Laws of Badminton after May 2006 [Archive] - Badminton Central Discussion Forums

Loh

11-20-2006, 11:19 PM

With the change to the 21-point rally scoring system (NSS), inevitably there are related changes and other relevant updates to the Laws of Badminton by the BWF, which were approved and adopted in May 2006..

Here are some that I've spotted:

7. SCORING SYSTEM

(There is now no difference between men's singles (formerly 15 points) and women's singles (formerly 11 points) and little or no confusion on deuce and setting as these are non-existent in the NSS.

7.2 A game shall be won by the side which first scores 21 points, except as provided in Law 7.4 and 7.5.

7.3 The side winning a rally shall add a point to its score. A side shall win a rally, if the opposing side commits a 'fault' or the shuttle ceases to be in play because it touches the surface of the court inside the opponent's court.

So every rally counts as a point for or against. Unlike the OSS (old scoring system) when a side can 'win back' the service without scoring a point.

7.4 If the score becomes 20-all, the side which gains a two point lead first, shall win that game.

So there is no need to call 'deuce' and 'set' to how many points as in the OSS. But the umpire should call the side that reaches 20 points first "20 game point...".

Game point should only be called once throughout the game, unless the side that subsequently reached 29 points first, then another call will be made for "29 game point 28" or "29 match point 28" if it is in the final (third) game. So in a game, the maximum number of times game point is called is only twice, unlike before.

7.5 If the score becomes 29-all, the side scoring the 30th point shall win that game.

Note that the call is 29-all not 29-29 or others like 20-20 (20-all) or 25-25 (25-all).

8. CHANGE OF ENDS

8.1 Players shall change ends:

8.1.2 at the end of the second game, if there is to be a third game; and

(Previously: prior to the beginning of the third game (if any)

8.1.3 in the third game when a side first scores 11 points. (Not 6 or 8 previously,)

9. SERVICE

(Some interesting and more definite changes as regards correct service.)

9.1 In a correct service:

9.1.1 neither side shall cause undue delay to the delivery of the service once the server and the receiver are ready for the service. On completion of the backward movement of server's racket head, any delay in the start of the service (Law 9.2), shall be considered to be an undue delay,

The second sentence is added to make it clear that once the server moves his racket backward he must then move it forward as quickly as possible to strike the shuttle without undue delay. He can't stop too long when his racket has been pulled backward before he moves it forward for example. It has to be smooth and he can't make intermittent stops along the way.

9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server's waist at the instant of being hit by the server's racket. The waist shall be considered to be an imaginary line round the body, level with the lowest part of the server's bottom rib;

This is perhaps the clearest definition of the waist which in the past has caused a lot of confusion. and if read in conjuction with Law 9.1.6 below, it has now taken away many irrelevant and unwanted misunderstanding and argument.

9.1.6 the shaft of the server's racket at the
instant of hitting the shuttle shall be pointing in a downward direction;

9.2 Once the players are redy for the service, the first forward movement of the server's racket head shall be the start of the service.

13. FAULTS

It shall be a 'fault':

13.2 if, in service, the shuttle:

13.2.1 is caught on the net and remains suspended on its top; (but not when in play, then it will be a 'let'.)

13.2.2. after passing over the net, is caught in the net; or

13.3 if in play, the shuttle:

13.3.3 fails to pass over the net

(So now, if a shuttle is hit outside a post, did not pass over the net, but eventually falls in the opponent's court, it is a fault. Previously not a fault.)

Please add more observations if you have.

If you wish, you can also ask questions on the Laws to clarify any situation.

hiroisuke

11-20-2006, 11:22 PM

Um...yeah. How exactly does the doubles serving rotation work exactly? No one has explained it in simple and clear terms to me yet. I was wondering if you could? THanks.

Also, so with the birdie hanging on the net situation, I think someone once told me, that based on the old rules, as long as you didn't make it over and onto the ground, it'd be considered the opponents' point. Is that true?

RiceBaiiKhao

11-20-2006, 11:47 PM

Before, in doubles, the serving team had 2 serves, always begginning with the person on the right, right? When the serve was lost, the second person took the serve(except in the begginning of the game, cuz only had 1 serve) And can only score points when serving.
Thats Old Scoring System.

Now, in doubles, the serving team only has 1 serve. The side where the serve will be made from depends on the score. If you win a point, and it was 0-0, you are at 1-0. Because theres a point in every rally. So the team gaining the serve gets to serve from the left (odd number score side, remember?) If you win a point, you go to the other side to serve. Nothing changed in that ; you change side when you WIN a point and have the serve. That new scoring system

if its

Teams
#1 #2
0 0 -> Right side serve, like normally.
Team 2 wins the rally.
0 1 -> Team 2's left person serves.
Team 2 wins again.
0 2 -> Switch sides. Serves from the right.
Team 1 wins the rally.
1 2 -> Team 1's left person serves. There are no changes in positions
Team 2 wins again, wow ;-p
1 3 -> left person (originally the right person at 0-0) serves, since you are at an odd number score.

So when you win the serve (you didnt have it, but won it) you serve from where you are depending on the points
When you win the rally, and had the serve, you switch places.

The only difference is that -> You have 1 serve and the side depends on the score. i.e odd = left ; pair = right , contribute points each rallys. To 21

I hope you understand better. If not, read again :D

Loh

11-21-2006, 12:23 AM

[QUOTE=hiroisuke
Also, so with the birdie hanging on the net situation, I think someone once told me, that based on the old rules, as long as you didn't make it over and onto the ground, it'd be considered the opponents' point. Is that true?[/QUOTE]

I' ll take your Q2 first as Q1 takes some explanation.

"Birdie hanging on the net" -

Two situations can arise from your example. The shuttle is suspended on top of the net or stuck on the net tape or it could have fallen but still stuck on the net and remained there and not reach the court surface.

If it is the result of your service, then it is a fault as provided in Laws 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 show above.

Also, although your shuttle has passed over the net, it did not cross the short service line required for a good service.

This only applies to Service, but when the shuttle is in play during a rally and either of the two situations occurs, then it is a "let" and the point is replayed.

Loh

11-21-2006, 01:38 AM

Um...yeah. How exactly does the doubles serving rotation work exactly? No one has explained it in simple and clear terms to me yet. I was wondering if you could? THanks.

