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. beefheart

    beefheart New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wales
    I know this has been discussed in detail before but I am so sick of players making this shot and either having the gall to call it legal or acknowledging it is in a "grey area" of the rules and playing it anyway.

    I want the BWF to make the rules clear and introduce a ban on net blocking. Not only is it unsportsmanlike and a cheap, cynical way of trying to win a point, it is also incredibly dangerous and it should be banned on health and safety grounds alone.

    How many times during a net exchange have you witnessed a player merely stick their racket up at the net BEFORE you have had chance to return the shot? They are basically extending the height of the net momentarily and even though the racket may still be on their side of the net this is, after all, an illegal shot.

    However, the rules (13.4.4) don't go far enough to clarify for some people it seems.

    YOU play a tight net shot. Instead of your opponent returning a genuine shot, SHE/HE merely holds their racket up in the air without even attempting to play a stroke. THEY are not only DISTRACTING you but they are preventing YOUR racket from following through your return shot over the net and THAT is where the fault lies. If you follow through over the net (which you are allowed to do) you will hit their racket. But you don't even have to hit their racket for it to be a fault. The fact that they prevented you, even in theory, from following through your shot legally or even making the shot at all is enough to make it a fault.

    You hear some people say "well, in that case I will follow through and clash rackets to prove the point". You should NOT have to do this. It is very dangerous. Fancy being hit in the eye by a piece of flying carbon? BWF should sort this rule out and make it clear once and for all to avoid stupid injuries occurring due to a perceived "grey area" in the rules.

    And secondly, it's a cheap, cowardly "shot" for a player to make. Players should not be encouraged to wimp out by making this net blocking gesture. If you are not good enough to play a good net shot in return then don't cheat - improve your net skills instead.

    It can also be made easier to police by making it a fault if the player raises their racket up at the net BEFORE the opponent has even had the chance to hit the shuttle, let alone follow their shot through.

    An example of a pro player quite rightly being faulted on rule 13.4.4 :

     
  2. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    First of all, you need to define what you mean be net blocking. If my opponent manages to just return a shot from the very back of the court and I hold my racket to the net without him anywhere near, is that net blocking?

    It is legal if the opponent is nowhere near the net.
    It is legal if the opponent is not obstructed.

    In the matches I have umpired so far, I'd guess in less than 10% of matches §13.4.4 needed to be considered at any point. I aim for very precise umpiring, but I don't believe I have called fault per §13.4.4 more than 3 times, if even that.

    (As a side note, what's up with the weird capitalization?) If a player is distracted by their opponent standing still, I very much think it's their fault and they need to work on their game psychology.
    If a player really does distract the opponent, it's a fault already per §13.4.5, so no change is needed.

    This argument is commonly made across all sports and games. It's overwhelmingly unfounded; refer to this article for more details.

    This video clip shows that no rule change is necessary. If you want to convince anyone that a change is necessary, you should cite situations where your rule change would apply.

    Speaking of your proposed rule change: What additional or changed wording do you suggest?

    If your opponent is standing with their racket in front of the net and you fear they may be able to return your shot without running afoul of §13.4.4, may I simply suggest a different technique; after all, your opponent is standing at the very front of the court, so they're covering about a square meter. Why not hit the shuttle around or above them?
     
    krysser likes this.
  3. beefheart

    beefheart New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wales
    CAPS to help distinguish YOU, THEY, THEIR etc. What's up with the weird bold type face?

    You know exactly what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about a player being a foot or more away from the net. I am talking about players who knowingly think "I will simply lift my racket in the air and form an extension of the net" before the opponent has had any chance to hit the shot let alone decide to place it elsewhere as you suggest.

    According to the rule, you are obstructing your opponent if raising your racket at the net prevents them from following through

    According to the rule it can also be claimed that the action is distracting

    A player faced with the racket being raised at the net can legally follow through and connect with/smash the opponent's racket at which point it is a fault on the part of the player who raises their racket.

