit it in the first place if it was clearly wide and out (that's the only way i can see this shot being pulled off)?
Click to expand...

There are times, you just don't know where you are on court and are just running and swinging...I exaggerated my explanation to make sure I was clear on my interpretation of things
 
bigredlemon said:
What if the net is very old and there is a large hole present. A person hits the bird through that hole to the other side where it lands in. According to the previous interpretation of "fails to pass the net", this would not be fault!?
Click to expand...
13.2.2
It is a fault if in play the shuttle passes through or under the net
 
Gollum said:
It did not fail to pass the net. It passed the net from the side. There is a specific rule against passing the net underneath (or through), but not from the side.
Click to expand...

Even if it's clearly below the net height? :eek:
 
I guess it's interpretation of the rules then

I think although it passed the side of the net, it still is "under" the net

What if it was inside the poles? (some gyms the poles are 2-3 feet away from the sidelines)
Does pole location determine the length of the "net" and how this shot is interpreted?
 
I would be quite happy for an opponent to hit one of my shots that is obviously out of bounds - thus giving me another chance to win the point.

I think that if the off court shot was a foul - net posts would continue much higher to spot "around the net fouls".

2.2 Where it is not practical to have posts on the side lines, some method must be used to indicate the position of the side lines where they must pass under the net, e.g., by the use of thin posts or strips of material 11/2" (40mm)wide,fixed to the side lines and rising vertically to the net cord
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top