User Tag List

Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Question on rules

    Hi,

    I have experienced this recently during a game. I just want to know if this is a valid shot. The shuttle was hit at the rear side of the court. The shuttle flew by the side of the net (from my view is lower than the net), and landed inside the court (on the line).

    In tennis and table tennis, such shot is valid, there is no need to clear the net during the flight of the ball to the other end. How about badminton?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,992
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, this is legal.

    If the net and posts are correctly arranged, then this can only happen when the previous stroke was travelling out at the side; so it's not much of an issue. The striker should have left the shuttle to go out.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, we have had this debate before. Under the laws of badminton that were valid before the IBF AGM this month the shot would have been good.

    However, the new draft of the laws that I have seen would make it a fault because the relevant law (13.3.3) has been amended to say it is a fault if the shuttle "fails to pass over the net" instead of the previous wording "fails to pass the net".

    There is another subtle but important change in this draft (to law 13.2.3) where it was a fault on service receiving if the shuttle "touches or is hit by the receiver's parner". The wording has been changed to say it is a fault if the shuttle "is hit by the receiver's parner.

    A third change is that a pause in the service backswing is now illegal by virtue of the amended law 9.1.1 which now says:

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

    The other important change affecting service in this draft is that the server's racquet handle need only point in a downwards direction when the shuttle is hit (law 9.1.6). This is a less stringent law than the old one which specified that the racquet head had to be discernibly below the server's hand at the moment of impact. I suspect we'll see more drive serves.

    However, I'm not sure exactly which version of the laws has been passed as the IBF do not seem to have made the new laws available yet - unless anyone knows better.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    New laws? Can you post a link here or post a copy for all of us?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Well, we have had this debate before. Under the laws of badminton that were valid before the IBF AGM this month the shot would have been good.

    However, the new draft of the laws that I have seen would make it a fault because the relevant law (13.3.3) has been amended to say it is a fault if the shuttle "fails to pass over the net" instead of the previous wording "fails to pass the net".
    what if the shuttle went around the post, but, above net height?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That must be a fault under the wording in this draft because it is not "over the net". Over the net and around the post (at any height) are mutually incompatible.

    Please remember that we do not know that this is the finally accepted draft.

    This draft is at : www.worldbadminton.com/documents/2006RallyPointScoringSystem200106.pdf

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks, do you know if that there is any change to womens singles/double with the new scorin system?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everybody plays to 21 now, including ladies singles.

    I've now found the final, official version on the IBF website. It did not take too many weeks, did it? It is at:
    www.internationalbadminton.org/newrallypointsystem.asp

    There are some differences and I have noticed that the two hit law (law 13.3.8) has been amended to remove the "separate strokes" wording to say that it is a fault if the shuttle

    "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’ ".

    So, there are quite a few subtle changes in addition to the obvious, glaringly bad and unpopular one.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    1,263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kohch99
    Hi,

    I have experienced this recently during a game. I just want to know if this is a valid shot. The shuttle was hit at the rear side of the court. The shuttle flew by the side of the net (from my view is lower than the net), and landed inside the court (on the line).

    In tennis and table tennis, such shot is valid, there is no need to clear the net during the flight of the ball to the other end. How about badminton?
    In tennis, a wide ball does not have to cross over the net as you suggest. However, the ball is not supposed to go thru a gap between the net and the net post. In a properly constructed court, there really should be no gap between net & post to allow a ball thru. Not sure what the ruling would be with a net assembly that is not properly constructed.

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default not necessary so

    When the shuttle was hit from the out of court position, it is possible to be below the net and yet land in the opponent's court. I guess that with the new ruling, it becomes more grey, as it is very hard to determine if the shuttle go over the net or not.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    France
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Could someone clarify the following law?

    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.

    Their respective courts mean the right and left service courts or both the service courts?

    Does this mean that the partners can even be standing on the server's/receiver's court?

    Example:Server is serving from the right service court. Can the server's partner be completely on the right service court (both legs) without hindering the receiver's view?
    Can the receiver' s partner be completely (both legs) be on the receiver's court
    without hindering the server's view?

    http://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/co...609&log_stat=0

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    1,263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by youngman View Post
    Could someone clarify the following law?

    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.

    Their respective courts mean the right and left service courts or both the service courts?

    Does this mean that the partners can even be standing on the server's/receiver's court?

    Example:Server is serving from the right service court. Can the server's partner be completely on the right service court (both legs) without hindering the receiver's view?
    Can the receiver' s partner be completely (both legs) be on the receiver's court without hindering the server's view?

    http://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/co...609&log_stat=0

    I believe that term, respective courts, means that the partners of the server & the receiver can stand anywhere within the doulbes boundaries on their own side of the net as long as it does not unsight the opposing server or receiver.

    Quite often, the server's partner will stand with one foot in each of their own serving areas. This is legal.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UBC, Fremont, California
    Posts
    412
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes, i think respective courts refers to each of the two pairs respective courts, which means their side.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Indeed... The server and reveiver need to stand in there own box, but the partners can stand where they want as long it's on their part of the net and they don't block sight of the opponents...

    You see it all the time, don't you? when someone is serving, the partner stands almost behind the server...

    Cryptail

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    France
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for the opinions. Just wanted to be sure about my interpretation (which was the same).

    Here is a link which shows examples of the server's partner position (one leg on the server's service court, 7th second) and the receiver's partner position (one leg on the receiver's service court, 37th second)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjfQfupVJk

Similar Threads

  1. question on rules
    By fred51 in forum General Forum
    Replies: 7
    : 02-27-2006, 10:41 AM
  2. Rules: Stupid Question but.......
    By varadero in forum General Forum
    Replies: 11
    : 12-19-2005, 09:28 AM
  3. Rules question
    By david14700 in forum General Forum
    Replies: 8
    : 09-13-2005, 02:28 AM
  4. Rules question...
    By graphite in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 6
    : 12-13-2004, 01:45 AM
  5. Rules Question
    By eggroll in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 5
    : 11-19-2004, 11:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •