Results 1 to 16 of 16
Thread: What constitutes a legal serve?
03-16-2006, 07:46 AM #1
What constitutes a legal serve?
I'm asking because I think that there's a double standard of what constitutes a legal serve for pros and club level players. I just finished watching the 2006 China Masters Doubles finals. It showed close up side view shots of the Danish pair serving. Yes, the top of the racquet head is below their wrist, but their racquet heads are so high! It looks like they're serving with the racquet head way about about their first rib! If I were to play a serve like that at my local club, people would be screaming at me illegal serve!!! So just want is the official rule on how high you can hold the the racquest for a backhand serve?
03-16-2006, 08:41 AM #2
The height of the racquet head with respect to the waist is irrelevant.
What matters is that the whole of the shuttle, at the moment of impact, should be below the waist.
The relevant law is 9.1.5.
03-16-2006, 09:46 AM #3
Yes, it does matter. At the time and point of impact, the racquet should be pointing down. (in the same rule or the next one) So the head sould not be higher than the WRIST. And CWB001 you are also right on the point that it only matter at the time and point of impact.
03-16-2006, 10:09 AM #4
there should never be any double standard
especially pro tourments like china master
it could very well be a Camera angle thats misleading the real height of the racket
besides it is very easy to get confused if u simply look at the racket head as a whole.
First the racket head had to be below your "WRIST"
thats a given. So you can hold the racket as high as u want as long as it is pointing down, look at Eriksen's serve.. he point the racket almost vertically down.. looks strange if u ask me but hey thats perfectly legal..
now the next thing is the point of impact has to be below the "WAIST" area
First Waist area is a general term and there is no 100% accruate way to measure every player's wasit boundary, its generally agrees that "WAIST" upper limit its the lowest bottom point of your rib cage.
Now imagine this, the key word is Point of impact, if i serve like Eriksen, i'm
pointing my racket almost vertically down.
If my way of serving is that i only use the VERY very top 2-3 cross string on the racket. as long as i keep that point of impact under my Waist upper limit.. the rest of racket's head could very well be as high as my chest.
So if u look at the reacket head as a whole u would have that impression that i'm serving at the chest..
Top that with the camera angle's bias.. and the fact that all pros will take the serving point as high as they possibly can. Its rather difficult and unfair to judge if a serve is too high from video.
03-16-2006, 10:28 AM #5
Originally Posted by silentheart
Under law 9.1.6 the whole of the head of the racquet must be discernibly below the whole of the hand - that includes the tips of the fingers which could be 15cm lower than the wrist.
03-16-2006, 10:36 AM #6
yah but thats not the point we'r discussing here
taumax was wondering why the pro seems to be serving where the racket head looks like its at chest level
taumax is concern about the law with the Waist
03-16-2006, 10:40 AM #7
Originally Posted by CWB001
Good evening there in UK.
03-16-2006, 10:41 AM #8
Chessymonkey, Yes, that is not what we were originally discussing, but I was merely correcting something that silentheart wrote.
Last edited by CWB001; 03-16-2006 at 10:46 AM.
03-16-2006, 11:27 AM #9
That's correct ChessyMonkey, I'm wondering how come the pros can serve at Chest level. The point of impact of the bird does seem higher than their waist (or first rib). Anybody watch the 2006 China Master's MD final yet? There's a torrent file of it available in the forum somewhere.Originally Posted by chessymonkey
03-16-2006, 11:45 AM #10
Chances r even though the racket head seems to be at chest lvl
they r actually only hitting the bird at near the tip of the racket head
while the racket being pointed downward.
So to keep the point of impact right below the very burry defined upper waist line. Now looking the rules it point out its the ENTIRE bird that should be under the upper waist line so i would assume it might be easier to look at the bird and where it is related to the rib cage intead of the racket head.
If the guy hold the bird at the tip of the feather.. right before
the racket hit the bird he'll release the bird where it will only go downward
so judging how high the player hold the bird before the serve would be a good indicator if it is too high. **given that the player doesn't subconsiously raise the hand with bird while executing his serving stoke**
03-16-2006, 11:58 AM #11
Actually, when I watched the video again, it appears that the Danes start out high, and go even higher when they start the stroke!!! I will try to post some screen captures later tonight to illustrate.Originally Posted by chessymonkey
06-07-2006, 03:17 PM #12
quick question: when serving do you have to drop the shuttle? or can you hit it off your fingertips?
06-07-2006, 03:39 PM #13
I think you cannot be holding the shuttle at the time of impact with the racquet. At that moment the shuttle is in play, and if you touch the shuttle with your body (or clothing) while it is in play, that is a fault.
08-20-2013, 05:37 PM #14
what about if when the player serves, he moves his hand up and then drops the shuttle to hit, is that legal?
wai from stockport
08-20-2013, 06:56 PM #15
I assume you mean the hand holding the shuttle. I don't see why this would be illegal, but I don't see any benefit of doing that either.
08-22-2013, 11:20 AM #16
yes, the hand holding the shuttle, i thought that would be illegal as you are moving your hand twice hence misleading?
By suresh_k281 in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 20: 08-25-2008, 01:52 PM
By GiGaChip in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 6: 03-27-2005, 05:53 PM
By timeless in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 41: 11-09-2003, 04:05 AM
By RealMad in forum General ForumReplies: 22: 09-13-2003, 10:14 AM
By Unknown in forum Techniques / TrainingReplies: 13: 05-24-2002, 08:55 AM