Ok so there is a net exchange going down, you hit a poor net shot the opponent is right their and smashes it from their side following his racket over to your court which is fine. The problem is his smash clips the net tape heavily taking everything out of the smash you are still at the net and want to return the shot instantly but opponent is still obstructing you from his legal follow through he made a split second ago, or he has brushed over the shuttle followed through shuttle has been overbrushed so no speed and you want to brush it straight back but you can't his rackets in the way from the legal brush he made. Is it a fault? or is it the one time you are legally allowed to obstruct your opponent on their side of the court?
he will only be at fault if you hit his racket in your attempt to hit your shot... which means nobody knows until you try your shot i know you're risking a racket clash, but it's a split second decision you have to make in order to establish your right of way
Sorry found this thread that talks about a similar situation http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php/62163-Net-blocking Just the difference is that the defender in my scenario did not block but was blocked by the attacker on return. Still I think it is grey when the defender becomes the attacker and has right of way and also when the attacker becomes the defender.
The fact that this all happens in a split second is near impossible from my imagination. In this case, I would allow the "obstruction" because his shot was legal. Yes, his racket is in the way, but the fact that the rule book states he is allowed to reach over the net in a follow through shot, I cannot penalize him for obstruction as he is just doing what he is allowed to do. Like I said, this has to happen all in a split second, otherwise it would probably be obvious he has had his racket there for too long and keeps it there, and I would call a fault for obstruction. But like I said, I think it's near impossible unless you are standing at the net knowing that the person isn't gonna smack it back in your face and then at the same time you predict where the shuttle will be at and then swing back at the same time as he is following through.
Thank you CST. I have same view as you on this I think the obstruction may be allowed but was wondering technically say on a coach training course what the answer is. It is very possible with the brushing scenario no real shuttle speed may be involved.
Funny that this "near impossible shot" happened today and was on caught on camera in the Victor Axelsen v Boonsak game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKHRsPciIdY 37m22s onward
I think Boonsak is unlucky as it was his shot first and he was impeded to complete his shot as Viktor had his racket right there. It is also hard to tell because its not super slow mo but to my eye it seems Viktor hit the shuttle first, might be my eyes playing tricks. Kindest regards, -Ajay- Quote of the Day Use soft words and hard arguments.
Actually I was convinced that Boonsak was obstructed to begin with too but when I slowed it down it is not true below is a picture of Boonsak when contacting the shuttle. There is no way he could have followed through to hit VA before or up until just after contact anyway, but this was the initial question I asked 4 years ago, at what point does the attacker lose his rights?
This was exactly what happened to me a few days ago! Except there was no umpire because it was just a social game, and I chose not to clash my JS10...
I can understand it to be clear cut when the defending player just shadows the shuttle at the net with racket head and is obstructing the whole time but the rule kinda falls down in this scenario when untill contact no obstruction of possible follow through but the follow through becomes obstructed due to the defender eventually playing the next shot(eventually in this case = really quickly)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYK3mraljtQ @ 0:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etjU9JcR7yc @ 4:09 and 4:43 I guess a lot of pros does attempt this blocking/obstructing move, is this fault or no fault? As no fault is called on either, Jorgensen's whole racket head is on Ouseph's side
Fault if 13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket or person except that the striker may follow the shuttle over the net with the racket in the course of a stroke after the initial point of contact with the shuttle is on the striker’s side of the net With regards to rule "13.4.4 obstructs an opponent..." no fault for first vid @17s or second vid @4:09 can't tell about 4:43 one bad angle. With regards to "13.4.2 invades an opponent’s court over the net with racket..." the first vid @17s can't tell from camera, the second vid 4:09 no question Jorgensen fault and @4:43 can't tell from angle.
I did a number of slow-mo replay of this scene and found that in this picture you've shown, VA's racket head speed is really fast, much faster than of Boonsak's. I think that VA hit the shuttle which just left Boonsak's racket but yet to pass over to his own side. The shuttle then hit Boonsak's racket at the frame which cause it to fly sideways landed out. This is just my guess. I wished they would have shown us the footage from the camera just above the net instead of this angle. I know they have the camera there, just don't know whether is it recording. I just realised, I don't even know what the umpire officially faulted boonsak for. Is it obstruction? Or she thought boonsak hit the shuttle out? In my opinion, VA is just trying his luck and got away with it. But I personally don't like it because it's just a cheap move.
Yeah VA hit the shuttle just after it left Boonsaks racket you are right that picture was to show the point of contact that VA's racket was not obstructing, but obstructed BP's legal follow through but only because VA had become the attacker, so when does the rights switch? Gill said she heard the umpire say obstruction fault Boonsak btw. I agree I find all these kill returns at the net cheap.
Indeed it's a tricky situation when both players are going for net kill. As you mentioned the switch of the role of attacker and defender could be in the micro of seconds, normal human reaction and judgement just aren't adequate to make a just decision. Net kill is an end move that a player earned by out-playing their opponent. If the rule allow a net kill's follow through to be faulted just because the opponent counter with their own 'gamble' net kill, I think the rules must be improved.
but somehow 4:43 seems like LCW was actually obstructing Zwiebler although no fault was called, Zwiebler just smiled without objecting to umpire and this make me wonder how far is actually obstructing or net blocking is allowed, seeing no fault was being called at any occasions, was it the objection from Boonsak side was because the umpire ruled him off the point even though the shuttle landed out regardless the obstructing/net blocking issue? sorry for my bad misunderstanding in English^^
Yes seemed like mark thought he was obstructed and yes the call hardly ever gets made weirdly. With boonsak Case, I Could Not Understand What Him Or Coach Was Saying but can't been arguing that there was a call made other than it just being called out because The 2 players actually clashed rackets before the shuttle landed so a fault needed to be called one way or other. Boonsak and coach would have known that.
I tend to agree that BP played a completely legal shot with a completely legal follow through and got his racket twatted by VA. so surely there is only one call fault Viktor. But not sure who obstructed who "first", VA was well out the way untill BP played the shuttle(see still page1) and was just playing his return