Assuming players' names are:

Serving side: A (server standing on right service court) and B (left service court).
Receiving side: X (receiver standing on right service court) and Y (left service court)

In doubles, you must know who is the Server and Receiver at the beginning of each game and mark "S" and "R" against their names respectively on the scoresheet before you commence the game in order to remind you. This markings are important to help you correct any wrong service court situation should it arise later.

At the start of each game before you call 1st Game, love-all, play..., because the score is "0"-"0" (mark it down first), server A stands on the right service court (Don't say right court or right side, be more precise) to serve as "0" is an even number. (Law 11.1.1) His partner B stands on the left-service court.

11.1.5 The players shall not change their respective service courts until they win a point when their side is serving.

So when server A or his side (A) wins a point, he changes to the left service court as his side's score is now "1-0". If he continues to win 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, he will continue to alternate service court with his partner. If his side loses a point, they remain where they last stand.

Then the next call will be "Service over, 1-4". The left service court opponent y will then serve as '1' is an odd number. If the opposing side continues to win the rally, 2-4, 3-4, 4-all, 5-4, the opponent partners will change (alternate) service court according to their scores.

Now, you may ask, suppose your side wins the next point, which of you will serve, now that the score is 5-all? At the last count, you A were standing on the right service court. As your score is now "5" (odd), your partner B standing on the left service court will then serve.

Suppose your side now lost the point, it will then be 6-5 in favour of your opponent (always call the winning side's score first). Then opponent x will serve.

As a guide, you cannot serve in succession after you have lost a point. (unless you continue to win points without breaking). Eg. you serve first, then lose a point, then when your side wins a point back your partner should serve, not you as you have served just before. But the next service, after your partner has served the last, will be yours. You alternate service with your partner whenever your side wins back a point. Similarly for receiving.

CWB001

11-21-2006, 02:02 AM

With the change to the 21-point rally scoring system (NSS), inevitably there are related changes and other relevant updates to the Laws of Badminton by the BWF, which were approved and adopted in May 2006..

Here are some that I've spotted:

...

Please add more observations if you have.

We've been discussing these for over 6 months now on lots of other threads. Did you forget to set your alarm clock?:)

Loh

11-21-2006, 02:23 AM

We've been discussing these for over 6 months now on lots of other threads. Did you forget to set your alarm clock?:)

Yes we've discussed and debated a great deal on this subject even at a time when nothing was official yet.

Now that it is in black and white with all the updates, I feel it is worthwhile going through especially for those who may not be as knowledgeable as you are and who may have missed certain pertinent points. ;)

I for one would like to know other viewpoints and to confirm my understanding on some of the issues.

Do you have any comments on some parts of the Laws? :)

CWB001

11-21-2006, 02:28 AM

Yes, and I've made them on other threads.

What updates? There have been no changes to the laws since May.

Loh

11-21-2006, 02:41 AM

Yes, and I've made them on other threads.

What updates? There have been no changes to the laws since May.

In essence, what I am interested in are the more pertinent changes between the old set of laws and the new and what impact they have on competitive badminton with the new scoring system.

Break-My-String

11-21-2006, 04:09 AM

...9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server's waist at the instant of being hit by the server's racket. The waist shall be considered to be an imaginary line round the body, level with the lowest part of the server's bottom rib;

This is perhaps the clearest definition of the waist which in the past has caused a lot of confusion. and if read in conjuction with Law 9.1.6 below, it has now taken away many irrelevant and unwanted misunderstanding and argument.

9.1.6 the shaft of the server's racket at the
instant of hitting the shuttle shall be pointing in a downward direction;
...

Thanks Loh for noting the changes.

I agree, the definition of the "server's waist" was much needed.

But, with 9.1.6 it raises (double pun intended) the height at which sneaky players can push the height & angle of their racquets to be illegal.

...How exactly does the doubles serving rotation work exactly? No one has explained it in simple and clear terms to me yet...

Try this link. ;)

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37883

Cheers!

Loh

11-21-2006, 04:39 AM

Hi BMS

Thanks for reminding what players can do to test the umpire's patience. But the umpire has the final decision to give a warning or a yellow card, or indeed a red card, if required.

Indeed it is the Service Judge and in his/her absence, the Umpire will have to make sometimes rather 'controversial' decisions. At the end of the day, their judgement is subjective, at best. And officials have to use their discretion.

One practical guide that the Service Judge can turn to on whether the player has hit the shuttle above his waist is to watch his elbow. When the elbow is resting against the side, it falls around the lowest rib region.

So being an official is no play. He has to focus his concentration on the players' movements in order to be fair to all of them, opponents included. :D

CWB001

11-21-2006, 07:47 AM

Hi BMS

One practical guide that the Service Judge can turn to on whether the player has hit the shuttle above his waist is to watch his elbow. When the elbow is resting against the side, it falls around the lowest rib region.

I believe that this guideline has been in use (as a law interpretation) in some countries for some time and is superseded by the new laws which use the bottom rib as the waist.

The problems are that no player serves with either arm hanging limp at his/her side and it is only a rule of thumb anyway. Different people are made differently.

As has been noted in earlier threads, the new laws certainly provide encouragement for use of the drive serve.

lorus_blue

11-21-2006, 08:16 AM

CWB001

11-21-2006, 08:28 AM

That is an easy one to answer. B is faulted. See law 13, and specifically 13.4.3 which makes it a fault to invade the opponent's court under the net.

Alternatively 13.3.10 could be used as the shuttle does not travel toward his opponent's court after being hit by B (since it is already in it).

Certainly A cannot be faulted because the shuttle did not either strike the court floor or the net (see law 15).

B is guilty of utterly crass play, of course, in giving away a point so stupidly.

Gollum

11-21-2006, 08:30 AM

If the shuttle hits the net and starts to fall towards the ground, then it is a fault. All actions thereafter are irrelevant. In this case, A is faulted.

If the shuttle did not hit the net, then B is faulted.

Neil Nicholls

11-21-2006, 08:31 AM

ok here's a situation, player A of team A executed a drop shot from their back court, the shuttle travels from their(team A) back court towards their opponent's (in this case Team B) side but the shuttle did not made it over the net instead, it went just below the net but before it landed on the floor, here's player B from team B who thought, for some reason or another, that the shuttle made it over the net and made an effort to hit the shuttle but at the last second changed his mind probably realizing that the shuttle did not went over the net but it was too late and the shuttle made contact with his racket. Now here's the question, what rule or law ,for that matter, was violated first or should we say should be applied in this situation? remember that the shuttle did not make it over the net but while it was still airborne and did not yet landed on the floor, was hit by the opponent's racket, and remember also that when the opponent made the hit, the shuttle was not on their side yet, now who's fault will it be?
Fault by Team B is my opinion but I can't find a law exactly against it.

