how many times have you read "Laws of Badminton"?

[kwun]

just wondering among us hardcore badminton fanatics, who has read The Laws cover to cover? and for the real hardcores, how many times have you done that?

in case you want to read it now, they can be found in:

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/laws/laws2002.pdf

[cooler]

guilty here. I only had read selected portion of it, about 33% of the book.

[ayl]

Hmmm. Failed again in this criteria. Read 0% of the book so far. :o

[shiriblue]

0!! w00t w00t!:p

[badrad]

couple times in the beginning for the coaching and tournament organizing. then periodically just to resolve silly little questions now and again.... such as - server/receiver movement.... hahahahahah

[Dill]

Same as badrad, read it for coaching exams a couple of times and then certain sections for revision/clarification afterwards

[cooler]

Originally posted by badrad
couple times in the beginning for the coaching and tournament organizing. then periodically just to resolve silly little questions now and again.... such as - server/receiver movement.... hahahahahah

LOL, those crafty oldies;) :D

[Kennyb]

Nope, I actually learnt most of the rules from training. I'm more of a practical person than a bookworm really. :D

[ants]

Guilty as charge.. none of them. I leave it to the umpire to decide if i did anything wrong. heheeh.. i will just make sure my shuttle goes into my opponents court and i score a point :D

[kwun]

i actually sat down and read through the whole thing word by word once. it was a very educational and rewarding experience, highly recommended for anyone.

[yonexfanatic]

i myself have to admit i haven't read too much of the book. i mainly acquired the knowledge of the rules from others in the badminton community. But because i've taken a couple of coaching courses, i have had to take a look at the rulebook; obviously becuase i need to coach others with the knowledge of the rules

[ants]

I have read it. It looks very interesting and educational. discover somethings as well.

[jump_smash]

Same as Badrad.

[Loh]

Don't let other players hustle, dictate or bully you! Know your rules. Play by the rules and you can't be far wrong!

Come to think of it, we should keep a copy of the Badminton Laws in our bag for ready reference should there be a dispute and in case we are not too sure. With the Laws always at hand, you have an authority hard to contradict. But you need to be sure of its interpretation lest you be outgunned!

[badrad]

Originally posted by Loh
Don't let other players hustle, dictate or bully you! Know your rules. Play by the rules and you can't be far wrong!

Come to think of it, we should keep a copy of the Badminton Laws in our bag for ready reference should there be a dispute and in case we are not too sure. With the Laws always at hand, you have an authority hard to contradict. But you need to be sure of its interpretation lest you be outgunned! BTW - have any of you had someone try to bully or try to hustle you out of a point by their interpretation of the rules? Doesn't it often seem that most of these occurences happen more with the most obnoxious players? There always seems to be at least one of these people in every gym... wonder if all these critters are descended from the same obnoxious ancestor? heheheh :D

[bigredlemon]

Of course... which is why it's good to know the rules. I've educated a few people on the correct interpretation, and getting a point here and there in the process. :D

Come to think of it... i'll print out a copy now and leave it in my racquet bag. Only 1 page at 2point font. :)

[yonexfanatic]

Originally posted by bigredlemon
Come to think of it... i'll print out a copy now and leave it in my racquet bag. Only 1 page at 2point font. :)

i always keep a copy of the rules in my bag as it's included in the badminton alberta handbook:D ..but like isaid, i still haven't thoroughly read through it all

[Break-My-String]

(I know this thread is a few months old)

I probably have read it a couple of times, but now keep a copy of it on my PDA, it's easier to search for key words!

Cheers!:)

[Pete LSD]

:cool: With PDA attached to the back of his polo, BMS should be renamed as the Read The Rule (RTR)! Any argument over rules, BMS will out his PDA for instant read out! :D




Originally posted by Break-My-String
(I know this thread is a few months old)

I probably have read it a couple of times, but now keep a copy of it on my PDA, it's easier to search for key words!

Cheers!:)

[Traum]

Originally posted by kwun
i actually sat down and read through the whole thing word by word once. it was a very educational and rewarding experience, highly recommended for anyone.

Hmm... you are being sarcastic here, right, kwun? Educational, maybe. But rewarding?

-Rick

[kwun]

can be rewarding, no? now i can pin down which rule that guy always break and fault him.

"fault!"

"what?"

"you moved your feet. according to the Laws of Badminton Section 9.1.3, both feet must remain in contact with the court surface!"