    It is crazy to encourage this mindset. I have heard people say "well, in that case I will simply drive the shot through with my racket and clash rackets".

    There is no need for any player to resort to the tactic of lifting the racket at the net without even moving the racket. All they are doing is extending the height of the net. To that end, why have a net at that legally decided height if a player can alter it at will?

    By the way, at tournament level this may be an easy thing to call a fault on or not but I have seen this happen increasingly at league/county level.

    Regarding that video - there are still people who debate that the player who was faulted should not have been faulted and that is why the rule should be simplified ie. "During net play, a player shall not simply lift their racket above the net before their opponent is able to play a shot. If a net block is played it shall be played after the shuttle has been struck by the opponent".

    Thanks but I don't need to refer to any article. The act I am talking about is bad sportsmanship. It is the equivalent of me being allowed to take the net with my hand and lift it another foot in the air.
     
  4. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    That was the most important point of my post, the one I wanted to stress.

    Are you really complaining that the player holding their racket at the net is ready too early, and they should do so later? At the beginning of a rally, we see receivers commonly being ready before their opponents have had any chance to serve let alone decide to play it elsewhere. Do you object to that as well?

    Which rule are you referring to? If §13.4.4, then I cannot find any notes about distraction in there. And as I said before, if you are distracted by your opponent standing still, then it's your fault and no reason to ban standing still.

    I agree that a player who stands close to the net and who's fast enough to cover the whole width of the court can make one believe that the net is effectively higher. But that's simply the hallmark of a good frontcourt player. With the same rationale, we could ban Hendra Setiawan and Christinna Pedersen for being too quick and always being ready in the frontcourt, for they often force their opponents to lift above them, effectively extending the height of the net.

    In my experience, calls are way easier at lower levels, because the speed of movement and playing is much lower. At a lower level, you can also simply lift to the back of the court, or play a cross-court net shot.


    I am quote If I am understanding your argument correctly, your core argument is that holding the racket at the net without moving it is a tactic that's too strong. If that is truly the case, may I suggest you embrace the tactic to its fullest and go win a lot of tournaments by using it as often as possible? It will be way easier to convince people of your rule change if everybody is seeing how you can easily win tournaments far above your skill level by abusing this tactic.

    To quote another article (from the same series) , this rule is neither warranted nor discrete nor enforceable. I've discussed warranted above, so let's focus on discrete and enforceable.

    What exactly does simply lift their racket mean? If we look at the slow motion replay you yourself cited, we're seeing that Saina Nehwal's racket is always moving during the net play.

    Your suggestion also restricts one player based on the abilities of the other. If Lin Dan plays against a scrub (by the article's definition, or any other kind) does that mean that Lin Dan would get faulted if he plays at full speed, because his usual opponents would have been able to play the shot already, but the scrub is too slow?

    What exactly is a net block? That's not a term currently existing in the rules, so your additions must define it so precise that all umpires can enforce the same law. Saina Nehwals's shot lands in the midcourt, does that count as a block still?

    What exactly constitutes playing a net block? Usually, I'd consider contact with the shuttle playing, but that's always after the shuttle has been struck by the opponent, isn't it?
     
    krysser and DarkHiatus like this.
  5. beefheart

    beefheart New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wales
    You are correct. There is no term in the rules that identifies this "tactic".

