Hmmm... I never thought much about this, but now that you bring it up I remember seeing at least two international matches where this happened and it was NOT deemed a fault: <B>Poul-Erik Hoyer vs Sun Jun</B>, in the 1999 Danish Open semifinal. Hoyer makes a flat drive at Sun Jun, who squats and just puts his racquet up, the shuttle hits Sun Jun's racquet and lands on Hoyer's side. It all happened so fast... Hoyer looked pretty surprised but Sun Jun looked completely bewildered... Obviously he had no idea what had happened. Sun Jun won the point, although he didn't make a proper stroke. <B>Jesper Larsen & Jens Eriksen vs Ricky Subagdja & Denny Kantono</B>, Copenhagen Masters 1999 (?). Jens Eriksen squats close to the net with his racquet up, Ricky hits the shuttle straight at Jens racquet from close range. I didn't even understand what happened until I saw the replay... Anyway it was not considered a fault and the Danes won the point. Before the next serve, Jens Eriksen raised his racquet to Ricky to say "I'm sorry"... So, you're saying the judges were wrong? These were obvious cases. There were no proper swing involved.
not to dampen your agrument but your 2 examples given are not borderline enough for the need to bring out rule book. I see them as easy no fault calls. Saying sorry doesn't mean acceptance of a fault. I say sorry too when my smash shots bounce off the tape or hit on opponent body but the points still go to me. It has to be obvious illegal by the defender before a fault is call.
I believe the rule says you cannot interfere/obstruct your opponent so in my opinion it does not constitute a fault if you raise your racquet to anticipate a block at the net. But if your action interferes, obstructs or distract your opponent (i.e. waving the racquet to distract your opponent) then it should be a foul. This case is up to the umpire interpretation. What Mag commented about Ricky and Jens, I'm inclined towards Cooler. It could be that Jens was in a unfavourable position and likely to lose the rally but somehow he won it under a "fortunate" situation. Apologizing to your opponent just show his sportmanship.
This is also how I had interpreted the rules. And indeed, neither of those examples I described was an interference or obstruction. I just got confused by this (to me) new rule about racquet swing... it doesn't make sense. Is there really such a rule? Cheung wrote: "The block at the net is definately a fault. There must be a stroke."
Just repeating what the commentator said. I'm not one to go into the fine details of the rule book. Techniques are a different matter.
Just repeating what the commentator said. I'm not one to go into the fine details of the rule book. Techniques are a different matter though.
....my 2cents worth It is a fault to just be sitting at the net with your racquet up like a "flag" to block the shuttle. A player must contact the shuttle on his side of the net and is allowed to follow through on the after swing to the opponent's side of the court, but a racquet cannot be stuck straight up to impede the swing. That is a fault on the receiver cause they didn't allow the other team to follow through. A player rushing the net can anticipate a shot by swinging their racquet at the moment the opponent hits the shuttle, but cannot sit there with a raised "flag".
KC, which part of the shuttlecock hits the ground first? In most cases, it would be the cock / base end, then the call would be call "out". But, if the feather hits the ground first, the call should be "in". ( Not that you will see many of this happening but there is always a possibility!!) After all, the shuttlecock consist of feathers + cock / base. There is not rule saying that the cock must hit the ground first.
