As of May 2006, some of the details with respect to serving changed. One of these was the following Law: 9.1.6 the shaft of the server's racket at the instant of hitting the shuttle shall be pointing in a downward direction The phrase, "to such an extent that the whole head of the racket is discernably below the whole of the server's hand holding the racket" had been eliminated from this Law (much to my dismay). So, after some 10 months of this new wording, how has this affected the way players have been serving in local clubs as well as on the competitve international scene? (I'm afraid that I don't get see much international play at all). Are international players permitted to hit drive serves (where the shaft of the racket is nearly or virtually horizontal)? Are more players in local clubs using this new wording as license to hit offensive drive serves?
hmm i dont get it. it seems the same to me. only a mere rephrase? how would this change the way we serve?
So are you saying that the law has been eliminated? But still according to the 9.1.6 law, the racquet still have to be pointing in a downward direction, so the racquect head does not necessary have to be below the serving, it just have to be pointing down. Still I hated when people does a drive serve to your face and claim that it's legal. Jens Eriksen at 6'6" doesn't even serve like that.
In effect it means that you can have the Racket and hit at horizontal, wheras beforeit was always pointing slightly downwards. Actually I never thought at the time, but in AE, there was quite a number of drives serves used, most of which won points, even one won match point (can't remember game)-much to the disgusted look on the receivers face. There is something about drive serves that people find "intimidating" or unfair
The law has not been eliminated, but truncated. To my mind 9.1.6 has become vague. What constitutes "downward"? A shaft angle that is even less than one degree "down" from the horizontal can be interpreted as downward. Previous to this change, the shaft angle was supposed to be quite a bit "downward" -- so much so that the "racket" hand had to be completely & obviously (discernably) below the bottom edge of the racket face. Under the old wording, the only way to hit a drive serve legally was to stand quite a bit back (several feet or a meter or so) behind the short service line to deliver it. This legal drive serve was somewhat (significantly?) less devastating than an illegal drive hit from just behind the service line. I find it interesting that, in the last Olympics, many of the players employing the backhand serve (particularly in doubles), started with the racket shaft in an orientation that was nearly vertical. However, since the rule change in 2006, the shaft is often nearly horizontal instead.
Yes. Well remembered. Candra was shocked, and didn't beleive the serve was legal for a while afterwards.
Previous to the wording change, the shaft was supposed to be more than just slightly downward. The downward orientation was probably close to 30 degress or more in order to comply with the old law. I find it disturbing that this type of drive serve was allowed at AE at all. I agree that this is just simply unfair = wrong!!! Receivers that are shorter (& very quick) may be somewhat less at a disadvatage than one who is taller (and has longer arms) when victimized by a drive serve. How about other professional tournaments? Has this been allowed? Also, is the drive serve rearing its ugly head in non-professional venues more than before?
The rule change has allowed more Drive serves to be allowed. Previously more were faulted. They are not illegal. It depends on whether the player can do one (is tall enough) By the same virtue that having a drive serve against you hinders taller, less mobile players, Taller players can acheive better Drives serves to inflict on opponents.
While that is true, the shaft orientation for executing a devastating drive serve does not really need to be pointing upward or even at horizontal. A drive can be executed even if the shaft is pointing a few degrees in a downward direction. Law 9.1.8 states that the initial trajectory of the served shuttle should be in an upward direction. However, this wording doesn't really prevent the "legal" execution of a drive serve either. Even a very slight upward trajectory is still upward. The badminton serve was never meant to be an offensive stroke. While the flick serve helps to keep an aggressive receiver "honest", the drive serve goes too far -- it is to much of an offensive weapon IMHO.
Unfortunately there is no rule that can outlaw a drive serve. When does a flick serve become a drive serve? the movement of a drive serve is still always initially upwards.
Actually, the old wording of Law 9.1.6 was supposed to do just that very thing. It permitted the execution of flick serves but severaly limited the ability to legally serve a drive. If the old law was strictly enforced then really the only way to drive a serve legally was to stand back deeper in the court. If the letter of the old law was followed, the diff between a legal flick & an illegal drive was fairly obvious. I've seen thousands of both types of serves (in more than 25 yrs of playing) & don't recall ever seeing one that wasn't one or the other.
I have to say, I was unsure as to why WBF changed the serving law. To help service judges? Better than allowing tennis style servs though eh?
You can find pdf files for the Laws of Badminton at the BWF site: www.InternationalBadminton.org/statues.asp The serving regulations start on page 70. Not sure why a sliced serve would be illegal as long as the racket face initially contacts the base (cork) of the shuttle (Law 9.1.4) and the movement of the server’s racket shall continue forwards from the start of the service until the service is delivered (Law 9.1.7). If you were to start the forward motion of the racket to initiate the serve and then change the racket direction to slice the shuttle in such a mannner so that racket is no longer moving forward, then this could possibly be construed a violation of Law 9.1.7 Not sure if the scenario I described is actually possible. However I was once accused of doing that very action since I had imparted extra spin to the shuttle by slicing it. I don't believe that I actually changed the direction in the forward motion of my racket to execute the serve (but perhaps a video would have shown otherwise). Can NE1 else come up with any other reason why a slice serve, specifically, would not be legal? Let's assume that the contact is below the waist and the shaft is pointing in a downward direction at the instant of contact.
I'm sure that the primary factor for changing the serving laws was to offset the lack of advantage the server has under rally scoring regulations. With the older 3x15 system, a team (or person) had to be serving in order score a point. This made serving advantageous with classic scoring rules. With rally scoring, the server no longer has this advantage -- either the server or the receiver can score a point. All things being equal, the server is at a bit of a disadvantage since the serve is basically a defensive stroke. An aggressive receiver can attack this defensive shot if it is not precisely executed. Therefore the BWF felt that the serve, under rally scoring rules, needed to be a bit less of a liability. They undoubtedly wanted to permit a flatter trajectory, particaularly for short backhand serves. However, I'm not certain if it was really their intent to allow all drive serves. Analyze the video link below from the Badminton.tv site. It appears that they are saying that the last 2 serving examples are faults. It is obvious that the racket in the very last frame is not pointing in a downward direction. However, the 2nd to the last serve shown is not so clear cut. The shaft appears to be in a slight downward direction but they say that it is likely to be deemed a fault. Check it out: www.badminton.tv/content/item/new-service-rule-2/114.html If the Laws of Badminton ever revert back to classic (serve-based) scoring (I hope, I hope, I hope) then, perhaps, Law 9.1.6 will once again be more restrictive and less vague.