;)

[Neil Nicholls]

Originally posted by bigredlemon
Of course... which is why it's good to know the rules. I've educated a few people on the correct interpretation

If a law is worded badly enough that it needs interpretation, then I don't believe there can be a correct interpretation. If there is an interpretation that ALL umpires use, under all circumstances, then the IBF should clarify the laws.
If it depends on circumstances, maybe there should be something in the "Recommendations to umpires".
IMO

[Gollum]

I tend to carry a copy in my racket case. I'm particularly fond of educating the club players over here about the "you can hit the shuttle twice" rule.

[Loh]

Originally posted by Gollum
I tend to carry a copy in my racket case. I'm particularly fond of educating the club players over here about the "you can hit the shuttle twice" rule.

How about educating me on this one!

[Rome076]

No comment....

[Gollum]

Originally posted by Loh
How about educating me on this one!

Well since you asked :D Here's the relevant law:


It is a fault if, in play, the shuttle:
[list=1]
is caught and held on the racket and then slung during the execution of a stroke;
is hit twice in succession by the same player with two strokes;
is hit by a player and the player's partner successively; or
touches a player's racket and continues towards the back of the court.
[/list=1]

Now, the laws define faults by an exhaustive list. Anything that is not explicitly mentioned is not a fault. The correct interpretation of the above law is that, if you make a single stroke movement that hits the shuttle twice, your shot is perfectly legal.

This sort of shot occurs quite often, especially when using slice. Club players are in the habit of calling "no shot", but they are wrong!

Clearly you can't change the direction of your shot in any way - no volleyball shots allowed! Nor can you carry the shuttle on the racket. But you CAN hit it twice in a single stroke movement.

[Loh]

Originally posted by Gollum
Well since you asked :D Here's the relevant law:



Now, the laws define faults by an exhaustive list. Anything that is not explicitly mentioned is not a fault. The correct interpretation of the above law is that, if you make a single stroke movement that hits the shuttle twice, your shot is perfectly legal.

This sort of shot occurs quite often, especially when using slice. Club players are in the habit of calling "no shot", but they are wrong!

Clearly you can't change the direction of your shot in any way - no volleyball shots allowed! Nor can you carry the shuttle on the racket. But you CAN hit it twice in a single stroke movement.

Interesting point you brought out. However, I'm not quite in agreement whether in executing the 'slice' shot, you are actually 'hitting (the shuttle) twice in a single stroke". My understanding of the slice shot is that you are hitting TWO PARTS (the feathers and the cork) of the shuttle SIMULTANEOUSLY, ie. at the same time with a single stroke - only once, not twice. Otherwise it will be a 'slung' shot, which is a fault.

I don't know what others think about our interpretations.

[Gollum]

A slung shot is where the shuttle is caught, held and then slung. It's like the way many players catch the shuttle on their racket between rallies.

I agree that most slice shots do not involve two hits. However, some slice shots and some flat-faced shots DO accidentally involve two hits, one immediately after the other.

[Loh]

Originally posted by Gollum
A slung shot is where the shuttle is caught, held and then slung. It's like the way many players catch the shuttle on their racket between rallies.

I agree that most slice shots do not involve two hits. However, some slice shots and some flat-faced shots DO accidentally involve two hits, one immediately after the other.
Agree that it is very difficult to fault a well executed slice shot but if it is quite obvious to the eyes that the shuttle is hit twice with whatever kind of stroke, the umpire should call it a fault.

[Gollum]

That's correct, because if it is obvious to the eye, then it must be an illegal "change in direction" shot. These legitimate double-hit shots occur in a small fraction of a second, from an odd contact with the shuttle.

[Break-My-String]

You know you have read the rules one too many times when...

you can quote the fault via the rule's number and its subsection..;) :) ;) :p :D

[Mads U]

I too have read the rules front to back a couple of times.
One time I read the English ( official Int. Bad. Fed.) and the Danish version in parallel to see if there were any discrepancies.

In my club – as in many other places – most rule related discussions stem from service/service return situations.
But also classics like: what if the shuttle gets stuck on the net? And: Can you play with two rackets.

One thing has struck me when reading or looking up in the rules.
When something unusual happens during a game, and you are not sure how to handle it.
You look it up the rules and – WOW. It must have happened to someone else, and enough times for a rule to have been formulated.

Then you can let your mind wander and see these old British geezers discussing the “terribly intriguing dilemma” – and for the very first time agreeing on whether or not it is fair to move before the service has been released.

Well, probably there were heated arguments and people storming off for duelling pistols, but I prefer to imagine the fathers of the feathers to have been Imperial gentlemen.

