Alright it does seem we are in a good deal of agreement here, the loose shot thing. You think that's under .5 instead? Maybe I'll have to be brazen and call this.
Sounds like everyone disagrees with the OP, which is good. Distraction is too subjective - holding up a racket should not count as distraction, esp if it is done with the intent of getting the shot back. It's like people calling cops and asking for safe spaces because their feelings were hurt-which unfortunately is happening around campuses. The only way to prove someone physically blocked you from making a shot is if you went for a racket clash, and it's their fault.
Or if they shout when not making a shot, or if the umpire calls an obstruction/distraction to prevent a clash, or not punish the player who avoids a clash and hampers their own shot as a result. Still, rules are fine as they are. Without an umpire, you may need to go for the clash to prove your point.
The response is missing the point of the forum, that to me is a pity. Here is where we discuss, many times, anonymously, without fear of being coerced, or worse, bullied or trolled, Here is where we discuss, and exchange, varied points of view, to dinf methods and techniques to interpret to help us understand this beautiful sport. To simple get an umpire is more difficult than finding the proverbial needle in the proverbial haystack, just look up the various confederations how many qualified umpires there are. It is not simple at all, that is why badders, if there is such a term, come to this forum, to seek out guidance, probably counsel in the proper direction. To me, club-recreation play, or whatever it is, scrimmage, pick-up, without an adjudicator, is just that - we dont dwell on the wording of the law, we just play. Now when someone comes for clarification, as a forumer (if there is such a term), we help the BC with that specific. We discuss our views. The OP did not make a poll, however, from the replies that have understood, the OP and this poster do not agree that was a legal play. Current interpretation of the play that the OP posted, and what the BWF instructors instruct, is a fault. This has however, no basis in the law. [The applicable law is 13.4.*.] BWF does not have any valid channel that users could reference; until that happens, we just discuss our opinions on this forum. Specifically, 13.4.*. For the OP, when I am umpire for that situation, no fault. Why? Application of law.
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. By the current laws of the game, this is perfectly legal, unless BWF's current interpretation of 13.4.4, in conjunction with 7.3. {7.3 The side winning a rally shall add a point to its score. A side shall win a rally, if the opposing side commits a ‘fault’ or the shuttle ceases to be in play because it touches the surface of the court inside the opponent’s court. 13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;} 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. Why benefit the player who has done nothing? And for the instance provided by the OP, these are professional players. The only professional who is not on court is, nay, are, the technical officials. --
What the heck is the definition of moving the racket anyway. It's virtually scientifically impossible to keep the racket totally still. I say we remove that clause in the rulebook as it is too subjective. Same with the legal serve height. What the heck is 'clearly above the waist'? Make it a universal 1.15/1.2m or something. This is 2017. Here is one way to effectively deal with the net block tactic- do a VERY large follow through after the tap, and the guy doing the net blocking will back off in case of the clash. Keeping the racket up shouldn't be considered a fault for distraction; you are trying to make a logical shot as I said before.
Ok, here's the problem I have with this situation, fully illustrated. For this purpose, the shuttle is quite close to the net. It's certainly not going to hit the service line from this position. It's not touching the net. Let's say something like 6-10" away from the net. The shuttle is quite low down the net, your opponent has their racket up, right next to the net. You're not obstructed in the conventional terms used, as your racket never needs to pass over the net to play this shot. However, you also cannot play the lift reasonably; maybe you can try for the cross court here, but it will also likely result in a kill. Maybe, a solution to this to append that the whole shuttle must be able to pass over the net? And I say able, because if a player reacts quickly, and moves in to take the kill, then I think this is fair. But, if the opposing player makes it so that the shuttle cannot pass over the net at all, that shouldn't be allowed.
I can only reiterate - I've only seen this be an issue at low levels, and even then, the racket was on the correct side maybe 10% of the times it interfered with the shuttle, meaning that 90% of the time the opponent reached over the net to block the shot. I still see it like that - if I am able to force you to play the shuttle there, and can put my racket on my side of the net in such a manner that it doesn't physically interfere with your ability to play any shot you want, and you still can't play around my racket, I deserve the point. Since I am only allowed to touch the shuttle on my side of the net without coming into contact with the net itself, my racket will probably be around 5cm from the net to avoid touching it or being faulted for reaching over, and if you can't lift over the racket then, once again - you're too bad to play the shot, which is fine, but it also means I do deserve the point since I forced you into this particular situation. Pretty much the same as playing over an opponent in such a manner that they have to play a high backhand, and then waiting at the net to kill it because they cant play a BH clear - you wouldn't say that's unfair either, right? Rackets are small enough that it really doesn't matter where the opponent has it, as long as they dont interfere with my shot they can hold it wherever they want (on their side of the net). If I hit into it, well, bad luck - or bad execution on my part.
