Obstructing.

Since a follow-through is part of the stroke, and VA clashed during during BP's follow-through, VA interfered.

 

Let's say VA hit the shuttle before hitting BP's racket, actually it looked like that to me, and it was still on VA's side of the court. Could it be that the rule is now reverced and its actually BP who has obstructed Viktor's shot?

A player should have the right to return the shot, as long as he doesnt hit oponent's racket first, right? Isn't it how the obstruction rule works?

 

I think what would solve this is the player who hits the loose shot that pops up in the air is not allowed to put their racket up like this. It's their fault for hitting a poor return and thus having the racket up should be banned. I know it is drastic but it would eliminate any grey areas about when the obstruction stops and the next shot starts etc. Just my opinion.

(possibly also because I'm too slow to get my racket up when I play such loose shots, haha)

Kindest regards,

-Ajay-

Quote of the Day
Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight.

 

Regardless of what seems to be fair or how the rule can be understood by it's frasing, the way it seems to be currently implimented is that the obstruction is called when rackets clush as there is no other definite way of judging the situation. That is what I was tought at the umpire course and that is what I was told by some international umpires.

 

But than weak net kill should also be punished by allowing a block, to keep the rule fair for both sides . And now we are back to the grey area

 

So, now in this case with BP and VA, there's a clash, but obstruction was not called...

 

I am very curious to know what was an actual fault that the umpire called. She only said "fault" but did not explain. Obstruction is a fault too... Or she might mean that the shuttle touched BP's racket after been hit by VA - than it's fault 13.3.10 "shuttle touches a player’s racket and does not travel towards the opponent’s court".

The replay in the video was not clear enough to say anything. I do not see when they clashed their rackets, though there was a clash sound when played the first time. My initial reaction was what you guys think - VA is at fault for obstruction, but I can see how it might not be the case...

 

I think this situation with BP and VA is good indication why. The following link is to the exact moment in the original video. Slow down to 0.25 speed, it works if you are on desktop computer, settings button in the bottom right, and tell me what you see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKHRsPciIdY&t=37m42s. To me it looks as Viktor's racket was actually moving forward when he hit the shuttle and it still was at something like 5 cm away from BP and only after that VA hits BP's racket. Why would it be an obstruction?

It is extremely difficult to judge those situations and there lots of things going on at the same time. Taking away the choice to reply to the net shot, especially when it invades your side, is not the most fair choice I think...

For me, what makes the difference is if the responding player is actually making the shot or having his racket stationary. If he just have his racket in front of the net without moving and his racket gets hit - that can only be an obstruction. If the player makes the shot, that is - moving his racket forward, than in most situations he first hits the shuttle and on the way forward hits opponent's racket as a result of his own shot... He is probably the one obstructed now, isn't that right?

There was mention of LCW against MZ. If I remember correctly, it was example of stationary racket, and that would probably be rather a fault.

 

Sorry, visor! I misunderstood your reply... hope post 30 contains the right answer . The clash confirms that there was an obstruction but not automatically means it is an obstruction...

 

I am getting crazy, oO, and answer what was not asked ...

I agree it is strange, but that is what I was told. Possible explanation is that the rule 13.4.4 says "obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net". The keywording "prevents the stroke". That would mean obstruction to the racket, not shuttle.

 

Yes, that is what I was told and it is consistent with what I see in videos...

 

this was what visor stated in the beginning then was negated by another member, seems this is really arguable and everyone having their own opinion on when to draw the line to call it fault even tournament umpire make questionable calls