I would have faulted LCW's action straight away . If I were the umpire, I would have faulted LCW's action straight away. As I am coaching and playing with my trainees, lots of arguments have arisen about this matter. I now tell them this: Whenever 2 players are playing at the net, challenging each other in 'netplay' returns; a fault will be called immediately as soon as one player raises his/her racket-head to prevent his/her opponent's 'Swipe' stroke. What is the 'Swipe' stroke? I have defined it here: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...raining-(Strokes-Shots)?p=2174101#post2174101 .
sorry, but you are wrong. the most important thing about the "block at the net" is that after you have hit the shuttle, your racket is on YOUR site of the net! the second thing is that your opponent must have the chance to hit the shuttle without any hinderance! that means that he can swing out his racket over the net at your side (of course AFTER the shuttle has passed the net and is at your opponents side!)! if he hits your racket in this moment it a fault from YOU! of course you can hold your racket in the way in case of getting the shuttle. the third thing is about "sportsmenship": If you hold your racket over the net and want to irritate your opponent and then take it back or shout something to him so he hopefully misses the shuttle or makes an error ... it's NOT VERY SPORTSMEN LIKE!!! I think every good umpire will call this as a fault or maybe give you a warning! And this is absolutely correct!
you're right that the opponent must have the possibility to follow his stroke over the net. if i allow him to do so, i may put my racket whereever i want...
yes! you are right! of course you always must do everything what you can an what is ALLOWED to get the shuttlecock! look at the example in the Video (Marc Zwiebler): He just holt his racket still in the direction of the shot whithout interfere his opponent. It was pure luck that his Opponent smashes the shuttle exactly on his racket. Maybe when his opponent has made a "kill" at the net and he holds his racket like this, the umpire will call it as an interferance ... its sometimes a fine line between a fault and "its allowed" ...
Here is a video of 5 net blocking. It looks like #2, 3, 4 are legal but #1 & 5 are faults. What do you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OQVDUSjTw
here's my take. 5. from the angle doesnt look like the racket went over the net for the block. not a fault. 4 and 3 obvious not faults. 2. racket went over the net for the block. a fault. 1. definitely not a fault.
Agree. Second one with Marc Z looked bad. The other ones looked perfectly ok. But it could be a fault even if you block on your own side of the net, right? If you prohibit your opponent from making his shot (followthrough). "Obstruction". This is a bit more difficult to judge, but the likes og Chen Long and Lee Chong Wei should simply make their shots and follow through on them, winning the point if they are indeed obstructed.
How is it a fault when lcw blocked the shuttle on his side of the court. Chen Long was done with his tap when lcw blocked it. The umpire didn't call a fault.
it is a fault because he obstructed chen longs stroke! clearly incorrect decision by the umpire! if this was legal than i very much dislike the rule!
That's my opinion too, Chen Long had to check back on his stroke as he saw LCW sticking his racket up, I think that is what he was complaining about but the Umpire decided not to hear him. Unlucky for him, it should have been called a fault IMO. Kindest regards, -Ajay- Quote of the Day If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?
i see it differently. chen long played the shot..a tap. lcw blocked the shuttle and not chen long's stroke which was a tap. if chen long played a wrist snap/smash and his follow through hits lcw's racket, then it is obstruction but chances are his racket would have hit the net if he went with this stroke hence the tap. quote from badmintonbible. Remember that you are allowed to follow-through with your racket over the net, providing you made contact on your side. If your opponent obstructs this — such as putting his racket in the way so that you would be forced to hit it — then you win the rally. Note that your opponent is allowed to put his racket in the path of the shuttle. He is not allowed to block your stroke, but he is allowed to block your shot. It’s a subtle distinction: your stroke is the movement of your racket; your shot is the movement of the shuttle. if it was clearly an obstruction in the book or chen long's mind, i dont think he would have attempted to return lcw's block. when he failed to do so, he then went with the obstruction fault. just how i see it.
Sorry, but I use the rules of badminton from BWF, not 'how you see it'. CL was blocked from playing a shot - he was blocked from playing a 'wrist snap/smash', as you put it. Therefore it is a fault. Wrong! A collision is not needed for it to be a fault. Read the rules... http://www.worldbadminton.com/rules/#13 13.4.4
bro amleto...i am sure the umpire who didnt call it a fault use the rules from BWF too. dont forget this part. Note that your opponent is allowed to put his racket in the path of the shuttle. He is not allowed to block your stroke, but he is allowed to block your shot. It’s a subtle distinction: your stroke is the movement of your racket; your shot is the movement of the shuttle.
umpires do mistakes every once in a while as every human being does so while it is a strong argument for your opinion (no fault) - i still think it was illegal by LCW! Seems like you dont understand that you do not need to clash rackets to make it a fault! (fortunately...) There are plenty of examples of legal blocking in this thread, you dont need to quote it multiple times. OF COURSE chen long tries to react to LCWs block! Its a natural reflex in this little splitsecond of time! And also just in case the umpire makes a wrong desicion its also wise to keep playing.. thats not an argument for the block to be legal...
What you say is different to the rules, ergo you are incorrect. It's a subtle distinction... hope you can get it eventually.
Nice vid with the 5 blocks.... My opinion: 5. LCW: Zwiebler No fault by Marc. I see no way the rackets may clash here. 4. Zwiebler: Tago. Obviously not a fault. 3. the two french guys: Obviously not a fault. 2. LCW: Zwiebler Hard to tell. Def not obstructing the stroke, can't see from this angle if he reached over the net... 1. LCW: Long Tough one! I wouldn't call it. LCW is like 30cm away from the net. I think Chen Long will never follow through far enough to be obstructed. But that one's def tough to decide in real time (and still in slomo...;-)). You could possibly see it both ways.
