13.4.4. Call to BAN the unsportsmanlike act of net blocking

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by beefheart, Mar 15, 2017.

  1. Ch1k0

    Ch1k0 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    1,353
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Singapore
    Having seen that point on video. I don't see a fault at all. If anything it was a match point won with complete class. Even if LCW had taken that shuttle in that exact same spot but with his arm fully extended. He would have scrapped the net with his racket head for sure and been faulted for it. Axelsen in this case blocked quite a fair distance from the net on his end. It just doesn't make sense for LCW to be able to complete his stroke legally across the net IMO and force a fault for being blocked by VA.

    Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
     
  2. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    When Lee Chong Wei hits, the distance between his racket and Viktor Axelsen's looks to me to be about 50cm, certainly more than enough to deny any fault per §13.4.4.

    Actually, Viktor Axelsen might have been over the net before hitting the shuttle (§13.4.2), but even in the slow-motion replay, I'm unsure either way.

    Per RTTO §4.4 the correct umpire decision is definitely to play on.

    @Junye's suggestion that the umpire does not know the rules is ridiculous - these are BWF's top umpires who have shown via repeated tests to know every rule by heart. Since @Junye does not even name, let alone quote the specific rule they allege the umpire doesn't know, I presume they refer to house rules, not official (BWF) ones.
     
    #82 phihag, Dec 19, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2017
    stanleyfm and Master like this.
  3. Master

    Master Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Location:
    somewhere on earth
    Okay, I got it.

    In the case of the racket holder moving his rackets into the left and right direction continuously near the net before hitting the shuttle, could we said this case a fault using the above law and considering making gestures using his racket moving?
     
  4. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    In theory, yes. However, this fault requires that a player deliberately moves their racket in order to distract their opponent. Just citing quick racket movement is certainly not enough, the umpire has to be certain that the intention was not to play the shuttle (or ready themselves to play the shuttle), but specifically to distract the opponent. Even if a distraction is likely, per RTTO §4.4 the umpire would still not call it unless they are absolutely sure.

    Due to the very short time a shuttle flies while at the net, everything will be quite quick and short, so that's another reason why faulting per §13.4.5 is extremely unlikely.

    One exception could be if a player mimics hitting their opponent or their opponent's racket, but for that the opponent would have to be extremely close to the net.

    Realistically, shouting while/just before the opponent hits the shuttle is the only scenario where a fault per §13.4.5 would be called. I don't believe I have ever seen such a call, neither on video nor during my own umpiring. Everything that would be distracting to your opponent would likely also constitute unsportsmanlike behavior and would yield the player a card, not a fault call.
     
    stanleyfm and Master like this.
  5. Oleg

    Oleg New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ukraine
    After all this discussions, I'm completely misunderstood: is it a fault, then opponent tries to block my netkill by setting his racquet on the way of my racquet? If answer is "yes, in some cases", how to differ legal blocking from illegal?
    We have so many discussions about 13.4.4 rule... And none of us can't find an official interpretation of it for this situation :(
     
    Simeon likes this.
  6. GingerCorslette

    GingerCorslette Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Asia
    I don't think the rules are as ambiguous as they've been made to believe.
    Things transpire around the net very quickly, so it could be difficult in realtime. Try imagining things slowly for a bit. After your opponent has hit a loose shot around the net, which passed over to your side, setting up a perfect opportunity for you to kill it:

    - If he shows his still racquet there, as if leaving his defense to luck, it's a fault if his racquet is over the net to your side. Otherwise, it's good. No matter how close it is, as long as it (racquet) is still on his side, then it's good.

    - Following above, if after you struck the shuttle, your followthrough hits the opponent's racquet (on his side), it is a fault: point to you. Even if your shot ends up in the opponent's racquet which sends the shuttle back to your court. This is because your followthrough passing to opponent's side is allowed, as long as you made contact with the shuttle on your side. (Example is the point at 19-9 in the final game at the 2014 Asian Games SF between LD and LCW)

    - If he deliberately swings or swipes his racquet around the striking area/path to distract you, it might be a fault. Note 'might' since it's always the discretion of the umpire. However if it's a little further back away from the net it's not even a question.
     
    Oleg likes this.
  7. Mark A

    Mark A Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,170
    Likes Received:
    695
    Location:
    St Helens, UK
    There's no way to delineate this in the rules so it's going to come down to umpire's discretion, but since it almost always results in a point it could be sent upstairs for a second opinion with minimal disruption to the match.
     
  8. Oleg

    Oleg New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ukraine
    Sorry, this isnt a solve, as i think. Cause any opinion, doesnt matter how high "upstairs" :) sits its carrier, must be settled on the rule, that stay universal for any match. Yes, "safe distance of movement" or value of a shout and many over measures that cant be defined in rules cause we havent a scale for them, are set on the umpires discretion. But main principles must be described and clear for all participants of the game. (Especially for players, not only for judges. The game is for players at first, not for umpires ;) ) For example, like in GingerCorslette's reply.
    Anyway, thank you for the answer.
     
  9. SSSSNT

    SSSSNT Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    Here
    I don't think this is true. If you play a net shot that's too high and put up your racket blocking the net in front of the shuttle like 1cm from the net, it is universally considered a fault. Even among recreational players like most of us. The opponent need not hit your racket, just need to reasonably have the opportunity to. He could be right in front ready to kill the shuttle but didn't play a shot because he see your racket is obstructing and just call fault instead. Or the umpire should if there is one.
     
  10. Berny Ah

    Berny Ah Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2019
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Little Britain
    Hi Phihag,

    I agree with much of what you said about net blocking, but the philosophy in the article you linked to isn't the only valid way to think about sports and games. Consider the Corinthians and their Corinthian spirit:

    The club was famed for its ethos of "sportsmanship, fair play, [and] playing for the love of the game".[4] 'Corinthian Spirit, still understood as the highest standard of sportsmanship, is often associated with the side. This spirit was famously summed up in their attitude to penalties; "As far as they were concerned, a gentleman would never commit a deliberate foul on an opponent. So, if a penalty was awarded against the Corinthians, their goalkeeper would stand aside, lean languidly on the goalpost and watch the ball being kicked into his own net. If the Corinthians themselves won a penalty, their captain took a short run-up and gave the ball a jolly good whack, chipping it over the crossbar.

    I also recall the great badminton player Peter Gade saying that how you play the game is as important as winning.

    Badminton has something of the Corinthian spirit: players at all levels still apologise for winning a point with a net cord, for example.
     
  11. psyclops

    psyclops Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    ger

    I can surely (that means 100%, as compared to certainly, which is vague), respond, that if you are having any North American BWF umpires, then it is certainly (once again, Heisenberg), a fault. Anywhere else, it is not.
     

Share This Page