In this situation, you're in a bad position. There are many bad positions in badminton, as well as in other games. A major part of the beauty of badminton - and virtually every competitive game - consists of moving the opponent into a bad position, and then worsening it step by step until you can finish the rally. When I take the shuttle on my backhand corner at the very back of the court, I'm not in a good position either. By the same logic, we could try to make that position more balanced, for instance by requiring the opponent to touch their backhand corner when they play into mine, or prohibiting the opponent from playing too far into my backhand corner. The point I'm trying to make is that laws must only ban behavior that would dominate the game and make it more shallow. Almost every situation can be avoided or handled by actual skill. In real-life games, the situation you describe is exceptionally rare. A superior badminton never gets into this situation, because they can take the shuttle early at the net, when it's still reasonably high. But what matters most is that we don't see this situation dominate tournaments at all. In our technique forum, there are absolutely no posts about how to hold the racket at the net in this situation. I have yet to see someone aspire to reach this exact situation during a tactical discussion. When you watch the sports' greatest, you see that they do have plenty of options in this situation. For instance, play a netcord shot (cross or longline) - let's see how your opponent gets that over the net without touching it. Or play a lift and show your superior defense! Just because you (not personally, but in this situation) got into a bad position during a rally does not mean that this situation should be prevented or balanced by changing the laws.
I completely disagree here. I think you're also creating unequal comparisons. This isn't about being able to play a shot or not based on your skill, this is about not being able to play a shot because your opponent is obstructing you, just in different terms to those used in the rules. All this takes is one lucky drop shot to create this situation. The backhand scenarios you're saying aren't comparable, because the shuttle can still pass the net. Saying the professionals play a variety of shots - they also never stand right up at the net with their racket. Even when expecting the kill, they provide room for their opponent to at least attempt their shot. I think that at its core, this is poor sportsmanship, and does worsen the game for its inclusion. Just because it's not in the rules at present, it doesn't mean it should never be in the rules. Look at the Sidek serve, there was nothing about which part of the shuttle you had to hit until that serve became a problem. I think that many people understand this is poor sportsmanship, and don't use it. It's certainly not trained as something for players to do normally. I truly think that ignoring this would be a mistake, but I also feel that it's not going to get included because these high level players aren't using it to dominate the game. This is unfortunate, because it seems like something that should be changed. In principle, the shuttle should always be able to pass over the net, and a player preventing the shuttle from passing over the net is not ok, whether it's with their body or racket.
No one is preventing the passing of the shuttle over the net. You can't touch it before it has passed to your side. To be quite frank - it seems you lack some understanding of the game. Not saying that it definitely is so. But try thinking WHY pros dont do this. It's not because it gives them an unfair advantage or because it is unsportsmanlike (hahaha, really? With the amount of influencing, complaining about net kills, illegal serves, why wouldn't a big number do this...). It is because their opponent may still play a lift, and they don't want to be left stranded, standing at the net. Again. I have yet to see this be an issue in any match. I have only seen it happen very few times, and in quite low-level competition at that, and even then the majority of times it was NOT a legal maneouvre, with the blocking racket being over the net instead of the own side. The argument that "it only takes one lucky drop shot" is invalid - otherwise there would need to be rules for net cords as well, for example a repetition whenever there is one? After all there is some luck to it. What about hitting perfectly on the line? That's lucky as well. People don't go for low-margin shots because the outcome is not likely to be in their favour. The same applies for a drop that would cause this situation to arise in the first place, it's very hard and risky to play, if the shuttle is to come down as steeply as needed to make blocking at the net a viable option, you need to play what we call a 'lampion' shot with the shuttle being played almost upwards, but slowly, so it drops down steeply close to the net....problem is the long time it stays in the air above the net. If the opponent isn't slow or in a bad position, it'll get killed. If the opponent is slow or in a bad position, well, tough luck. The rashid serve gave an unfair advantage, and was detracting from the game as it gave too much of an advantage to the serving party. That's why it got banned. This has yet to be witnessed as being an influence on the game in the first place, much less a disturbance or an unfair advantage. Please show any footage of this occuring at a decent level of play, for I have yet to see it. It's not because "most players won't attempt it because they see it as unsportsmanlike", I can assure you of that, I have seen many different players try an abundance of things to get an advantage, however unfair their method (including tampering with the shuttle, calling shots in their favour when they were clearly not out etc), yet I've never seen any of them abuse this - simply because it doesn't give you an unfair advantage. It's a gamble, and not a good one at that.