For most of the rules I am able to imagine how the rules have evolved as “the game of feathers” evolved into the sport of badminton.
I can even remember some of them, like the banning of the Sidek service.( 9.1.4 )

But there are rules that disturbs my sleep. They fall in 3 categories.

1: Missing rules.
Things (of relevance to the game) that are not or too loosely described in the rules.

2: Unnecessary rules.
Rules which make no sense. For instance if breaking the rule does not give you an advantage.

3: Poorly or strangely formulated rules.
Wordings that are self contradicting or are wide open to interpretation.


Naturally I have my favourites, but I would like to ask all of you out there:

Which is Your favourite in each of the 3 categories?

Mads U Jensen.

[Loh]

Originally posted by Mads U
I some of them, like the banning of the Sidek service.( 9.1.4 )

But there are rules that disturbs my sleep. They fall in 3 categories.

1: Missing rules.
Things (of relevance to the game) that are not or too loosely described in the rules.

2: Unnecessary rules.
Rules which make no sense. For instance if breaking the rule does not give you an advantage.

3: Poorly or strangely formulated rules.
Wordings that are self contradicting or are wide open to interpretation.


Naturally I have my favourites, but I would like to ask all of you out there:

Which is Your favourite in each of the 3 categories?

Mads U Jensen.

Hi Mads, Can you give references or examples of the above 3 categories to share with us? Maybe then, we can give you our opinions.

[kwun]

my favorite rule, actually not really a rule, is the ones that defines the size of a badminton court.

does anyone ever noticed that the badminton court is the "perfect" size? it is the length in which most of us can clear at. it is big enough to make us work very hard to cover the whole court, while not small enough to make it too easy. even for very fast players like the pros. the size of teh court seems to be just right, they are always at the boundary of being able to cover it.

and all these was determined 100+ years ago. while at that time, the technology behind the shuttle is different, the physiques of the players are different, even the shuttlecocks are exactly made the same way.

but despite that, it has stood the test of time. no one have ever suggested that the badminton court size needs to be changed. it is just right, just perfect.

this has always intrigued me. "how did they come up with this perfect dimension?"

i think that is the best rule of it all.

[Loh]

Originally posted by kwun
my favorite rule, actually not really a rule, is the ones that defines the size of a badminton court.



Yes I agree that the court layout is so simple yet intriguing! But I'm not sure whether it really started from 100+ years ago as earlier pictures showed very simple layout or it has evolved over the years. Maybe someone should do some research on this. This reminds me of the perfect calculations in building the pyramids of old!

We have seen how even world class players had to struggle to keep the bird in and any shots that are either short of length or depth can be killed quite easily.

And have you also pondered on the height of the net, a mere 5ft at the center and 5ft 1in at the posts? Despite taller players emerging over the years, they could not gain undue advantage when pushed to the baseline or when a perfect high serve is executed by equally world class players with unusual abililties with net plays and retrievals, including diving saves. :p

But on the question of fairness, the Laws make sure this is adhered to at the very start of the game by mandating that both server and receiver must have "some part of both feet remain in contact with the surface of the court in a STATIONARY position from the start of the service until the service is delivered" (Law 9.1.3). So the receiver cannot pounce on the serve beforehand to gain an undue advantage.

[Mads U]

Sorry for not replying sooner, but here comes my favourite
"This-rule-could-be-erased-and-no-one-would-miss-it rule"

4.2 The stringed area

"4.2.1 shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings either alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross.
The stringing pattern shal be generally uniform and, in particular, not less dense in the centre than in any other area; and "... (here comes 4.2.2 size of stringbed )

To me this looks more like a guidance for racket manufacturers than a rule.
No player would gain an unfair advantage by breaking these rules.

For instance by stringing less (LESS !!) dense in the middle of the racket, or by not interlacing the strings.

I my opinion both of these would leave you with a less effective racquet.

We might as well have a rule stating that the grip should be rolled round the handle with overlap and there should be no gaps - especially where the thumb is placed?

What I do miss, however, is a rule regarding the playing surface or the condition hereof. We could be playing on grass or even a beachvolley court as far as the rules are concerned.

There is one more sentence I think we could erase without consequences....
But You go find that yourselves.

/Mads U

[hatecapletters]

Hi there,

voted "What are you talking about ?", and then I read through the whole thing. For a foreigner like my self, the language is very stiff, but when you chew your way through it, it's very educational in many ways.

