Vkok needs to reread the rules he's been quoting. There is no need for racket to invade for obstruction to be called.
I don't think rereading will help him understand. The notion of follow through seems to elude him ...
My pure technical argument is, I as an opponent in this example, raised the racket in my side of court with the intention of blocking and returning shuttle back to your side of court. My intent is not of preventing you from making a stroke. What wrong or what fault am I making ? This is pure technical discussion, a single line rule can be interpreted in many different ways. This is an attempt to find the correct interpretation as well as logic behind it.
It doesn't matter your intent if you are preventing me from making my stroke it is an obstruction fault. There are no exceptions in the rule it can't be interpreted many different ways.
I didn't need slow motion to tell, it was glaringly obvious on normal speed from a bad angle even. The way you can tell is how high above the net the shuttle is when the attacker reaches it and then how close the defender is blocking it. Being the height this one was means IR'S follow through could have been extensive (before her legal stroke would be stopped by hitting the net). We are talking feet not mm.
craigandy in your post #17, in this thread, you have mentioned that, 'Of course covering your face is no excuse with regards to the rules it's still a fault' Then, I was trying to understand, how covering a face could be a fault ? Now after going through so many posts, my guess about what you were saying is : 'Striker is smacking shuttle close to the net and opponent is also very close to the net. To avoid shuttle from heating his face or eye, opponent holds head of his racket, in front of his face. But, this very evasive action of the opponent is obstructing or preventing striker from making a legal stroke, hence it is a fault' Is my guess right ??
• Here, I agree with you. My intension was not to prevent you from making a legal stroke, but still my action has prevented you from making a legal stroke, hence it is a fault. • Well, rule can be interpreted in many different ways, but only one or may be couple of interpretations will be regarded as valid ones. • What I feel is ‘act of obstructing or preventing opponent from making a legal stroke’ is very, very subjective to judge. In my opinion it is much more subjective than service rule (9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server’s waist at the instant of being hit by the server’s racket. The waist shall be considered to be an imaginary line round the body, level with the lowest part of the server’s bottom rib) • In case of obstructing or preventing from making stroke, here umpire has to not only observe but has to also judge so many things at a time like, racket positions of two players, how far they are from each other, how far they are from net, position of shuttle, what kind of stroke striker is trying, in which direction striker is striking, has racket of any of the player crossed over the net, has racket crossed over the net after striking the shuttle. Etc. • It is again subjective to decide as to what will be the permissible distance between opponents racket, in case of such close encounters. This permissible distance will also vary according to kind of stroke attempted. What I mean to say here is if a striker is attempting dribble over the net, then there is no much of back-lift and follow-thru as against a tap or a kill or a smash. • Permissible distance between rackets will again vary according to size and reach of striking player. If striker is tall and having long hands then will his opponent have to step back a bit ? • Under all this subjective pre-judgments umpire has to ultimately judge has striker been prevented from making a strike. • Is it safe to say that, striker is prevented from making stroke only when clash of rackets happens ? • In an instant case of RI vs. LXR, it is argued that, LXR prevented RI from making stroke. But RI did make a stroke and won the rally on very same stroke. So is she really prevented from making a legal stroke ? Many many points to ponder !! ha ha !!
Ok a couple of things I will say on this. 1. With regard to it being hard to judge, there is a switch over line in badminton where most rules are hard to judge and become marginal, service height/racket direction, line calls, illegal shots, touching players clothing. This rule is no different to the others in this regard when it hits the limit it becomes hard to judge. Lets use this case in hand, this was not marginal, this was the equivalent of somebody serving over head or calling a shot "in" that was a metre "out". I can understand judges erring on the side of caution when it becomes marginal, but this wasn't marginal and with this rule I don't think it is majorly important to make the call when marginal because the attacker will have enough room to play with anyways. 2. It doesn't matter which stroke the attacker is trying, that is not the stroke that they may play if they were not prevented from doing so. Said many times in this thread. You can't just dream up "oh I have seen player play a net tap in this situation therefore they must have been only going to play a net tap" It is just nonsense. The attacker has the right to a full follow through regardless of common shots that are played in such scenarios. I will touch on the other points, you said "Well, rule can be interpreted in many different ways, but only one or may be couple of interpretations will be regarded as valid ones." well only one valid one but what a statement Yes if they have long hands whatever if they can reach you with a follow through you need have your racket out of reach. Yes if they clash the obstruction has for sure happened Yes really, IR was really prevented from making many strokes. see point 2.
It's not that you have to use tapping (a compact "tap" with the racket close to vertical to the floor) but that it is usually the safest choice in that situation. In fact, while there are hardly any obstruction calls on the defenders, there are no lack of fault calls on the attackers in that situation, often because they did not use the tapping technique, or tapping with the racket at a sharp angle, and ended up going over the net before contacting the shuttle. Those are much easier calls for the umpire. The defender has every right to block the shuttle. It is only the attacker's racket that the defender should not block. As long as the defender leaves some room for the attacker's racket, net blocking is perfectly legal.
As I said if the players safest choice is to tap the shuttle, if the player always usually taps in that scenario, the player loves taps, they named their favourite cat after the tap shot, it means absolutely nothing with regards to the obstruction rule.
I find the bold part in above post the most relevant and most logical. Just because defender raised his racket above the net doesn't mean he has obstructed the opponent.
