2 hits, 1 stroke=fault?

[Tom Sou]

from the badminton rules at www.badminton.org

13.6.2 is hit twice in succession by the same player with two strokes

I say that 2 hits with one stroke is NOT a fault, my friend says it is.

Basically we're disgreeing on the definition of a stroke. He says the stroke is over once the shuttle has left the racquet. I argue about the follow through and that a stroke is a change of direction of the racquet.

Who is right? Is there an official ruling for the above situation?

TIA

[Brett]

Depending on the specific racquet - shuttle interaction, I will usually call a double hit or a carry on myself or a partner if this happens.

[shaun]

i as well.
2 hits on one stroke(which i consider a swing) i consider a double hit

[kwun]

no.

as long as it is one smooth swing. it can hit the birdie twice, but it won't be considered a fault.

[SystemicAnomaly]

the rules are very clear:

1- Double hit with a single stroke = GOOD
2- Carries = EVIL


Number 1 above is true by its omission in the laws of badminton. Law 13.6.2 specifies that a shuttle hit twice in succesion with TWO strokes is a FAULT. By its very omission from the rules, a double hit with a SINGLE stroke must be OK.

A carry, on the other hand, is addressed by Law 13.6.1:

"It is a 'fault'...if, in play, the shuttle... is caught and held on the racket and then slung during the execution of a stroke"

[cooler]

The problem begins when most of the time these shots fall in the grey area, somewhere between gregr's #1 and #2. The umpire or service judge in tournaments are the one decide but recreationally, it's negotiable :)

[Ming]

U DUM ASS !!

[May]

i think the correct answer is between cooler and gregr's explanations, tt is, from my interpretation of the rules, mind u, my interpretations r usually different, carrying from my Literature:D:D:D:D>

[SystemicAnomaly]

Tom, I would tend to agree with your definition of a 'stroke'. I've not really seen it defined in the Laws of Badminton. Has anyone seen such a definition?

Perhaps we can extrapolate a definition of 'stroke' from the definitions of a 'correct serve' in Law 9.

(9.1) In a correct service:

(9.1.7) the movement of the server's racket must continue forwards after the start of the service (Law 9.4) until the service is delivered; and...

(9.4) Once the players have taken their positions, the first forward movement of the server's racket head is the start of the service.

(9.6) Once the service is started (Law 9.4), it is delivered when the shuttle is hit by the server's racket or, in attempting to serve, the server misses the shuttle.


This is not really the same thing but it somewhat hints at what constitues a stroke. If the server was to stop their racket after starting the serve but before delivering it, they would commit a fault. If the server reverses direction of the racket, they momentarily stop the foward direction of the racket & thus commit a fault. (Technically, servers who shake their rackets forward & back prior to delivering a serve, also violates Rule 9. However, I don't believe that this shake action is ever called. Am I wrong?).

Getting back to 'stroke'... I would say that the stroke is not complete until the shuttle has been contacted AND the racket stops moving. Even a momentary stop of motion would apply. So if the racket reverses direction or has discontinuous motion I would say that the original stoke has concluded. If the racket starts moving AGAIN after intial contact (or the racket experiences discontinous motion), I would say that a second stroke has occurred.

The normal follow-thru of the racket in performing a stroke would NOT be considered discontinuous motion and thus would be a part of the stroke. A moving racket (continually) traveling in either a straight line or in a smooth arc does not experience a discontinuity.

(Note: I am using the mathematical concept of discontinuity in making my point)

[Cheung]

Never call your own fault unless of course the umpire does so first!

[Brett]

I assume your rule only applies to matches in which you have an umpire?