I am talking about a net drop shot that is dropping parrallel and very close to the net. When I am free next time, i will draw a proper diagram.
Exactly. You will never see a pro blocking because it's stupid but mainly because he cannot touch the shuttle if the lift is high, but you see often front players jump up and trying to intercept it way above the head to kill this kind of lift. And yes, the lift is likely the most safe shot dealing with tight netshots in doubles.
If you take that one late in doubles, you made a mistake anyway, and I've never seen a block of the kind you're describing in a pro match
It is still possible to use the "brush up" lift technique but the waiting block racket reduce the chance greatly. Yes, the pro do not use it, you tend to see this very often at club level instead. Pro are not taught to block this way. They are train to be ready to pounce on the return instead.
If it was as effective as you claim it is - wouldnt pros use it as well? After all they do try to be as good as humanly possible...
Because it gets called as a fault by half of the umpires, demonstrated by several clips. It was pointed out earlier it could be seen as a violation of 13.4.5 as distracting the opponent.
I really dont think so. It's never done in doubles at all, and in the cases it gets called a fault in singles, it's called for obstruction because they were too close to the shuttle. If you've seen otherwise, please show me, because I've never seen a fault being called for distraction. Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk
I wanted to comment on doubles, but I don't know doubles pro play well enough to make an absolute astute comment. But, it seems to me, that in high level doubles play tight net shots aren't really played as much. The front player is usually feeding towards the middle to cut off angles of reply/prevent pushes, and the rear court player is very rarely playing slow shots. It seems there are a lot more fast shots, mid court shots, and net shots that are looser but fall faster. To get a really tight net shot, you usually need spin, and to hit it more 'upwards' to get it to drop at a good angle. Maybe they fear the kill too much, I'm not in a position to say why. Maybe I'll ask next time I see one of the top level coaches.
They dont play higher net shots because any pro worth his salt will follow a defensive block towards the net (or allow his partner to do so) and would probably kill a high net shot before it dropped below net cord height. Since youre in an advantageous position when playing such a shot, even a 20-30% chance of having your shot killed isnt worth it, and in most cases the chance would be even higher than that. Also, the shot itself is unnecessarily risky in that situation, given that you're usually further away feom the net than singles players are when they play a tight net shot. Edit: although there are a lot of net shots played on the return of service, I've never seen someone stand there amd block it. At least not anywhere upwards of very low regional (city) level.
Holding a racket is almost never a distraction. Could you link to the precise sources, i.e. a clip where a fault gets called per §13.4.5 for holding the racket at the net? I've just reread this thread, but I'm unable to find them. That may just be my misunderstanding though.
Now I'm confused. Let's go through your post in detail: (Emphasis mine). Out of the 10 examples you cited, 0 were called faults (often the video cuts earlier, but that's my interpretation). How does that support your hypothesis of 50%? By someone playing by their own house rules, maybe. Can you cite a case in the last 20 years where an umpire called fault per 13.4.5 for holding the racket at the net, let alone a case with an internationally certified umpire? Just so we're on the same page, the wording of §13.4.5 is How on earth could holding the racket in a sensible position be a fault under that rule?
For singles...and now for doubles, please. I made yesterday during club night the experience what Charlie described. We played a doubles match. My partner did a dropshot. One of my opponents played a high netshot (easy to kill with a tap) but immediately raised his racket on his side an inch away from the cord to the height of my contact point for the kill. I was lucky and needed to adjust my kill to a brush and hit his frame with the shuttle and the shuttle flew out. Luckily we made the point, but I was obstructed to do a kill, a legal shot and stroke. IMO the rule of 13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net is difficult to judge. Who can judge if I was obstructed or not? From my point of view, I was obstructed, which means to me to have less choice to do a legal stroke, when you opponents racket is involved and limits you. It's impossible to judge it bulletproof. If this means that my opponent has here high chance do win the rally, when he makes a crappy netshot, I have here two chance: 1. hitting my racket into his racket. I get the point but this means -150€ on my bank account when I need to break a racket to get a point. 2. I get angry and this guy is always rewarded when he does this after his crappy net-shot and gets the point. And here a small story. I know a line judge for BWF events and umpire for the bundesliga who don't even know that it is a need to change the sides in the 3rd set. According to him if 11 has passed, it's impossible to change the sides, which is a hoax. Just my 2 cents on the issue that umpires are always right and don't fail.
Lol!!! But remember there is wide variety of umpires, some good some are not, just like in everything else. Some good umpires might get bad just because of a long break or been tired or having something bad happen in their life ... I never meant that the high lift would be lethal in doubles only in singles and if a player staying above the net blocking the shuttle. In your case hard to judge without seeing, but unfortunately in most cases you would need to hit the opponent's racket for obstruction to be called...
Let me start by saying that @ucantseeme actually discusses a valid case of §13.4.4, where rackets are close to each other. This is different from the previous topic of this thread, where the posters are hitting the shuttle below the net. The umpire can and will. If there is no umpire, you can call loudly fault. This is the same situation that already exists for other faults, such as service fault / receiver fault. I feel this is overstated. First of all, you can be obstructed even without contact, and it sounds like you definitely were. With an umpire, a very light tap would be sufficient (but not necessary) to show obstruction, and should not break any rackets. This is correct - you don't change sides in the 3rd set in the Bundesliga, and never at 11 points or after (unless it's the end of a game). Please review appendix 3 of the Bundesligaordnung, which clearly states: That being said, of course umpires can be wrong. But they are - especially at the higher levels - regularly rated, tested and educated, ensuring a high quality of decisions.
That's what we'd all like, but KNOW isnt the case. Even on bwf level there's a lot of idiots running around
I just want to tell you what he does and his qualification. We don't play bundesliga and nothing else which is close to bundesliga and he stated this rule in a recreational match during training for our game. I play in the BLV-NRW and the rules for NRW are not the same as BL. 8.1.3 is valid for us.
