Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by Slanter, Jun 27, 2002.
Er... timeless, I don't think that was me. At least I don't recall you trying to block my smash.
Your interpretation seems correct after re-reading the rules but I've always believed and have seen it mentioned on this site within a news article by another coach that you have to actually play a shot, I don't feel that a stationary racket could be described as playing a shot but then again... ?
I'm going on an umpires course shortly and will find it an interesting question to pose.
Do I see signs of "brain damage" for timelless now? As he started to mess up his memory now...
maybe people are mis-interpreting Law 10.2
10.2 the shuttle is hit alternately by the server and the receiver until a 'fault' is made or the shuttle ceases to be in play
If, instead of blocking the net, I have played a bad shot, hold the racquet up in front of my face to defend myself (not near the net), and the opponent hits the shuttle onto my racquet, and the shuttle bounces back over the net.
Would you consider the shuttle to still be in play?
You're opening quite a can of worms if you say that it doesn't count as having played a shot if the shuttle hits a racquet that is being held still.
e.g. can your partner play a shot after the shuttle has bounced off your racquet?
If I'm at the back and smash, the shuttle hits my partners racquet, (which he is holding still, not playing a shot) and goes over the net. Is that a fault? Only 1 person has "played a shot" so does it fall foul of 13.6.3
it is a fauilt if, in play, the shuttle is hit by a player and the player's partner successively
it sounds extreme, but it is the ambiguity of the laws that gives rise to all these little nooks and crannies.
I've been playing 30 years and also coach at county level, I can honestly say that the few times that I've seen the situation I described happening, each time it's been called a fault, I've never argued with the umpire as it was also my understanding too. I conceded the point to you but please don't go to extremes.
cappy75, yes, that was you. I was holding my sides laughing like crazy when that happened. Lucky it scored through timeless' natural hair-parting
OK. Better left for other borads...
It seems too much is left to interpretation... for example an opponent rushing the net and making as if to smash could or could not be interpreted as distracting the opponent.
Holding a stationary racket in front of the net as the opponent is lifting could also be intrepreted either way...
Which is way most of the interenational level players don't employ therse tatics?
What you think guys...
I know nothing about the law of badminton but i am pertty sure that Lin Dan won a point by blocking a lift, volley ball style, in a recent tournament. If i am not mistaken, the match was against Peter Gade.
Going by this prededent, i guess the extremely annoying block is legal.
So who says umpiring a game is easy?
But I guess much has to depend on circumstances and it needs the vigilant eyes of the umpire to quickly size up the situation and make a verdict according to what he has been trained for under IBF laws.
In general, a player should be in no danger of commiting a fault if he maintains his body and position on his side of the court, ie, he holds his racket within his own court area without invading his opponent's court by placing his racket across the net such that it may obstruct his opponent's play or he crosses over his opponent's area with his feet or hands.
So in your first example, when a player rushes to the net to smash or pretending to do so, either in anticipation of a weak return or purely to bluff his opponent, it is all right so long as he does so within his own court area. Of course, if in the process he tries to distract his opponent with his wild antics, then the umpire can warn him. So long as his opponent is not harassed or obstructed into making a clean stroke, it is all right. A clever opponent can capitalize on the situation by making a good fast clear as he rushes forward.
As for your second situation, it is perfectly all right again so long as you hold the racket on your side of the court and ensure that you are not obstructing your opponent form making a clean stroke. In this case your opponent has the option of crossing the shuttle from the base of the net instead of just lifting it in front of you. He still has space to make his stroke. But if the shuttle has not gone down and he wants to play it at about net tape height, but you are there in close direct proximity, holding your racket in front to block his shot, then you can be faulted for obstruction. He can't make a clean stroke! But if you are further away, say near to the short service line, then you cannot be obstructing his stroke.
So it really depends on circumstances and you are then at the mercy of the umpire.
Hmm.. in that intrepretation.. he/they would be at fault then, as he/they usually hold the rackets at about 4 to 5 inches away from the net... sometimes even less...
What's with all this interpretation?! IBF, amend the laws so we have clarity, for Pete's sake! Put it on your to do list right after "Move to KL".
And while you're at it, put a time limit on how many seconds a server can take to serve. And for that matter, how many seconds a receiver can take to get into ready position.
And include the lighting specs (angle and illumination) and acceptable noise levels so court owners can build courts without blind spots and karaoke bars!
Man, there really shouldn't have to be so much speculation, interpretation, analysis of the rules. It just leads to arguments on the court that can't be decided with any finality. Rules should be clear and comprehensive.
this is the way i interpret it. take a look at these 3 rules:
latter part of 13.3 tells us that the striker near the net is allowed to invade the air space of the opposite court if it is a follow through.
13.4.4 tells us that the receiver is not allowed to prevent the striker in rule 13.3 from making a legal stroke (legal according to 13.3).
the only way in which a receiver can prevent the striker from making a legal stroke is to block it. and since a follow through is at most a few inches into the opposite end, then the receiver is not allowed to block a few inches from the net, or however far is considered an interference.
if you follow my logic so far, the only ambiguity is how much is considered an interference. it is 3 inches, or a foot? or 2 feet?
Kwun, interference then could be considered by the result, i.e. clash of rackets which obviously has interefered with the follow through ?? If there is no clash then I suppose there has been no intereference with the follow through. I'm not saying I totally agree with this but it is a logical point.
Following on from the above, a follow through is only going to happen when the shuttle is replied from above the tape, so when the shuttle is below the tape (no follow through over the net) then logic would say that it is not illegal to leave your racket stationary at the tape (on your side of the net) in the shuttles pathway. I still feel that this could be seen as sort sort of obstruction and have always believed it to be so but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to say clearly that it's illegal.
I have posed the question above to the Umpires Association of England...am awaiting a reply.
Who is going to perform a proper shot when the follow through could potentially result in a broken racquet, because some fool is blocking the net with his racquet?
It's no surprise that the only people who perform this shot are intermediate at best, and tend to have a whole array of cheap, querky techniques such as the foul serve I mentioned in another thread.
Annab (puso mo..peace)
Being a part owner of a court and am on the organizing committee for our tournaments I whole heartedly agree...
PS: that Karaoke thing been fixed yet??
Could you kindly post the reply/ies here.. it would help a lot, also about the rushing thing, it is just to obvious a distraction ploy.. just wonder if it would be allowed in a tournament... and if a warning is issued by the umpire, how would the point go, or is it a let??
this article says that it is illegal to obstruct the opponent’s racquet from completing a swing.
Hypocritically, if I do a drop shot near the net forcing the opponent to lift the shuttle, all the while I’ve held my racquet just above the net but still on my side causing the shuttle to instantly bounce off the bed of my strings to fall on their side of the court, is that illegal? Bear in mind, I have not obstructed the swing of their racquet
I'll say it is legal.
Because the receiver has the option to play away from your racquet like making a cross net shot instead of just lifting.
I thought as much!, club making a fuss because it was too unexpected for them, lol.
I did mean “hypothetically” but I suppose you gathered that anyway.
thank you very much for your reply. I shall go in with full force and demand an explanation from them now.