If the shuttle has not hit the net, floor, or post, it is still in play.

it is legal to invade the opponents court under the net with racket or person as long as you do not obstruct or distract.

the closest I can get is
13.3.10
It shall be a fault if in play the shuttle touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponents court.

the shuttle cannot travel towards the opponents court because it is already in it.

Gollum

11-21-2006, 08:41 AM

Fault by Team B is my opinion but I can't find a law exactly against it.

EDIT: hang on, my copy of the laws may be out of date :o

The laws are very clear about this, but you have to observe the relation between sections 13 and 15.
13 FAULTS
It is a "fault":
13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net....

15. SHUTTLE NOT IN PLAY
A shuttle is not in play when:
15.2 it strikes the net or post and starts to fall towards the surface of the court on the striker's side of the net

Therefore law 13.3 does not apply, because the shuttle is not in play.

Neil Nicholls

11-21-2006, 08:46 AM

13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net....

I thought there was something like that, but I can't find it in the new 2006 Laws.
Edit: this was before your edit...

I believe the question involves the shuttle not reaching the net, so it is still in play until it touches the floor.

Neil Nicholls

11-21-2006, 09:25 AM

13.3.10
It shall be a fault if in play the shuttle touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponents court.

What is the point of this law?
I don't believe the intention of it is for the situation we have just discussed.

The "initial point of contact must be on your side of the net" is much clearer.

If the shuttle touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponents court it will do one or more of:
13.3.3 not pass over the net
13.3.1 land outside the boundaries of the court
13.3.4 touch the ceiling or side walls
or something else that is a fault.

I can envisage a shot where you hit the shuttle exactly upwards, but it eventually goes over the net legally either due to spin , or the way the shuttle tumbles at the top of it's flight.

richie-rich

11-21-2006, 09:26 AM

in the uk we use it by nature now, its really quite easy, we use it in country level and league level, in fact in pretty much every level

only problem i have is people seemingly 'add' points onto their score,or remove them from yours, and if they think your on a score like, 16, but your actually on 18, they accuse you of cheating

hiroisuke

11-21-2006, 10:14 AM

Ok, so about the serving rotation, so I know about all the old rules and all that, but let me see if I have this right:

Two teams: A and B.

Player A1 serves to start off the game. They score a point, so as before, A1 and A2 (A1's partner) switch, as they've scored 1. A1 serves again, other side wins.

In this case, the B team scores (I get this part), so B2 serves, as the B team has an odd (1) score, right?

So if you have an odd score, the odd person serves, and if you have an even score, the even person serves? That was my biggest confusion.

*************
* B1 * B2 * A1 serves, scores.
* \* *
****** \******
* A2 * \ A1 *
* * *
*************

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*************
* B1 * B2 * Team A switches.
* * *
*************
* A2<--->A1 *
* * *
*************
-------------------------------------------------------------------

*************
* B1 */ B2 * A1 serves, but loses. Score is now 1-1
* / *
*****/*******
* A1 *A2 *
* * *
*************
-------------------------------------------------------------------

*************
* B1 * B2 * B2 now serves, as B team has odd score, so
* */ * odd person (B2) serves?
******/******
* A2 /* A1 *
* * *
*************

Sigh. My diagram doesn't work. I guess I'll draw a picture and post up later.

CWB001

11-21-2006, 10:56 AM

my copy of the laws may be out of date :o

...

15. SHUTTLE NOT IN PLAY

A shuttle is not in play when:
15.2 it strikes the net or post and starts to fall towards the surface of the court on the striker's side of the net

Therefore law 13.3 does not apply, because the shuttle is not in play.

You are right - your copy of the laws is out of date.

However, in the scenario described the shuttle is in play becasue it has not yet hit the net or the floor.

Actually the new 13.3 also applies because B hits it on the wrong side and the shuttle fails to go over the net. Again B is faulted.

lorus_blue

11-21-2006, 06:30 PM

actually what happend afterwards when B player hit the shuttle, the shuttle flew under the net and into the opponent's side (side A) but he argued that law 13.3.3 (shuttle not passing over the net) occured first, therefore side A is already at fault before he hit the shuttle, is his argument correct?

toddster

11-21-2006, 07:28 PM

13.3.10
It shall be a fault if in play the shuttle touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponents court.

What is the point of this law?
I don't believe the intention of it is for the situation we have just discussed.

I THINK, this law is in place so that an umpire can automatically call out "fault" when a player at the net missed the shuttle, but his/her partner has the chance to hit it again.

Without this law, the umpire could not call out fault untill the partner (second player) hit the shuttle. Allowing the Umpire to call out fault right away helps avoid any question.

Just my opinion.
Toddster

toddster

11-21-2006, 08:19 PM

Sorry All,

I meant to say that the umpire could call out fault if the first partner mis-hit or "ticked" the shuttle or hit a part of the shuttle and his/her partner has a chance to hit it over.

Some day I will learn to write good english.

Toddster:crying:

Neil Nicholls

11-22-2006, 01:03 AM

However, in the scenario described the shuttle is in play becasue it has not yet hit the net or the floor.

Actually the new 13.3 also applies because B hits it on the wrong side and the shuttle fails to go over the net. Again B is faulted.
I'm not so sure about using 13.3

Faulting B for 13.3 when A's previous shot has also failed to pass over the net seems a little strange.

It feels like we are struggling to find an appropriate law for this situation.

Neil Nicholls

11-22-2006, 01:05 AM

lorus_blue

11-22-2006, 01:58 AM

If A's shot went under the net, then A is faulted because of
Law 13.3.2
the shuttle passes through or under the net
but remember that before the shuttle landed on the floor player B hit the shuttle under the net and on his side

Neil Nicholls

11-22-2006, 02:01 AM

but remember that before the shuttle landed on the floor player B hit the shuttle under the net and on his side
Doesn't matter if it hits the floor or not.
As soon as it passes under the net it is a fault by A

CWB001

11-22-2006, 02:24 AM

Hang about. He said "remember also that when the opponent made the hit, the shuttle was not on their side yet".

Which is the scenario I've been addressing (i.e. the shuttle hit neither the court nor the net or its posts and was hit by B before it crossed under the net). If B hits it then he is faulted in this scenario.