    The issue is displayed in the video but let me spell out the problem again very clearly :

    - Player A plays a drop shot at the net
    - Player B returns the drop shot at the net
    - Before player A has had chance to play any kind of return, player B has simply stuck their arm out with their racket up in the air, right next to the tape, to stop player A's shot from going over the tape. They have not attempted to play the shuttle because the shuttle is still on the other side of the tape and has possibly not yet been hit by player A. They are simply extending the height of the net with their racket and using their racket as an obstacle whilst the other player is attempting to make a return shot.
    - Rule 13.4.4 says it is a fault if a player obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net.
    - It is a fault because had player A attempted to follow through with a return shot they would have been impeded in doing so by player B's racket
    - Allowing such a shot to play out in theory could also likely result in racket clash / injury
    - You have proven and I agree - and that is the basis of my argument - that there exists a grey area in the rules. Especially in league play or club play where no umpires are present it is argued that the only way to truly enforce or prove the fault has been committed under rule 13.4.4 is to allow rackets to clash. That is dangerous and that is my main point of concern.
    - The only benefit in raising your racket in the exact way described is to impede the other player from returning the shot by artificially extending the height of the net
    - Skilled players, such as those you cite, have the speed and skill to play a variety of other expert return shots - as most usually do - without resorting to this cheap tactic and so outlawing this action would not affect those players - only those who cheat.
    - There is no need for a skilled player to use such a tactic. It's usage sends a bad message to younger or less experienced players and encourages the potential for injury.
     
  6. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    Well, then simply get an umpire. Either organize them yourself, or ask/lobby the federation to play matches with umpires, or consult your federation's rules on how to find an umpire if none is present.

    I don't see a problem with that. And if their racket conforms to the laws, they're only extending the net height at one small spot.

    You seem to subscribe to the idea that badminton is a contest of skill, where skill is determined by following a ruleset that is in your head and totally arbitrary.

    It is not. Badminton is a contest to return the shuttle to the opponent's side. Faults are just there to ban behavior that would end up dominating the game and thereby making it more shallow.

    If other people are not following your imaginary rules, then they are not cheating; they are playing badminton. You are playing your own game.

    Instead of complaining that your opponents are ready before you can hit the shuttle, work on your speed and technique. If you have no idea how to counter somebody standing still at the net with racket raised, do it yourself against strong opponents. They will show you that this is not a problem at all and there are plenty of shots (cross-court netshot, lift, push etc.) to win against the tactic of standing still with the racket at the net.
     
  7. beefheart

    beefheart New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wales
    "Get an umpire?" - A rather trite response. At lower level, most club players only wish to play and have no reason to come on court and act as an umpire. For league games one would need, in the interest of fairness, use an impartial person as an umpire which would require someone not representing either team so the very notion is flawed.

    Imaginary rules? Would you care to expound on that and give us your interpretation of 13.4.4 in that case? There is nothing imaginary about that.

    Incidentally, you make an assumption at the end of your last paragraph about me as a badminton player. That, frankly, is none of your business and the purpose and motivation of my complaint about people who cheat in the manner that is - as described in the rules a fault - is relating to what I have seen on the badminton court and not necessarily what I have experienced personally. That does not make it any more or less valid. In future, please keep personal remarks to yourself.
     
  8. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    There are other models as well (for instance another member of the club can umpire, or the two teamsters can jointly decide who is umpiring which match), but they depend on your federation. If you are playing in Wales, it seems you can simply request an umpire. In my state, there are detailed regulations on how to proceed in order to find an umpire if one is needed.

    Certainly. You call some shots cheap or cheating because they are too simple, or do not require skill. Note that article series I keep linking to explains this and related concepts over multiple pages.

    §13.4.4 is fine already. If it's not being enforced in your matches, call fault yourself, get an umpire, and/or educate your fellow players about the laws.
     
  9. LD rules!

    LD rules! Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    235
    Location:
    Earth
    This might been one of the most ridiculous things I have read.
     
  10. Nine Tailed Fox

    Nine Tailed Fox Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2015
    Messages:
    10,031
    Likes Received:
    2,401
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Interesting point about the follow through. I get you,OP.
     
  11. LordGopu

    LordGopu Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    Montreal
    The existing rule already covers what the OP is talking about. If they're blocking your ability to follow through, it's a fault already. Standing there with your racket, waiting, barely ever works. I do it frequently, and I'm quite fast at intercepting shots at the net in doubles, but it only connects on super rare occasions. Like it's happened maybe once this whole season.

