as all of us probably have read by now. there is much controversy right now over "when am i/you ready to serve and when you/i am ready to receive."

traditionally, we have allowed the players to go sort it out. the server waits an appropriate amount of time unless the receiver raises a hand signifying no.

this works ok unless someone started to exploit the gray areas, putting hands up to delay the service, serving too early to catch receiver off guard.

it is better not to dwell on previous error as that's not very constructive. however, it is good to learn from it. after the recent incident. do you think a new rule for tournament play is warranted?

here is a suggestion.

instead of letting the players sort it when is the "right" time to play. let the umpire do it:

1. umpire look at both receiver and determine both are ready
2. umpire says "play" and server much serve within 5 secs.

after the umpire says "play", receiver has no right to overrule.
a service before play is a fault and rally is lost.

Players waiting for the umpire's call would slow down the tempo of a match too much. It would be devastating for the audience, I think. It would also take away an important psychological aspect of the game, when players can't dictate the tempo between rallies. Now they can -- within limits of course -- pretty much decide if they want to keep the tempo up, and when they need to slow things down. An important part of the game if you ask me.

Overhand serves and serving above waist level are bigger problems, as most service judges seem too liberal about it, and it does give the server a direct advantage.

There is some ambiguity. The umpire will only be looking primarily at the receiver, so if the receiver looks up and the serve has already started to go into their serve the umpire may be unaware, this I beleive happened on sunday.

Just as some receivers often look down and then hold their hand up to slow down the server some servers (many indonesians, Dave Wright from England a few years back spring to mind) walk up and serve without even pausing making the receiver unready.

I don't think we can involve the umpire Kwun but the benefit of the doubt should go to the receiver, if the server is bothered by the repeated lets they can of course delay their serve slightly. I don't feel this is a major problem in general, just one of those grey areas that occasionally gets highlighted by a big event.

correct me if im wrong but isnt that whats being done in volleyball? the umpire checks the receiver, then looks at the server then blows the whistle. isnt that how its done?

personally, i think it would be good to the sport. thats one less concern for the confusion and the umpire will be really involved and notice any delaying tactics from both sides. i personally dont think it slows down the game nor would it favor one side as long as proper rules are laid out and its done properly. im all for it.

now if theres only a way to correct other serving errors...

I tend to agree with Mag. Then, it's up to the umpire to decide wether one pair is gaining undue advantage or not. The ebb and flow of the game is quite an important part of the enjoyment.

However, to be fair to the players, a verbal caution is warranted before the issuance of a yellow card for 'disruption of play'.

Possibly the routine could be altered as follows, the rally ends, server and receiver take up their position, the unpire calls the score, the serve commnces within 5 seconds, thus implementing Kwun's idea without adding unnecessary vocabulary.

5 seconds? Seems quite a short time.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons we do not see much communication on the badmitnon court...no time to talk tactics.


Dave Wright from England a few years back spring to mind) walk up and serve without even pausing making the receiver unready.

One of our BFer's serves just as the receiver gets to their receiving position. :) and has caught me out a few times. I deliberately put up my hand to force him to slow down.

I notice he's really quiet on this issue:D:D

Some players walk up and without even making eye contact or appearing to look up serve, its extremely difficult to receive!

Originally posted by Cheung
5 seconds? Seems quite a short time.
The Laws do say that play should be "continuous".

Originally posted by dlp
There is some ambiguity. The umpire will only be looking primarily at the receiver, so if the receiver looks up and the serve has already started to go into their serve the umpire may be unaware, this I beleive happened on sunday.

Just as some receivers often look down and then hold their hand up to slow down the server some servers (many indonesians, Dave Wright from England a few years back spring to mind) walk up and serve without even pausing making the receiver unready.

I don't think we can involve the umpire Kwun but the benefit of the doubt should go to the receiver, if the server is bothered by the repeated lets they can of course delay their serve slightly. I don't feel this is a major problem in general, just one of those grey areas that occasionally gets highlighted by a big event.

i hope that the new rule will erase teh gray area.

the ambiguity you mentioned shouldn't be there. let me explain.

the sequence of events will be like this.

players stand. the umpire look at the receiver (as you said). determines that he is ready. then immediately look at the server. if server already started the stroke, fault. if server has not and looks ready, then announce "play". if server prolongs the preparation for too long, fault. may be 5 seconds is too much, 3?

hate to add more rule to a simple set of badminton rule. but i have seen this service timing problem comes up time and time again. recent ones are:

JR/LP vs. Candra/Halim - Copenhagen Master 03
Lin vs. Wong - China 03

i am sure there are others.