If B hit the shuttle on his own side then the case is different because the shuttle passed under the net and A would be faulted by virtue of law 13.3.2. The fault occurs the moment the shuttle crosses the plane of the net underneath the net.

kokcheng

11-23-2006, 01:56 AM

EDIT: hang on, my copy of the laws may be out of date :o

The laws are very clear about this, but you have to observe the relation between sections 13 and 15.
13 FAULTS

It is a "fault":
13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net....

15. SHUTTLE NOT IN PLAY

A shuttle is not in play when:
15.2 it strikes the net or post and starts to fall towards the surface of the court on the striker's side of the net

Therefore law 13.3 does not apply, because the shuttle is not in play.
Gollum, This is Loh here using Kokcheng's pc as I'm now with him watching the Malaysian Satellite in Alor Star, Kedah.

I'm afraid you were referring to the old set of laws.

13.3 (Fault, if in play, the shuttle...) is now divided into various sub-sections:

13.3.1 lands outside the boundaries of the court;
13.3.2 passes through or under the net;
13.3.3 fails to pass over the net;
13.3.4 touches the ceiling or side walls;

and goes on until
13.3.10 touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponent's court;

Law 15 on Shuttle Not In Play

This Law now has only 3 sub-sections instead of 4 and Law 15.2 which you referred to is now changed to 15.1.

As for the situation brought about by lorus blue (#13), I agree that A has committed a fault and the point should go against him.

This is a question of what happens first. When A's drop shot failed to pass over the net it is first a fault (Law 13.3.3).

When a fault is called, the shuttle is no longer in play (Law 15.3).

So whatever subsequent action by opponent B is not to be considered.

Team A still loses a point.

CWB001

12-02-2006, 08:19 AM

As for the situation brought about by lorus blue (#13), I agree that A has committed a fault and the point should go against him.

This is a question of what happens first. When A's drop shot failed to pass over the net it is first a fault (Law 13.3.3).

When a fault is called, the shuttle is no longer in play (Law 15.3).

So whatever subsequent action by opponent B is not to be considered.

Team A still loses a point.

Your surmise about when the shuttle is not longer in play is wrong.

I have now consulted an international umpire on this question. As I said, B is faulted and A gains a point.

A's potential fault is not crystallized under law 15 by the shuttle striking the floor or net or by passing under the net. It may have still gone over. The shuttle is always in play (under law 15) until it strikes the floor, strikes the net or post and falls back to the striker's side or a fault occurs. It is therefore still in play when B hits it.

By striking the shuttle on the wrong side B has contravened law 10.2 and is faulted under law 13.3.3 (shuttle fails to pass over the net) or 13.3.10 (fails to travel towards the opponent's side).

Neil Nicholls

12-02-2006, 09:20 AM

By striking the shuttle on the wrong side B has contravened law 10.2
aaah, so that's where the old
"13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net...."
has gone.

10.2 for singles, 11.2 for doubles.

Loh

12-03-2006, 09:18 PM

Your surmise about when the shuttle is not longer in play is wrong.

I have now consulted an international umpire on this question. As I said, B is faulted and A gains a point.

A's potential fault is not crystallized under law 15 by the shuttle striking the floor or net or by passing under the net. It may have still gone over. The shuttle is always in play (under law 15) until it strikes the floor, strikes the net or post and falls back to the striker's side or a fault occurs. It is therefore still in play when B hits it.

By striking the shuttle on the wrong side B has contravened law 10.2 and is faulted under law 13.3.3 (shuttle fails to pass over the net) or 13.3.10 (fails to travel towards the opponent's side).

Let's take a look again at what actually happened as described by lorus blue:

"...but the shuttle did not made it over the net instead, it went just below the net but before it landed on the floor, here's player B from team B who thought, for some reason or another, that the shuttle made it over the net and made an effort to hit the shuttle but at the last second changed his mind probably realizing that the shuttle did not went over the net but it was too late and the shuttle made contact with his racket....was hit by the opponent's racket, and remember also that when the opponent made the hit, the shuttle was not on their side yet, now who's fault will it be?

Please note that I have emphasized "Which event comes first".

This is important because if the first event (shuttle did not pass the net) is a fault, the second event (before shuttle lands on the floor, opponent hits it) is inconsequential.

Your point on 'crytallization' is negated by Law 15.3 (which remains the same in the new and old laws) which emphasized that "a shuttle is not in play when a 'fault' or 'let' has occured. This has the same effect as Law 15.2 stating that "a shuttle is not in play when it hits the surface of the court". I therefore think that I interpreted the Laws correctly. ;)

So when the shuttle fails to pass the net, the umpire calls a 'fault' and the shuttle then becomes "not in play". The opponent's subsequent hitting the shuttle should therefore have no bearing on the decision since the shuttle was not in play then. The decision is crytallized once a fault is called.

However, if both actions happen simultaneously, ie at the time of the shuttle hitting the net and not passing over it, the opponent also at the same time tries to hit the shuttle not knowing it hasn't crossed over to his side, then the opponent may be faulted for "invading the striker's court under the net" (Law 13.4.3). But I don't think this is what lorus blue has in mind.

Loh

12-03-2006, 10:21 PM

13.3.10
It shall be a fault if in play the shuttle touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponents court.

What is the point of this law?

An interesting point.

A related situation occurs under the old Law 13.6.4 which states that "it is a fault if, in play, the shuttle touches a player's racket and continues towards the back of that player's court.

There was a change in terminology.

I recall that under the old laws, if the shuttle touches a player's racket it shall be a fault, as the racket is considered as part of the person (old Law 13.2.5; new Law 13.3.5).

But a situation could occur whereby the shuttle could hit a player's racket, say the throat, the shaft or the handle and bounce back to the opponent's court. In such a situation, it is now considered not a fault. I suppose the change in terminology in the new Law 13.3.10 is to clarify the situation.

CWB001

12-04-2006, 12:37 AM

Let's take a look again at what actually happened as described by lorus blue:

"...but the shuttle did not made it over the net instead, it went just below the net but before it landed on the floor,
...

Please note that I have emphasized "Which event comes first".

This is important because if the first event (shuttle did not pass the net) is a fault, the second event (before shuttle lands on the floor, opponent hits it) is inconsequential.

Your point on 'crytallization' is negated by Law 15.3 (which remains the same in the new and old laws) which emphasized that "a shuttle is not in play when a 'fault' or 'let' has occured. This has the same effect as Law 15.2 stating that "a shuttle is not in play when it hits the surface of the court". I therefore think that I interpreted the Laws correctly. ;)

So when the shuttle fails to pass the net, the umpire calls a 'fault' and the shuttle then becomes "not in play". The opponent's subsequent hitting the shuttle should therefore have no bearing on the decision since the shuttle was not in play then. The decision is crytallized once a fault is called.