    This situation would only apply if you're already at the net and you're trying to take the bird at tape height and your follow-through would collide with them or their racket.
     
  12. opikbidin

    opikbidin Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    59
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    The problem I meet is that people don't acknowledge the rule. I just see it 2 days ago someone blocking by having his racket on the other side while his opponent tried to lift a tight net shot. Still they get the point.

    You just couldn't have your racket on the other side blocking your opponent from play. It can get ridiculous sometimes when the whole racket head is over the net.

    Its like asking people to serve legally, most will refuse and still serve illegally in these settings.
     
  13. LordGopu

    LordGopu Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    Montreal
    Well to be fair there are plenty of things that are hard without umpires/cameras. Line calls, high serves/illegal serves/passing over the net/blocking net.

    It's just one of those things you can't control too much, other than only playing with good, honest people. Or if you're in a tournament of some kind, try to make sure you have someone watching to help with calls.
     
  14. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    Then you'll have to do the hard thing and confront them. If someone makes an obvious error like that, I've got no problem telling them, and will not concede the point under any circumstances. It's tougher with serves, but we've had the discussion a couple of times as well. My partner even refused to receive a serve one time and kept the shuttle, saying it was our point, because we had warned the opponent about his illegal serve before and he did it yet again. The following discussion wasn't pleasant (and one opponent threw a tantrum and tried to argue 'this isn't a professional level'), but without an umpire, there's only so much else you can do...

    Regarding the topic of the thread, I think this proposed rule change has no base. The current rule set is, in my opinion, fully sufficient, although some umpires could really enforce it a little more, and some players could whine less about hitting the shuttle onto their opponent's racket (anyone remember that smash from Tago onto Zwiebler's racket? He was 2m away and still complained. That was a sight to see :D).
    Blocking is only an issue if it prevents one player from making his shot without hindrance, and there is a rule in place for that case. If you aren't prevented from playing your intended shot, you have no reason to forbid the other player to place his/her racket wherever he/she likes, if that is the spot where you wanted to play the shuttle, well, tough luck. It only matters if a) it blocks your follow-through or b) the motion is done in such a manner where it's an intentional attempt to distract you, both of which are covered by the rules. If you let a legal racket motion/placement distract you, then that's your problem alone, not the opponent's.
    PS: anyone who places their racket in front of the net to block is limiting themselves, by the way, and you can usually exploit that. If the shot is so close that you cant play around the racket, chances are it's in the way of your swing anyway, and a light tap against it will suffice to show that it is, no need to break a racket and have carbon flying around. I don't really agree with OP'S point on that being dangerous, rackets aren't pipe bombs, they don't explode when they touch each other.
     
    phihag and visor like this.
  15. juneau-AK

    juneau-AK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Juneau
    Yes, how true this is. Even though this thread is about net-blocking, in club-level play, the approach is different. A long time ago, during our first outing to Toledo, Ohio, for weekend rec play, we found out that if the shuttle lands 2" inside the line on their (the opponent's) court, then they (the opponents) will call it out; and 2" out on our side is still in for them. Different rules of engagement across the state line. We had driven from Ann Arbor, Michigan and were visiting. It was quite eye-opening, and we did not make a scene, not even crack jokes about how the court is thinner on their side and wider on ours.

    So next week, we decided forget hitting shuttles on court, we will just aim all our shuttles at their bodies, not hard, just enough to tie them in knots. At the end, they shook hands and were civil, but they never took our invite to come play with us in Ann arbor.

    Our approach to weekend rec games was just that - weekend outing, get a workout physically, follow house rules, dont create situations, dont injure anyone or get injured, go to work come Monday, and when Saturday comes, repeat. Okay, you want to play with plastic, alright. Oh, that is out, alrighty. Easy peasy now, this is not world-ending, it is just a game. If friendship happen, great, otherwise there are many other places to go, people to meet, the world keeps spinning, and electrons keep recycling.
     