One definition is missing though (IMO). When exactly is the shuttle "out" ? Is it the exact point of contact between the shuttle and the floor in the moment of impact ? What if the contact point is outside the line, but the base of the shuttle still covers part of the line (when seen from above) ?

Where can we find the exact definition of a shuttle beeing "out" ?

take care all
hatecapletters

[tonten]

heh I've read through it many times.
I haven't memorized it word for word, but I remembered all the general ideas of all the little rules and large ones and ones that you rarely see in a game on court.

Alot of the rules are very amusing to me. I like how it's written.

The handbook I have includes one of these (well parts of it I think heh).

[Winex West Can]

Read it through a few times and other times scanned to confirm a rule but it is just as interesting to read the instructions to the officials like this one recommendation to the Umpire regarding Gollum's and Loh's discussion about the double-hit.



3.8 During the match the following situations should be watched for and dealt with as detailed.
3.8.1 A player sliding under the net (and who also thereby obstructs or distracts an opponent), or
throwing a racket into the opponent’s court should be faulted under Law 13.4.3 or 13.4.2
respectively.
3.8.2 A player shouting to a partner who is about to hit the shuttle should not necessarily be regarded as
distracting the opponents. Calling ‘no shot’, ‘fault’, etc should be considered a distraction.
3.8.3 Coaching during a match from off court should be prevented. If this cannot be controlled by the
umpire, the Referee should be informed immediately.
3.8.4 Players going off court to wipe their hands etc: if play is not held up, this is acceptable, but, if one
side is ready to play, the offending side may have to be reminded that leaving the court needs the
umpire’s permission (Law 16.5.2). If necessary, Law 16.7 should be applied.
3.8.5 Changing the shuttle during the match should not be unfair. If both sides agree to the change there
should be no objection by the umpire. If only one side wishes to change the shuttle, the umpire
should take the decision, having the shuttle tested if necessary.
3.8.6 Law 13.6: a double hit by one player with one stroke is not a ‘fault’.

What is interesting is recommendation 3.8.2 which said that a player shouting to a partner about to hit the shuttle is not a distraction but calling "No shot" or "Fault" or etc (here I assume that notifying the partner that the shot is no good) SHOULD be considered a distraction.

In response to MadU's comment on stringed area, there is an impact on how the racquet is strung. I think it was a result from tennis where a stringer/player strung his tennis racquet with every other main/cross and wrap string around each of the mains. This created an effect on the tennis ball hitting the string and bouncing off with all sort of weird spin. I would invite folks to do a search on google for "Spaghetti Stringing". After hearing and reading about this, I was tempted to try stringing a baddy racquet the same way to see what the result would be but have not gotten around to it. If anyone is brave enough to try, please post the results. :D

[Neil Nicholls]

What is interesting is recommendation 3.8.2 which said that a player shouting to a partner about to hit the shuttle is not a distraction but calling "No shot" or "Fault" or etc (here I assume that notifying the partner that the shot is no good) SHOULD be considered a distraction.

If a player calls "no shot" or "fault" it is a distraction to the opposition. Only the officials decide if there has been a fault. If a player hears a call of fault he may stop playing.

[Winex West Can]

If a player calls "no shot" or "fault" it is a distraction to the opposition. Only the officials decide if there has been a fault. If a player hears a call of fault he may stop playing.

That's what I thought too but then this is another player shouting to his/her partner who is about to take the shot. :confused: I know that we do it all the time during our club play.

[Wizbit]

How about when you play a shot that is going to go out, whilst the other player who also knows the shot is going out, catches it on his racquet outside of the marked court, before it falls to the ground? in competitive play, is this a fault?

I thought you could only rule it out when it touched the ground...so in theory (though not really possible) that a gush of wind will blow the shuttle in, at the last moment.

In our level of play, sometimes when playing singles, a player will catch a shuttle before it lands (mainly from a long serve) because it is obviously going out..but I am not too happy when someone does that to me, as I hope that a tropical breeze will make it's way over :p


That's what I thought too but then this is another player shouting to his/her partner who is about to take the shot. :confused: I know that we do it all the time during our club play.

[Wizbit]

Also, is it legal to recieve serve with your back turned but face looking back and racquet up? I know it would be disadvantageous...but the thought of doing that in competition makes me laugh :D

[Winex West Can]

How about when you play a shot that is going to go out, whilst the other player who also knows the shot is going out, catches it on his racquet outside of the marked court, before it falls to the ground? in competitive play, is this a fault?

I thought you could only rule it out when it touched the ground...so in theory (though not really possible) that a gush of wind will blow the shuttle in, at the last moment.

