Left court. [video=youtube_share;aMJI13fAvlo]http://youtu.be/aMJI13fAvlo[/video] Player raises his hand but his partner doesn’t notice it and returnes the serve. The umpire stops the game and suggests to serve once again. He explains it with the fact that player taking the serve haven’t seen raised hand of his partner. The girl who served insists that the umpire is wrong and because the serve was taken the play should be considered started. Here I have three questions: Who is right here – umpire or serving girl? Can a not serving partner raise hand at all? Can a player in this controversial situation ask the umpire to consult a referee of higher rank?
Ah yes, I have brought this question up to players a few times. As an umpire, if you see the server's partner is not ready, then you should stop the rally immediately. However, if you do not see it, and the rally continues, and the server's partner says he/she is not ready, then it's tough. What if the opponent executed a beautiful return that would be very questionable if the server's partner would have gotten it or not. As the receivers, I would be extremely pissed! Technically, the rule states that once the server serves, and the receiver attempts a return, the rally starts, what either partner does (to an extent) does not matter.
What the? That player just decided to walk off for no reason after everyone was ready(didn't even get rid of sweat or look at his handle etc, doesn't even pretend to not be stirring it up). There should be better rules to deal with such an obvious example of "passive cheating".
That's a good one and a tough one too. In theory the server is correct in that the receiver was ready and took the server regardless of whether the receiver's partner was ready or not (her fault for not making sure that he was ready to play). The umpire could have said nothing and point to the server but because he called a let, the receiving side has a legitimate arguement that play was stopped and therefore no attempt was made to continue the rally. In situations like this, I think the normal resolution is to play a let (unfortunately). This is the type of situation where mental toughness comes into play.
As for 1., that is easier answer - the umpire is always correct, even when not, always. For 2., the not serving partner, meaning the server's doubles-mate, can raise the hand, as long as s/he is not distracting the opponent(s). And for 3., not on my court you dont start waving your hand or racquet for referee, you are most likely to get a verbal warning to continue play, and a yellow card if you continue to ask and further delay the game, and a red is you still persist. However, to drill into the laws that exist for exactly situations like this, here is my submission: Briefly, no laws were broken, esp., those pertaining to server, receiver, serve, and return. You may look at sub-sections of 9.1. at the BWF site, or in this forum. Neither side caused any delay to the delivery of the service, both the server and receiver were ready, that is all conditions of 9.1.1 were correctly met. In fact, none of the conditions given in 9.1.* were violated. Additionally, the server correctly followed 9.2, and the server did not serve before receiver was ready, the receiver returned the serve, that is 9.4 was also not violated. The server then put the shuttle down in the opponent court legally. Section 9.5 is also not violated as both, server and receiver were directly facing each other, that is no unsighting by these two. As an umpire therefore, I do not have any cause not to award the rally to the serving side.
This is precisely the tournament/championships/whoever has brought in that fellow to sit in that chair and adjudicate. Yes, you are also right, the umpire must be mentally tough, to explain the correct decision to the players. Believe you me, it is of no use absolutely to just tell the server, it is let, or to the opponent, why the rally was awarded to the serving side. Recall, neither the server, nor the server's partner violated any laws. Why then must the umpire punish them? The simplest of explanation to the receiver-team using "Red Receiver, you returned the serve, the server then killed the shuttle in your court. Point to Black team," will suffice. There are the laws, for this situation, everything is given in 9.1. And, for some un-earthly reason, the umpire has taken the "easy" option as others have put it, to play let, then, the umpire better be ready to be roasted by the referee and his peers for mis-applying the laws. This situation is not cheating, it is plain simple gamesmanship, if the umpire allows it, which in this case was allowed. Remember, the players will only do what the umpire permits them to do. The players expect the umpire can be trusted, right? The easy option of palying let does nothing to build trust in that umpire. The player may continue to play, but that player (and the opponent) knows now that that umpire has mis-applied the laws, and moreover, is also gutless. Word soon gets around in a tourney setting, and lightning fast now-a-days, where little birdies chirruping everything.