    #15 juneau-AK, Mar 29, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  16. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    Great example of a 100% legal block, just came across it and had to think of this thread:

    I know it's hard to take. You feel you won the rally, and then your surefire kill shot somehow ended up in your own court. Nobody likes that, but still, please stop whining about every single block, no matter how and where....I recall some that were sketchy (LCW is very close to his opponents' rackets at times, for example), but in instances like this one, you take one look at the umpires to see if he calls a fault, and then move on.
    Please note that this is not adressed to any one person in particular. Since the reaction is cut off and I do not remember the match in this much detail, I have no idea how Tommy reacted, although it seems that he just accepts it and puts his racket into his left hand to free up his right for the handshake. I'm just fed up with people (especially pros) complaining about stuff like this when other players like Fernaldi literally serve at shoulder level, and everyone seems to be fine with it.
     
    stradrider likes this.
  17. Charlie-SWUK

    Charlie-SWUK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    4,398
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Occupation:
    N90 sycophant
    Location:
    SW UK
    @j4ckie You can clearly see Momota making a movement with that block. His racket isn't up at the net, it's not blocking the shuttle from passing over, he just gets lucky manages to ping it up.

    The big problem I see with this overall is that it seriously detracts from the net game. You can play a terribly loose shot and get away with it by just holding your racket up at the net.

    I don't know how I'd put it cleanly, but something like:
    "Marking the net in the front of the court, such that your racket blocks the shuttle without playing a shot or motion, and such that it could distract or prevent the opponent from playing their shot."

    Because this shouldn't really apply to rear court stuff, and it really should have both elements in there. The no motion, marking the net specifically at the front, and the element of distraction - standing right in front of the other player like that.

    I do think this is a problematic means of play, and I think it was less likely to happen with the old rules pertaining to your body being too close/under the net.
     
  18. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    Yeah, that is why it is a very clear-cut case, no way that was even close to breaking a rule.
    But in general - if your opponent puts their racket somewhere, and you're bad/stupid enough to hit the shuttle against it - tough luck. If the shuttle is so close to the net that there's no way around the racket, it's also going to be close enough to hinder you from executing your shot properly, so it's your point in that case, and rightly so. If the shuttle is loose and 20+cm away from the net - you can play around the racket, and have the advantage that the opponent fixed himself in court right at the net, so they wont be able to return a flat shot to the back.
    Again, if you're unable to play around a standard racket placed at the net that is far enough from the shuttle that it doesnt interfere with your shot at all, than you just don't deserve the point. I have to say I dont see this come up as a problem very often, even players at the lowest levels are usually able to play around the racket unless it's a pretty clear case of interference/reaching over the net.
     
    phihag likes this.
  19. Charlie-SWUK

    Charlie-SWUK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    4,398
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Occupation:
    N90 sycophant
    Location:
    SW UK
    Ok so in your opinion if there's no way to play around the racket, it's a fault only then? I mean I absolutely see your point on this, but one could play devil's advocate and say "You can let it drop lower and play a crosscourt" or something. I guess you could argue the intent to play a shot... I'm not sure. I'd much rather this weren't a practise because this gets so fiddly.
     
  20. j4ckie

    j4ckie Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    6,305
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Location:
    Germany
    My opinion is that on my side of the court, I (should) have the right to place my racket wherever I want, with the sole exception being interference with my opponent's shot.
    Let me put it like this, if I can put the shuttle in a place where you have no option but to play it directly onto my racket WITHOUT it interfering with your shot at all, I deserve the point because it's pretty much impossible to do so (geometrically speaking, it's entirely impossible).
    The only occasion where you realistically have no way around my racket is if I play a loose net shot, then put my racket right in front of it, in which case I'm clearly interfering with your racket's path and the point will have to be conceded to you.
     
    krysser and phihag like this.

Share This Page