In our level of play, sometimes when playing singles, a player will catch a shuttle before it lands (mainly from a long serve) because it is obviously going out..but I am not too happy when someone does that to me, as I hope that a tropical breeze will make it's way over :p

Obviously if you go by the rules, that's considered a fault. You have to ask yourself whether the player catches the shuttle because it is so obviously out and it might end up in the other court (interfering with their play). I don't see why you can't let them know that they should let the play drop. Obviously in competition, that's a fault.

As for your other question about standing with your back to receive the serve. Nothing in the rules about it so it's legal.

[Neil Nicholls]

That's what I thought too but then this is another player shouting to his/her partner who is about to take the shot. :confused: I know that we do it all the time during our club play.

3.8.2
A player shouting to a partner who is about to hit the shuttle should not necessarily be regarded as distracting the opponents.
Calling ‘no shot’, ‘fault’, etc should be considered a distraction.

I don't think 3.8.2 makes it crystal clear and unambiguous but it has two seperate sentences, which I think mean:

1) shouting to your partner is ok, but only if your partner is about to hit the shuttle.
2) shouting at any other time, or to anyone else, is to be considered as a distraction.

Now, even in the first sentence it says "should not necessarily be regarded".
This may be to prevent players shouting something for every shot.

"No shot" and "fault" are usually called by a player after he has played a shot, so that would not fall under sentence 1.

Does anyone think that the use of "etc" in sentence 2 is useful?
Does it imply my interpretation?

[Loh]

It seems alright in a social game to intercept an opponent's shot that is "obviously" going out although it has not yet landed.

But as pointed out, "unthinkable" situations can arise whereby a seemingly "out" shot could well be "in" and that's why players can often be caught in tight situations of errors of judgement and lose a point.

So it is always better to go by the rules and let the shuttle land on the court surface first before picking it up, to be fair to one's oppoenent. It is considered a fault if one 'catches' a shuttle before it lands out as the racket forms part of the person and the shuttle is therefore liken to hitting the body of the receiver. :p

[FlamingJam]

ive read it a few times a have a copy next to me ive just had the review it as ive taken (nad passed) my coaching award

to Lohs's point i can hit clears were i 'spin' the shuttle it flies and appears just out of the tramlines when it is nearer the back of the court it curls or glides into the back corner of the court id b pretty annoyed if u caught the shuttle.

[Ken]

I've read it a few times but find no answer to the following dispute!

It happened last Sunday when I was playing Doubles at my club - my doubles partner was trying to return a dropshot from our opponent, then one of the opponent rushed to the net and just held his racket up above the net waiting to block my partner's lift return (before my partner hit the shuttle) without performing a stroke (no hitting action at all) to intercept my partner's lift return then accidentally, my partner's lift return hit the opponent's racket head and bounced straight back to our court floor!! So I called it a FAULT and we had a dispute about the incident.

As I remembered the same incident once occurred at another club and the organizer/supervisor called it a fault. But this time (last Sunday), our opponents insisted that they did no fault and so we decided to back down and end up lost one critical point and felt robbed!

So here I am asking you experienced players (umpires), am I right/correct or wrong to call it a fault? Is there any other badminton laws/rules book I can refer to? Your knowledge of the above issue would be much appreciated. Many thanks.

Ken

[jug8man]

i think it is legal as long as his racquet was still in their part of the court. also that the shuttle hit his racquet/stringbed (pls clarify) and not a part of his own body.


thats my opinion. someone else should be more qualified tho to answer this.

cheers

[Ken]

Yes, my partner hit the shuttle to the opponent's static (stationary) racquet/stringbed and bounced back to our side of court. There wasn't a hitting action from the opponent at all, not even with a slight tapping action from fingers/hand/wrist/forearm! :crying:

I have seen professional players (Kim D M) perfomed jump interception to cut down opponent's lift from the net at forecourt area, of course with hitting action.

Need more help please!

Ken

[jug8man]

Yes, my partner hit the shuttle to the opponent's static (stationary) racquet/stringbed and bounced back to our side of court. There wasn't a hitting action from the opponent at all, not even with a slight tapping action from fingers/hand/wrist/forearm! :crying:

I have seen professional players (Kim D M) perfomed jump interception to cut down opponent's lift from the net at forecourt area, of course with hitting action.

Need more help please!