However, if both actions happen simultaneously, ie at the time of the shuttle hitting the net and not passing over it, the opponent also at the same time tries to hit the shuttle not knowing it hasn't crossed over to his side, then the opponent may be faulted for "invading the striker's court under the net" (Law 13.4.3). But I don't think this is what lorus blue has in mind.

No. No. No. No!

The shuttle cannot be said to have failed to pass over the net until one of the things in law 15.1 or 15.2 occurs. If it does not hit the net/posts or the floor it cannot be determined whether it would have passed over the net. Obviously, law 15.3 would come into play against A if his partner were struck by the shuttle, say, but that does not happen. The umpire calls the first fault that happens and one has not occured until B strikes the shuttle.

In this case law 15.3 cannot be used to say that A faulted before the shuttle failed to pass over the net because A's fault would have been that the shuttle failed to pass over the net, which cannot be determined until the shuttle hits the floor or net/post and fell back on A's side. This is a circular argument and totally invalid.

In fact, a fault does occur earlier than A's fault is crystallized, because B faults by hitting the shuttle on the wrong side of the net and not hitting it towards A's court. So the point is against B. As I said in my earlier post I double-checked this with an international umpire, so it is quite authoritative.

By your logic, any shuttle that has been hit by a player at any time has failed to pass over the net until it actually crosses the net, and should therefore be a fault immediately after it has been hit. This is clearly nonsense.

In this scenario, at no time does B invade under the net so as to cause obstruction or distraction to A since A was at the back of his court.

taneepak

12-04-2006, 01:17 AM

ok here's a situation, player A of team A executed a drop shot from their back court, the shuttle travels from their(team A) back court towards their opponent's (in this case Team B) side but the shuttle did not made it over the net instead, it went just below the net but before it landed on the floor, here's player B from team B who thought, for some reason or another, that the shuttle made it over the net and made an effort to hit the shuttle but at the last second changed his mind probably realizing that the shuttle did not went over the net but it was too late and the shuttle made contact with his racket. Now here's the question, what rule or law ,for that matter, was violated first or should we say should be applied in this situation? remember that the shuttle did not make it over the net but while it was still airborne and did not yet landed on the floor, was hit by the opponent's racket, and remember also that when the opponent made the hit, the shuttle was not on their side yet, now who's fault will it be?

I think the key is was the shuttle still in play when player B "accidentally" touched the shuttle, at a point and location that was in team A territory, with his racquet? As long as the shuttle did not touch the net when it was descending the net, the shuttle was still in play until it touches the floor. Player B from side B touched the shuttle when it was still in play, which it was because it neither touched the net nor the floor. Player B'e racquet went over team A's side of the court when player B touched the shuttle with his racquet, then team B is at fault.
Sometimes laws are stupid-a Hong Kong High Court judge me this when I asked for his advice on fighting a traffic offence ticket many years back-when the obvious (the shuttle never went over) is technically not lawfully right because the law says it is still in play (in the air or in space and has not landed on or into the net or the floor). About the traffic offence that I got fined, the offence was not committed by me-I was not even there-but as the owner the stupid law says I am "guilty".

Loh

12-04-2006, 02:28 AM

Ah, now I understand why you objected so strongly.

I thought what lorus blue said was the shuttle hit the net but did not cross over, that's why I said it would have been a fault. I might have misunderstood him.

But if the shuttle has not reached and touched the net nor the floor on the striker's side (ie the shuttle is still in play as provided for in Law 15) when the opponent reacts prematurely and hits it from under the net, then the opponent is at fault as what you've indicated. Of course such a situation is rare if the opponent chooses to intercept below the net before the shuttle even crosses to his side or touches the court surface. I suppose this is a hypothetical case.

My previous assumption was that the shuttle hit the net but it did not cross over to the opponent's side. This will be a fault and then the shuttle is not in play.

CWB001

12-04-2006, 02:36 AM

taneepak

12-04-2006, 05:10 AM

Yes, the matter is trivial if the shuttle touches the net or post and falls down on A's side. It is clearly a point to B - no debate needed.

But Lorus Blue came up with a more difficult scenario.

I cannot understand why every player does not actually read the laws from time to time. It would eliminate these discussions somewhat.

Frankly I don't think all those who contributed to this thread were wrong, based on their understanding of the actual status of the shuttle. The devil was in the easy trap one gets into in assuming the shuttle has touched the net when it did not.

Pball

12-13-2006, 02:44 AM

9.2 Once the players are redy for the service, the first forward movement of the server's racket head shall be the start of the service.

So, please correct me if I interpret this incorrectly, but I can start to move the moment the racket head of my oppenent starts moving forward?? Or do I still need for the racket to contact the bird?

Neil Nicholls

12-13-2006, 03:05 AM

If you mean "can the receiver move when the server's racquet head moves forward?"
No.

Law 9.1.3.
some part of both feet of the server and the receiver shall remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

9.3
Once started (Law 9.2), the service is delivered when the shuttle is hit by the server's racquet, or, in attempting to serve, the server misses the shuttle

CWB001

12-13-2006, 03:09 AM

The receiver must obey law 9.1.3:

"9.1.3 some part of both feet of the server and the receiver shall remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3);"

So you cannot move your feet until the shuttle has been struck (or missed!!).

Bah! Beaten by moments - simultaneous answering.

taneepak

12-13-2006, 03:21 AM

What if you just move your body and racquet hand forward but keep both feet on the court? This will still put the receiver nearer to the net.

Neil Nicholls

12-13-2006, 03:25 AM

9.1.9. is a new law
in attempting to serve, the server shall not miss the shuttle

Neil Nicholls

12-13-2006, 03:26 AM

What if you just move your body and racquet hand forward but keep both feet on the court? This will still put the receiver nearer to the net.
I would expect that to be legal, as long as the feet remain stationary (no sliding)

CWB001

12-13-2006, 03:28 AM

What if you just move your body and racquet hand forward but keep both feet on the court? This will still put the receiver nearer to the net.

That is fine and perfectly legal. But you may be generating an impulsion which prevents you reacting to a flick serve. And a player that does consistently this will receive a lot of flick serves.

CWB001

12-13-2006, 03:29 AM

You are quick on the draw today, Neil. We'll have to try flicking you.