Lets not compare with volleyball. Volley is not closely enough to compare with badminton. Try Tennis?

Why would you need to make eye contact with the receiver to serve?! Sure, take a glance at where his racquet head is and how he's standing, but this former comment I don't understand...personally when I'm receiving I try and stay on my toes and concentrate very hard on the shuttle...

The best is include a t.v ruling as well. I'm sure there are other officials courtside that watch the game. Once there is a complain from players and the umpire can't make any decision or the player insist of the decision..he/she should refer to the chief empire.

A little passive-aggressive, aren't we;)? I think it's important to at least make eye contact before one serves to make sure both receiver and server are ready. Implicit understanding of both parties readiness comes not just from the stances but from the other player's aknowledgement of readiness. It won't do the receiver any good if he has his head down and looking away from the birdie but he's not ready while the server thinks he's ready to receive just from the stance alone.

I am sure concentration after the initial eye contact will be just as good as having no eye contact at all.

Originally posted by samohtom
Why would you need to make eye contact with the receiver to serve?! Sure, take a glance at where his racquet head is and how he's standing, but this former comment I don't understand...personally when I'm receiving I try and stay on my toes and concentrate very hard on the shuttle...

I've seen a match where i didn't know whether the receiver was raising her hand to signal wait or its just her stance. It was a womens singles player from indonesia i think. During the WC03. Just confusing.

Originally posted by Neil Nicholls
The Laws do say that play should be "continuous". Which is another problem given the high workrate of modern badminton. And that rule has contributed to this problem.

I'm not sure about the need for eye contact. Many people assume eye contact means "OK, I'm ready to serve, you're ready to receive" but some may not choose to do this for other reasons. e.g. intimidation by the receiver who crouches really close to te receiving line.


Like Mag said, foul serving is a bigger problem in the game.

Kwun's got a point and it makes sense that the players shouldn't have advantage over the service but I agree with Mag that if the umpire does have control over the service timing, then it takes away the tempo of the game. I have often use the quick serve to built up momentum, as soon as I win a point, I run over to pick up the shuttle n as soon as the opposition is ready, I flick serve. It sorta gives me an advantage as I don't give anytime to the opposition to think about what they did wrong and just continue the rally.

Isn't the server allowed to serve only after the umpire announce the score? If so, the game flow is controlled by the umpire and nobody else.

Maybe we ought to leave these sort of decisions

to the players themselves, after all they have a players federation.

Even Associations have a better idea.

We are merely spectators, let the people on the grond decide what' sbest for

themselves.

Did players themselves ask for our help?

Lets have a look how the umpires work:
Just before executing a serve the umpire is looking at the receiver. Therefore the umpire perfectly knows whether the receiver is ready or not. If he is ready he will return the serve, if he is not – then should stand still and wait for announcing the let. It is umpire’s decision whether the player is delaying the game and should be warned (not necessary with the card)
That system is very simple and effective, and in my opinion no changes are needed.

The place where is “gray” area is time for receiver’s preparation (the same concerns the server). Introducing here the rule of five seconds (or any other exact time limit) will cause more problems than it can solve. I cannot imagine how to count seconds (one skubidu, two skubidu, etc. or use stopwatch) and when to start it, this will make umpire thinking about silly things instead of concentrating on the game. Saying “play” so many times will be confusing also for spectators watching six matches in one hall and hearing “play” all the time.

regards,
dzgdz

Pardon my ignorance what' s skubidu.

The only one I know is the old dog cartoon " Scooby Doobidoo Where are You ?"

the story of a dog afraid of ghosts.

pardon my spelling...

I was referring to the way of counting seconds without using a stopwatch. In such cases people repeat the words/sentences (even strange ones) to measure the number of seconds running ;)

Can you imagine umpire doing this during match point at MD final in Olympic Games? :D

regards,
dzgdz

perhaps one more umpire is necessary?

