Results 1 to 17 of 17
06-22-2005, 12:10 AM #1
My friend was playing someone at a tournament in a singles match. The opponent did a drop shot and my friend was a little late in reaching it, but he did reach it but he dragged the racquet when he touched the bird a bit. Then the opponent called 'carry', a call I never heard anyone call in my life. He said my friend carried the bird and we argued that it was one continuous stroke and was legal. But he kept blabbing on and on so we just gave him the serve.
Was this suppose to be a let? Who's right?
06-22-2005, 01:21 AM #2
i was told that. there wasn't any "carrying" foul in badminton game. anyone knows if it's true?
06-22-2005, 02:10 AM #3
Originally Posted by Dave18
06-22-2005, 02:18 AM #4
06-22-2005, 08:35 AM #5
Originally Posted by Cheung
The law 13.6.1 is unclear; is caught and held on the racquet and then slung during the execution of a stroke.
06-22-2005, 10:50 AM #6
I see. 13.6.1 doesn't apply here (according to my interpretation). I think 13.6.1 means that a person catches the shuttle on the strings, holds it there, and then swings the racquet again so the shuttle goes over the net. But I don't have an umpiring qualification.
I see it as a grey area. Since no umpire is around, I think your friend got conned! I think it still falls under the one continuous stroke category and is therefore legal. You should have gone to the tournament organisor or offered a let before giving up a point!!
06-22-2005, 12:30 PM #7
Sounds like a legal point to me.
One time i had this crazy situation 3 times in a row in 1 match!
During the hits, the shuttle first touched the stringbed, sort of shifted while more or less bumping to the side of the frame, and made a hit sound again, than passed the net.
It was a league match, referee in that match was a team-member of the opponent's team.
First time that i hit the shot it was counted as a point for me (after little discussion), second time it was called as fault (was not a clear continuous stroke according to the referee) and third time i got the point again. Referee got tired of those shots! Never made such a shot since then!
06-22-2005, 03:13 PM #8
And the thing is, my friend lost his concentration after that stupid call. He got frustrated and started to attack more and he lost in the end.
06-22-2005, 03:29 PM #9
see i was also unclear about this whole 'carry' thing
during one of my badminton practices at school, i happened to carry, and our coach pointed it out to me about how that'd be considered a fault.
however recently like 2 weeks ago playing at the drop-in i go to i carried the shuttle, so i called out "Carry!" and turned serve over to a guy who looks like he plays club. he then told me that carries no longer exist, as long as it was one swinging motion. so he told me to continue serving
no clue if this rule is in existence or not lol
06-22-2005, 04:23 PM #10
Originally Posted by cheung31
The laws say that it is a fault if "the shuttle is hit twice in succession by the same player with two strokes". It is not a fault if you hit the shuttle twice with one stroke (indeed, you could hit it three times, or four...).
The laws also say it is a fault if the shuttle is "caught and held on the racket and then slung during the execution of a stroke". This is the only law relevant to carries.
In order for it to be a fault, therefore, you must do three things:
- Catch the shuttle on your racket;
- Hold the shuttle on the racket face as you execute the stroke;
- ...and finally, sling the shuttle off the racket face.
This hardly ever happens. When it does occur, it is obvious to everyone that it is a fault.
That is why almost all calls of "no shot" from players are incorrect. Players often give away points in this way.
06-28-2005, 11:38 PM #11
I would interpret 13.6.1 to include the situation originally described - the shuttle was caught, held and slung in the one shot.
hm...what about this?
Last week one of my friends managed to hit the shuttle twice in the one stroke, a drive shot off a smash. It was one continuous stroke, but the shuttle hit the frame near the t and reflected towards the umpire's chair for a split second before connecting with the strings and coming back over the net straight.
One stroke, two sounds, two directions.
06-29-2005, 12:27 AM #12
Originally Posted by zello
1. Shuttle hit an object within the court. Object within the court would only be player's body, player's dress/shoes, player's racket. The net is something different and there's a Law for hitting the net. If the shuttle ended up going over the net then most likely it was hit successively, then Law 13.6.3 applies.
2. Shuttle hit an object outside the court, the umpire chair would be a good example, then I guess Law 13.2.6 applies.
Both cases would be considered as FAULT.
Last edited by winstonchan; 06-29-2005 at 12:38 AM.
06-29-2005, 05:41 AM #13
Originally Posted by winstonchan
06-29-2005, 07:47 AM #14
Originally Posted by zello
06-29-2005, 07:29 PM #15
I had this "carry" incident on tuesday.. apparently.. as i went got a net dropshot.. the shuttlecock hit my string bed twice in succession although my had one swift motion.. i felt the feathers being hit then the cock..
in the end.. i drop that point..
06-30-2005, 02:31 AM #16
The situations when I call a sling against myself tend to be:
1) when I am at the net trying to intercept
2) defending a smash
the shuttle is coming at me very fast and I can't always take the shuttle in front of me. My ready position has my racquet out in front of me, so to hit a shuttle at my side or behind me I have to bring the racquet back a lot compared to the eventual forward movement of the racquet.
If the shuttle comes into contact with the racquet near the end of this large backswing you get conditions that can easily produce a sling.
06-30-2005, 05:28 AM #17
Originally Posted by winstonchan
By yumyumtaco in forum Market PlaceReplies: 8: 05-18-2011, 06:04 PM
By greatbb in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 20: 11-01-2010, 12:46 PM
By Charles.E in forum Identify Fake Racket (Price/Source/Serial/Photos are required)Replies: 3: 11-27-2005, 09:21 AM