Loh

12-13-2006, 09:38 PM

Since we are on the subject of service, I would like to point out some changes between the New and the Old laws on Service Court Errors.

Old Laws

12.1 A service court error has been made when a player:

12.1.1 has served out of turn;
12.1.2 has served from the wrong service court; or
12.1.3 standing in the wrong service court, was prepared to receive the service and it has been delivered.

New Laws

12.1.1 has served or received out of turn; or
12.1.2 has served or received from the wrong service court;

(Simplified and less verbose)

Old Laws

12.2 If a service court error is discovered before the next service is delivered:

12.2.1 if one side made the error and won the rally, it shall be a 'let';
12.2.2 if one side made the error and loss the rally, the error shall not be corrected;
12.2.3 if both sides made an error, it shall be a 'let'.

12.3 If there is a 'let' because of a service court error, the rally shall be replayed with the error corrected.

12.4 If a service court error is discovered after the next service has been delivered, the error shall not be corrected and the play in that game shall proceed without changing the players' new service courts (nor, when relevant, the new order of serving).

New Laws

All the above from Law 12.2 to Law 12.4 have been reduced to just one simple law thus making it less confusing and discarding the need for 'let' calls.:

12.2 If a service court error is discovered, the error shall be corrected and the existing score shall stand.

Isn't this a vast improvement? :)

forpy09

01-21-2007, 12:19 AM

lorus_blue

01-21-2007, 03:01 AM

i would like to ask regarding a doubles game, "team "A" is the serving side. can his partner stand just outside the short service line before his partner can serve? like his partner is near the net?one foot is on the service court and the other foot is on the short service line.

and also can the receiving side can do this one?
hope this helps;

" 9.1.2 the server and the receiver shall stand within diagonally opposite service courts (Diagram A) without touching the boundary lines of these service courts;"

" 9.5 In doubles, during the delivery of service (Law 9.2, 9.3), the partners may take up any positions within their respective courts, which do not unsight the opposing server or receiver."

forpy09

01-21-2007, 03:35 AM

bigfatfish

03-06-2007, 12:40 PM

i am referring to ibf law 2006.
(which i cannot remember where i downloaded it)

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;

13.4.4 obstructs an opponent, i.e. prevents an opponent from making a legal stroke where the shuttle is followed over the net;

i think 13.4.2 means ur racket is only legally able to cross over the top of the net when u hit the bird on ur side, and the cross-over is a follow through, and ur racket (and any part of ur body, clothings) does not touch the net.

i think 13.4.4 applies when the receiver's racket is held close to the net to prevent the striker from making the above mentioned stroke.
(i could be wrong... if i am, please correct me)

Query:
when playing doubles, my friend was caught in a front-back formation
(with him standing in the front) when the bird is high in the opponent's court (opponent smashing while my friend is in a wrong formation)

my friend just squatted down and raised his racket high, in attempt to save the smashes, which he did... trice (and went on to win the rally)!
the fact is that his opponents were standing quite far from the net...

so am i correct to say that my friend technically was not obstructing a legal stroke?

DarrenHart

03-06-2007, 03:49 PM

cheongsa

03-06-2007, 05:57 PM

Query:
when playing doubles, my friend was caught in a front-back formation
(with him standing in the front) when the bird is high in the opponent's court (opponent smashing while my friend is in a wrong formation)

my friend just squatted down and raised his racket high, in attempt to save the smashes, which he did... trice (and went on to win the rally)!
the fact is that his opponents were standing quite far from the net...

so am i correct to say that my friend technically was not obstructing a legal stroke?

Your friend has not violated 13.4.4. Your opponents should look where they are smashing...

cooler

03-06-2007, 06:03 PM

so it means that it is legal. the partner of both the receiver and serving side can stand anywhere in the court.as long as they do not "block" the serving or receiving player

one more is there a rules thread here? or is this the one?

can you please also explain part 13.4.2 and 13.4.4

because for example someone is trying to block the shot by raising his racket in front of the net?!?(not invading the opposite side) is that legal?
the receiving pair must stay within their own side, only the serving partner can stand anywhere he/she want in their court

if the receiver is standing inside the diagonal box, he can raise his racket as high as he wanted to. If u watch the pro, it is hardly done so it is not advantageous to do that.

taneepak

03-06-2007, 07:45 PM

the receiving pair must stay within their own side, only the serving partner can stand anywhere he/she want in their court.

A bit confusing, pls elaborate. The first part is apple, the second orange, as it appears.

Loh

03-06-2007, 10:55 PM

I am curious about that example as well, several times i have seen people rush the net with racquets up and/or swinging as a total guess to where the shuttle may go before the stroke is made but they are not obstructing the stroke.

Would 13.4.5 apply as waving a racquet around could be classified as a distracting gesture ?

I think it must be made clear that during the service, all the players (including the partners) must stand within their respective courts, not outside. In addition, there are stricter requirements for both the server and the receiver not to step on the lines (short service line, centre line, side line for singles and long service line for doubles) although their partners can do so without obstructing the view of their opponents.

But after the service, it is "free for all" so to speak, you can step on the lines except you can't invade your opponent's court but remain in your territory. Some of you might have seen TG or KKK dashing out of their court to retrieve a racket (presumably the one they're playing with is damaged or not working well) and quickly rushing back into court to help their partners with the ongoing rally. But the umpire did not call a fault if it is a genuine case and not one of trying to distract your opponents. :D

Regarding whether or not the receiver is at fault when he tries to block a shot from his opponent at the net by raising his racket, it depends on circumstances and the umpire is the sole judge of whether the block is an obstruction and/or distraction.

It will probably be an obstruction when both the striker and the receiver are very close to the net such that when executing the shot, the striker's stroke will be obstructed by the outstretched arm or raised racket of the receiver.

So I concur with cheongsa that in bigfatfish's case, his partner was never at any time obstructing the opponents as "they were standing quite far away from the net" to start off with. Quite rightly, his opponents could have hit anywhere in the court and not try to use his friend's body as target :D .

Also, even if both players are at close quarters at one end of the net, the receiver's similar action (raised racket) may not be construed as an obstruction since there is still room for the striker to cross the shuttle to the opposite end of the net or he could even lift it away from the receiver. So the umpire must be alert to such situations and not simply call a 'fault' when the striker is in no way being obstructed or distracted.