Originally posted by blckknght
perhaps one more umpire is necessary?

Hang on one moment, I must be confused! :confused:

During International matches, besides the Umpire, is there not a "Service Judge"? (one who sits at the net opposite the umpire?)

Maybe we need to better define the role of the Service Judge?

Just like in volleyball, there is the Second Referee.

I fail to see the problem in the current setup. No matter how you decide to set up service, there will always be people who will look for ways to take advantage. As it stands, I think the system is fair.

Someone mentioned the problems of people serving too fast and people delaying the serve.

When I play against those guys who suddenly serve, I just always keep my hand up after every point. Simple enough I think and they can't serve until you're read

With regard to delaying the serve, this is no decision for a player. I think the umpire is the one who should be on top of whether you're trying to slow down play.

For my part, an umpire never stopped me from stopping a "quick server" from sneaking in a quick serve. And I don't raise my hand to delay play and rest so I've never had a problem with the ref on that front either.

not to harp on, but i too think that the current system is quite sufficient, not too complex, but not to loose either. the problem this weekend was caused by a combination of Eriksen not looking up once he has served - which he shouldn't have to... and the possible distractions affecting the Malaysian players causing them to become unready after being ready the last time Eriksen looked up.

in my eyes this is a let, altho if anybody were to repeatedly become unready i think a warning would be in order. It can't be that difficult to ready yuorself - everybody else manages....

Neil

I think it would be hard for the umpire to tell when both players are "ready". From most of the players I've seen locally at various calibers this is what I notice most...

Most receivers take up quite an aggressive appearing stance with arms raised and weight forward. However, in comparison, there are quite a few players that can look rather passive when receiving serve. I've seen players that stand with their arms down, racquet head hanging by their ankles, with a totally placid looks on their face. I find many people will actually ask them if they're "ready" before they serve. And of course there are those who think they're not quite ready so they try to take advantage of the situation and serve right away.

On the other hand, I've seen quite a lot of players that will take the shuttle to the service line, get into their service stance, then just stand there motionless, as if comtemplating the the meaning of life, all without even once looking away from the floor. They'll provide you with fair time to get ready though, but you'd never know if they were actually prepared to serve or whether they knew you were even standing in your receive court. With both arms hanging down by their sides, they'll suddenly serve, also without looking up. So many players serve similarly to this at my club it's not even funny. They'll use any cheap method of getting a weak service reply they can. Almost every game I have to setup to receive with a hand up to nullify their cheap service antics.

These players have their service "theatrics" down to such a performance that any unsuspecting player or umpire would be taken for sure. Although having an umpire call out "play" at every serve might help fix the problem, I personally think it would affect the flow of the game too much. It would be much better to get to the root of the problem and clamp down hard on faulty services and service ploys.

Originally posted by timeless
These players have their service "theatrics" down to such a performance that any unsuspecting player or umpire would be taken for sure. Although having an umpire call out "play" at every serve might help fix the problem, I personally think it would affect the flow of the game too much. It would be much better to get to the root of the problem and clamp down hard on faulty services and service ploys.


That's why you should have your hand up all the time against these people. I think that's a small price to pay for not involving the ref in something as simple as when to serve. Besides, most refs i've played with have recognized that kind of rush serve tactic. If your arm is tired, just watch the shuttle hit the ground and say "not ready". Sooner or later, your opponent will get the idea.

As it stands, there are so many ways to attack using the serve that that sort of cheap point steal is unnecessary.

Besides I think changing the pacing of the game is a valid and necesssary skill in badminton. Sometimes your opponent gets on a streak and you do need to slow the game down just a tad. I'm not talking purposely cheating but using all the time allowed to be ready. In tennis- Jimmy Connors used to run to the side to grab a towel to dry off, and slow the pace of the game down. In badminton, although the game is continuous, you can still take a moment (after the last point) to pause and walk slowly to the opposite service receive area.

The pacing change is obviously also very important when serving. Its not only important to vary serves but the timing. Sometimes I've varied the pace and my opponent leans forward/falls off balance because he was anticipating the timing but the variance threw him off.