Ken


i actually try to do this all the time. do you know how hard it is to actually connect? the chances are like almost zero. i got it only three times and that was just purely by luck. plus 2 out of 3 times the shuttle still crossed over to my side of the court and we (my partner and i) were fault! cause it drop into my side of the court.

i suppose im a windmill most of the time :D

[prophet]

It is a fault. :eek: That is not a legal stroke.

Mainly in order for your situation as describe to occur, your opponent's racquet must be angled over into your side of the net, so that your partner's return of a drop shot (obviously returning from low to high) hits their racquet and bounces back.

The initial contact of your opponent on your side of the net to 'block' the shuttle violates law 13.3.

Law 13.4.4 is violated because your opponents racquet's prevented your partner from "making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net. (Directly from the Law)"

The shuttle must clearly go over the net (obviously it could be by a mm!) before it can be struck by a legal stroke.

Print out the Laws and show your opponents next time you see them.

Good Luck. ;)

[quisitor]

Re: Fault or not

Reading was never exactly my strong suit. Understanding-- what's that :confused:
(The Disclaimer)

I see no fault at all with your opponent's action.
Blocking is not illegal.

[vienly]

why don't they ever write it in english?? lol....

[Ken]

It is a fault. :eek: That is not a legal stroke.

Mainly in order for your situation as describe to occur, your opponent's racquet must be angled over into your side of the net, so that your partner's return of a drop shot (obviously returning from low to high) hits their racquet and bounces back.

The initial contact of your opponent on your side of the net to 'block' the shuttle violates law 13.3.

Law 13.4.4 is violated because your opponents racquet's prevented your partner from "making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net. (Directly from the Law)"

The shuttle must clearly go over the net (obviously it could be by a mm!) before it can be struck by a legal stroke.

Print out the Laws and show your opponents next time you see them.

Good Luck. ;)


Hi Prophet,

Many thanks for your reply.

Is it also violate the law if the initial contact of my opponent is on their side of the net to 'block' the shuttle and the shuttle bounces back to our side of court? Thanks again.

Ken

[jug8man]

Hi Prophet,

Many thanks for your reply.

Is it also violate the law if the initial contact of my opponent is on their side of the net to 'block' the shuttle and the shuttle bounces back to our side of court? Thanks again.

Ken

well was your opponents racquet over the net in to your court area?

please clarify.

[Ken]

well was your opponents racquet over the net in to your court area?

please clarify.

Hi jug8man,

Thanks for your reply again. Since no hitting/swing action so the racquet head was on their side of the court. Thanks.

Ken

[ReVoLuTiOn44]

Pls tell me wat are those thing you telling...

[aerotus70]

I got a few questions after reading the "Laws of Badminton"
1)If i smash or drop the shuttle and it hit the top of the net then went over to my opponent side, does it count as a fault or do i get a point?


2)In a singles match, i got the 1st serve and got a point (1-0) following that i will be serving on the left, if i lost the serve when i was serving from the left which side would my opponent be serving? left or right???
The laws says zero or even points serve from right and odd from left, does it mean points from both sides add together or points of the serving side?

Can someone please help a badminton noob:confused:

[Neil Nicholls]

1)If i smash or drop the shuttle and it hit the top of the net then went over to my opponent side, does it count as a fault or do i get a point?

You win the rally.

When serving:
Shuttles hits net and lands on your side. Fault
Shuttles hits net and sticks in net on your side. Fault
Shuttles hits net and sticks on top of net. Fault
Shuttles hits net and sticks in net on other side. Fault
Shuttles hits net, goes over, doesn't land in service box. Fault
Shuttles hits net, goes over, and lands in service box. You win the rally


Shots other than the service:
Shuttles hits net and lands on your side. Fault
Shuttles hits net and sticks in net on your side. Fault
Shuttles hits net and sticks on top of net. Let
Shuttles hits net and sticks in net on other side. Let
Shuttles hits net, goes over, doesn't land in court. Fault
Shuttles hits net, goes over, and lands in court. You win the rally

[Neil Nicholls]

2)In a singles match, i got the 1st serve and got a point (1-0) following that i will be serving on the left, if i lost the serve when i was serving from the left which side would my opponent be serving? left or right???
The laws says zero or even points serve from right and odd from left, does it mean points from both sides add together or points of the serving side?

Only the points of the serving side.

[aerotus70]

Thank you for the quick reply :)

[Mads "U"]

This has to the most useless rule ever - anywhere.

"2.1: The shuttle shall be made of natural and / or synthetic materials.":confused:

The only way to break this rule, is to make a shuttle out of no materials. (Or supernatural (if these are not considered synthetic.))

[hyperactive]

hahaha...good spot!