He might fault the receiver if he was trying to distract the striker by waving his racket unnecessarily (DarrenHart) or worse to add noise to his action. Or the umpire could choose to give him a warning first (Yellow card not Red), but that will not justify under "obstruction". :)

bigfatfish

03-07-2007, 10:52 AM

Thank you guys for confirming my interpretation of the law 13.4.4 on
'obstruction'.
i believe i have seen a taiwanese video where they highlighted some
of the (old) laws of badminton.

one example shows obstuction where a receiver and hitter both near
the net and receiver raised his racket towards the net with an obvious
intention to obstruct the hitter's stroke. rackets clashed as a result.
the host (coach) further explained that if the receiver were to raise
his racket on the intent to protect himself (his face) or in attempt to
save the bird, it would be legal.
(the illustrated example is however, a blatant obvious example)
so like Loh, i believe the umpire has to judge vigilantly on this issue.

Neil Nicholls

03-07-2007, 11:32 AM

I think it must be made clear that during the service, all the players (including the partners) must stand within their respective courts, not outside. In addition, there are stricter requirements for both the server and the receiver not to step on the lines (short service line, centre line, side line for singles and long service line for doubles) although their partners can do so without obstructing the view of their opponents.
9.1.2 the server and receiver shall stand within diagonally opposite service courts without touching the boundary lines of these service courts.

9.5 In doubles, during the delivery of the service, the partners may take up any positions within their respective courts, which do not unsight the opposing server or receiver.

9.5 means the partners can be anywhere in court on their side of the net (as long as they do not unsight...).
It doesn't mean the partners have to be in the remaining service courts.

They don't have to be stationary, they don't have to have both feet on the floor (but they shouldn't distract the opponent).

bigfatfish

03-07-2007, 12:04 PM

since we r discussing on the (new) law, i hope to seek the experts to
clear my doubt(s) on some sections of the law...

9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server’s waist ...
an imaginary line round the body, level with the lowest part of the server’s bottom rib;

my understanding of rib is only to the rib cage. dunno if bottom rib is the
bottom of rib cage (arnd the highest pt of 6 packs)... does not sound
correct to me. :confused:

where is the 'bottom rib'? or should i just stay safe with the traditional 'waist'
level...
(in my own definition, the shorts level or mayb level where u can feel ur own
waist bones)

------------------------------------
13.3.8 is hit twice in succession by the same player. However, a shuttle
hitting the head and the stringed area of the racket in one stroke shall not
be a ‘fault’;

eg. when i receive a smash, i can hear and feel that the bird bounced twice
on my stringed area...
am i faulted on double hit even though i was hitting the bird in, technically
'one stroke'?

---------------------------------------
and it seems that when shuttle is not in play, advices r allowed from
coaches, as long as player is not leaving the court, and the next rally
(serve) has not started...
as opposed to advices given before next game during old law days.

"16.5.1 Only when the shuttle is not in play (Law 15), shall a player be permitted to receive advice during a match."

Neil Nicholls

03-07-2007, 04:35 PM

9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server’s waist ...
an imaginary line round the body, level with the lowest part of the server’s bottom rib;

my understanding of rib is only to the rib cage. dunno if bottom rib is the
bottom of rib cage (arnd the highest pt of 6 packs)... does not sound
correct to me. :confused:

where is the 'bottom rib'?
Is there a doctor in the house?

http://www.studentxpress.ie/educ/biology/bio5a.html
http://tosaweb.ncsd.k12.wy.us/faculty/lbell/Human%20Skeleton/human_skeleton_index.html.html
these picture does show the lowest part of the rib is at a similar height to the elbow joint (although I don't know how true that is for everyone)

Loh

03-07-2007, 08:41 PM

since we r discussing on the (new) law, i hope to seek the experts to
clear my doubt(s) on some sections of the law...

9.1.5 the whole shuttle shall be below the server’s waist ...
an imaginary line round the body, level with the lowest part of the server’s bottom rib;

my understanding of rib is only to the rib cage. dunno if bottom rib is the
bottom of rib cage (arnd the highest pt of 6 packs)... does not sound
correct to me. :confused:

where is the 'bottom rib'? or should i just stay safe with the traditional 'waist'
level...
(in my own definition, the shorts level or mayb level where u can feel ur own
waist bones)

I hope you find Neil's "Skeleton" pic useful as I did. And indeed the guide that "the lowest part of the bottom rib" is at almost the same level as the elbow in the pic, although it has to be true that there are always exceptions.

Your version of the "traditional waist" level (presumably using the shorts as a guide) is arbitrary and unlikely find favour with the service judge. I remember in one of the international Opens last year, in a XD match, the woman partner from China was faulted so many times for serving above the waist that she tried to influence the SJ by tucking her shirt inside her shorts, but still she was faulted. Maybe her shorts were pulled too high :D , but normally it is the level at which the shuttle was struck that determines whether a service fault has occured.

Many players are unable to see for themselves that they have hit the shuttle higher than waist level (bottom rib) especially when they try to capitalize by serving at the highest point possible to execute a flatter serve. It is good to video your serve during training so that you can see for yourself and make corrections if necessary. But of course sometimes the SJ can err also as he/she is human. So try not to present an opportunity for the SJ to call a fault service against you. ;)

Loh

03-07-2007, 09:58 PM

[QUOTE=bigfatfish]since we r discussing on the (new) law, i hope to seek the experts to
clear my doubt(s) on some sections of the law...

13.3.8 is hit twice in succession by the same player. However, a shuttle
hitting the head and the stringed area of the racket in one stroke shall not
be a ‘fault’;

eg. when i receive a smash, i can hear and feel that the bird bounced twice
on my stringed area...
am i faulted on double hit even though i was hitting the bird in, technically
'one stroke'? QUOTE]

"Twice in Succession" to me means "hitting once and followed by another hit". It means hitting two times in all by the same player and that would be a fault under new Law 13.3.8.

The old Law 13.6.2 states it is a fault if, in play, the shuttle "is hit twice in succession by the same player with two strokes". I suppose the phrase "with two strokes" is redundant as the shuttle has been hit twice already.

The addition to the new Law: "However, a shuttle hitting the head and the stringed area of the racket in one stoke shall not be a 'fault'" makes life easier for the umpire as in the past "slung shots" (which are difficult to judge) have been called a fault but now it is at his discretion to overule a shot that has been struck simultaneously in one action on the base (cork area) and feathers of the shuttle as not a fault. It will be a fault if it is hit once on the base and another time on the feathers, ie hit twice in succession.

