My instinct is if your racket frame is not facing downwards and not crossing the net, it should be fine. If your frame is flat at 90 degrees to the floor or parallel to the net, it is ok. It's defensive and not offensive. Just my 2 cents input.
So if I play a floaty net shot but not far over into your side, you are ok with me just shadowing the shuttle with my racket 90degrees to the floor making it impossible for you to play a shot, your cool with that? with regards to the rules.
Thanks PeterPanPan in reviving the thread. The net control is seen more and more and used as a psychological and tactical ploy in today's faster paced play. As an umpire called in to arbitrate the technical situation the players present when at net, it is critical to make an instantaneous decision, decision that is solidly embedded in the laws, esp 13.4.2, 13.4.4 and 13.4.5. Several times it is beneficial to show the player what s/he did, as with hand gestures, or a quick explanation. When the racquet [head] is already into the opponent's side of the net to block the opponent's shot, it is a fault. The only time the player's racquet may legally go there is in the follow through, when the initial point of shuttle hit is on the striker's side of net [13.4.2]. There is also a situation of having your foot enter opponent's side below the net, it is invasion of opponent court, esp when charging toward the net. As to sportsmanship, the umpire cannot enforce it, it is not defined in the laws. The umpire may however rule any action or gesture as deliberate distraction [13.4.5]. At the elite levels, players know, and many have respect toward each other. And an umpire having the pulse of the game knows what gesture or shout is distracting. Now hitting the opponent racquet is not necessary a fault. The player must make a legal stroke, that is, hit the shuttle on own side of net. If I did not hit the shuttle on my side of net, then I loose my right to claim the follow through. The racquet held to block a shot on my side of the net is legal play for me. It only becomes illegal when you, the opponent, hits my racquet after playing the shuttle on your side. It can be 3 cm for the net or 3 feet, once your legal stroke touches my racquet it is my fault [13.4.4]. Yes there is a fine line, and that is at the net. --
"There is also a situation of having your foot enter opponent's side below the net, it is invasion of opponent court, esp when charging toward the net" That is not true you can cross below the net whenever you want. (when charging it is totally fine too) as long as you do not obstruct or distract your opponent which is extremely difficult, never saw obstruction under the net before "Now hitting the opponent racquet is not necessarily a fault." Yes it is, it would be covered by at least one rule depending on the situation. "It only becomes illegal when you, the opponent, hits my racquet after playing the shuttle on your side" This is not true. you only have to prevent(word in the rule) my follow through, I do not have to hit your racket
this happend yesterday. watch the rally: https://youtu.be/cDA44Qg0nqQ?t=1h4m46s how would you judge? umpire called a fault for lin dan...
Although one could slow it down and see that it probably was not a fault on Lin Dan's side by the SLIGHTEST of margins, I can definitely understand why the umpire faulted Lin Dan for that. The truth is that to the naked eye, it definitely came within an inch of clashing with CTC. And ultimately this is a judgment call for the umpire. If I were CTC and saw LD swinging at the same time you were swinging with a high probability of a clash, that would definitely scare me and cause me to change my shot. Now if LD had a much shorter action and hypothetically had around 6 more inches of space between his racket and CTC's, might have been called in favor of LD.
Easy fault, good call. If you pause it on contact LD is well within CTC follow through racket arc range fact.
I was going to write a long post about this, but I'll just leave it with this: This is what Cormac Breslin (BWF Umpire) wrote in his book about this situation: As in 13.4.2 above, a player must strike the shuttle on his side of the net but is entitled to follow the shuttle over the net into his opponents side with both his racket and person but without ever making contact with the net, in the course of completing the stroke, The onus is therefore on the receiver to allow this to happen. If you perceive that the receiver has deliberately attempted to restrict a follow through, generally done by pushing his racket close to and/or above the net, then you call “FAULT!”. Make an explanation of your call through words and gesture to the offending side.
Understandably agreed. But unfortunately in social games and in tournaments that don't have an umpire in the early rounds, it's my word against the opponent. Without an impartial third party umpire present, we can't call a fault ourselves and expect the opponent to honour that. As mentioned in that CTC vs LD case, if LD was 4-6 inches further away, he would've been fine. But as it was, it's a fault.
That's a interesting sentence for the guy to write, I don't think any of the "net blockers" are "deliberately attempting" to restrict their opponents follow through, their focus is just to try and hit the shuttle after it has been played. Take this LD v CTC case. LD was just trying to play the shuttle back but it just so happened that his racket was too close and CTC was prevented from potential follow through's so fault anyways. I heard Jan O complain about a shot he blocked and he kept saying he tried to play the shuttle(took a swing) so it was fine even though he still obstructed a follow through. Cormac's sentence seems to suggest he is of a similar thought which is strange as this is not the written rule.