Ok, let's dial this back a bit because you're getting quite rude. You don't seem to understand my point about luck, hence why you went on a tremendous tangent. Luck isn't the factor here. I suggested that this situation could be produced with one lucky drop shot, where the player could then be forced into a situation where they cannot play a shot back that will pass over the net. If you look at one of the clips above, you'll see a player get faulted for preventing the shuttle from passing the net. And actually, one of my points was that this isn't common at high level play, and as a result it likely won't get changed. With regards to the lampion, the problem is that you can stand close enough to the net, without your racket being over the net or touching the net, that even this will not work. This is my issue, entirely, with this behaviour. You can't play the net shot back, you can't lift, and if they do something illegal there is nothing hard and fast to make it apparent or obvious. On your side, in the middle of a rally, it is not particularly easy to determine if someone has hit the shuttle before it has past the net unless they're really obvious with it.
Well I'm trying my best to remain objective about this, it really came across that way because you can be 100% certain that pros wont shy away from something just because it's unsportsmanlike when it gives a tremendous advantage. Anyhow. You can certainly play a tight net shot in such a situation, btw, you're treating this as if the racket was an extension of the net while it is, in fact, not, and if you can play the shot tight enough that it couldn't be killed by someone just standing there, it would be tight and slow enough that simply falling against the racket would actually mean it'd fall down on the opposing side and be your point. If the first shot is so tight that you cant play any other shot than a straight net shot, your opponent standing there with his racket at the net wont make a difference anyway - either you hit the net cord, in which case it goes over, or you dont, in which case it'd be killed anyway. I really don't see why this is an issue to you. The one thing I've seen happen is that someone lifts into a blocking racket (in training, mind you), and then it is usually shrugged off with a laugh or everybody chuckles because the racket was obviously over the net. The blocking of a net shot you describe is completely unfamiliar to me, and certainly not common or advantageous enough to warrant a rule change.
Instead of saying Charlie doesn't understand the game, just go ahead and explain him why-no unobjectionable offense is done then. On the other hand, complaining about someone being rude isn't an a good point to make. The argument simply boils down to if you don't physically block someone from making a shot, it should not be considered obstruction. Then initiate a goddamn racket clash if you want to prove it. If the racket is over the net, then that makes it even easier to clash. Those scenarios you describe about people blocking the shot over the net are not frequent, and in theory it is 'wrong' to do so anyway. Keeping the racket up is a logical shot under tactical considerations, so there is no reason to ban it. The sidek serve comparisons aren't a good one because they could be abused easily. This isn't the same as a net cord or a net block, which comes out due to luck and tactical outmaneuvering respectively.
What about these ones? Were they legal at all? Looked like some if not all of them got away with it, so what gives about Saina's case?
None of them were a fault per §13.4.4 of the Badminton laws. Some may have been a fault per §13.4.2 (racket goes over the net before hitting shuttle) - that's hard to see from the back, you need the camera shot from the umpire's perspective. Some (namely 0:35 and 2:55) would be a fault under @beefheart's suggestion, since Marc Zwiebler and Émilie Lefel "do not show enough skill".
Marc Zwiebler blocking LCW's lift was faulted. Thanks for the vid, that smash by Tago was exactly what I was referring to in an earlier post, pure entitlement. "Nooooo. I smashed onto his racket...that cant be right! It has to be a fault!" All while he was more than 1m away from the net and in no way impeded by MZ raising his racket there. Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk
Like one of the posters said, as long as your racquet is on your side and you contact your opponent's lift on your side of the net, it's not a fault. It's actually a gamble, because if the lift avoids your hanged racquet there, you have to run back to get it. In my experience, if I'm the one trying to kill a loose shot close to the net - and I sense that the opponent could be trying to "block" it, I hit the shuttle and afterwards purposefully hit the opponent's racquet with the follow-through. That case, he'll get faulted.
Other can do that if they are sponsored and their racket is cheap for them. For us which the racket is the only one and bought with blood and tears, that isn't a viable option
I didn't mean a full-forced hit obviously.. plus, you ain't supposed to hit with a big swing when you're in the net.