In this sense your return of the smash which you felt "the shuttle bounced twice on your stringed area" although you returned with one stroke cannot be construed as a fault as it cannot be seen by the umpire that you hit the shuttle "twice in succession". You may be in trouble, though, if the umpire has as sharp a ear as yours! :D

Loh

03-07-2007, 10:43 PM

since we r discussing on the (new) law, i hope to seek the experts to
clear my doubt(s) on some sections of the law...

---------------------------------------
and it seems that when shuttle is not in play, advices r allowed from
coaches, as long as player is not leaving the court, and the next rally
(serve) has not started...
as opposed to advices given before next game during old law days.

"16.5.1 Only when the shuttle is not in play (Law 15), shall a player be permitted to receive advice during a match."[/LEFT]

Yes now there is help from their coaches for the players during a game, especially for those who are not doing well and seem to have no answer to their opponents' winning strategy. But such advice can only be given when the "shuttle is NOT in play" as defined in the Laws. Players do not need to wait till the intervals to obtain advice or tips. That's why now you see their coaches sitting close behind their court to enable the player to turn around and listen to instructions from their coaches. But they can't step outside the court without the umpire's permission and the umpire may even yellow card a coach for given advice when the rally is still on. A red card will see the coach being sent away into the gallery. :D

Under the old Law 16.6.1, Except in the intervals provided in Laws 16.2 (Intervals not exceeding 90 seconds (now 120 sec) between the first and second games and not exceeding 5 minutes (now 120 sec or 2 min) between the second and third games).

However, an addition to the new Law 16.2.1 allows an official interval "not exceeding 60 seconds during each game when the leading score reaches 11 points". This is also to allow TV commercials to be aired in addition to the other official intervals.

bigfatfish

03-09-2007, 09:59 AM

i cannot thank u guys enough for your explaination and contribution. :)
involving in badminton really makes us lawyers and doctors ;)

i guess "slung shot" (i think that is what i experienced) is technically legal...
as long as it is "in one stroke". (but it could be debatable)

--------------------------------------------
yes, i did read on the issue u mentioned abt the china girl (zhang yawen)
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36383&highlight=waist+rib
while searching for ribs...

while "bottom ribs" is near elbow level, definitely higher than the
"shorts level", why is ZYW faulted 11 times? :confused:

------------------------------------------------
btw, with

9.1.6 the shaft of the server’s racket at the instant of hitting the shuttle
shall be pointing in a downward direction;

(see pic on this thread)
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34241&highlight=waist+rib

with reference to the pic provided on the thread, it seems that the racket
head can b higher than the "whole of the server’s hand holding the racket"

but... if 9.1.6 is violated, how does the service judge indicate the fault?
is it the same gesture as the "above the serving hand" hand signal?

CWB001

03-09-2007, 11:03 AM

i guess "slung shot" (i think that is what i experienced) is technically legal...
as long as it is "in one stroke". (but it could be debatable)
------------------------------------------------

No. No. No. A slung shot (whether in one stroke or not) is illegal under law 13.3.7 which says:

"13 It shall be a fault:
...
13.3 if in play, the shuttle:
...
13.3.7 is caught and held on the racket and then slung during the execution of a stroke; "

bigfatfish

03-11-2007, 04:57 AM

thank you CWB001, for your clarification. (clear as crystal):D

i am still a bit confused with the line:
13.3.8 is hit twice in succession by the same player. However, a shuttle
hitting the head and the stringed area of the racket in one stroke shall not
be a ‘fault’;

can anyone give an example (or two) on how shot(s) "shall not be faulted" with the line being applied? thanks!!

CWB001

03-11-2007, 03:16 PM

It is really quite simple.

If a player strikes the shuttle twice it is ALWAYS a fault (whether it is accidental or deliberate, one stroke or more) UNLESS the two hits occur in one stoke AND the hits are: one on the strings and one on the racquet frame.

Loh

03-11-2007, 10:15 PM

i cannot thank u guys enough for your explaination and contribution. :)

while "bottom ribs" is near elbow level, definitely higher than the
"shorts level", why is ZYW faulted 11 times? :confused:

------------------------------------------------
btw, with

9.1.6 the shaft of the server’s racket at the instant of hitting the shuttle
shall be pointing in a downward direction;

with reference to the pic provided on the thread, it seems that the racket
head can b higher than the "whole of the server’s hand holding the racket"

but... if 9.1.6 is violated, how does the service judge indicate the fault?
is it the same gesture as the "above the serving hand" hand signal?

1. ZYW was faulted 11 times because the "trained" Service Judge deemed so. You may be right to assume that her "shorts level" is lower than her elbow but it is at that particular instant of striking the shuttle that counts. Obviously, she must have struck the shuttle higher! :o

The SJ must have been watching her very closely to make sure that at the moment of striking the shuttle, the point of contact was above her waist (lowest rib). Despite earlier fault service calls, she persisted to serve almost the same way as before. I guess it was very difficult to change her service on the spot. But I think she must have refined her service thereafter as I think she experienced less service faults than before, if any. :)

2. Law 9.1.6 The hand holding the racket has to point downward to make sure that the racket shaft and head also point downward. If the player is doing this correctly, then there is no way that the racket head can be higher than the hand. Players shoud be mindful not to point their racket shaft sideways (instead of in a downward direction) to avoid being faulted as the racket head could then be higher than the hand at contact.

There is a picture of this fault showing the SJ stretching out his right hand in front of him with bended elbow and an open palm held at about 90 degrees pointing towards the court.

JaCk™

03-12-2007, 12:16 AM

Loh

03-12-2007, 02:27 AM

actually, many of today's players commit fault but still get away with it.. Some net taps are over the net and some serves are above the waistline.. the problem is, these things happen too fast and human eyes have their limits.. umpire finds it difficult to make a decision on the spot unless there is video replay many times..

Agree, that's why they say "To err is human". :D

But if it happens, it is not fair to the player wrongly faulted. Sometimes it will mean winning or losing the match.

I think the BWF realised this weakness and is probably trying to find a better system. I don't know whether they could dispense with line and service judges altogether (probably not) but appropriate mechanical/electronic devices may be needed to assist decision making, as they probably have in tennis.

For example, at the umpire's chair, they could instal a mini TV device that can show whether the shuttle has crossed the net before it is being hit or whether the net has been touched.

But I think whatever it is, we will still have some problems either with the system once a while or in implementing it as human beings are also involved. There is also the question of delays in playing back the scene if required. Constant interruptions are not good for any game and may eventually drive spectators away. :(