Any official rule about hitting the ceiling in Singles high serve? A "let" or a "fault"? Or it depends? Thanks, Raymond
Im not sure theirs an official rule im pretty sure it depends, where i play their are some struts hanging down, if you hit that its a let whereas if you hit the ceiling itself its a fault. I may be wrong though.
on ceiling, then it is a fault. the rule on this: FAULTS It shall be a "fault": 13.3 if in play, the shuttle: 13.3.4 touches the ceiling or side walls; 13.3.6 touches any other object or person outside the court; (Where necessary on account of the structure of the building, the local badminton authority may, subject to the right of veto of its Member Association, make bye-laws dealing with cases in which a shuttle touches an obstruction).
Thanks Kwun. I saw this rule also, though I'm debating about the definition for "in play". I'm sure it makes perfect sense to consider a shot a fault if the shuttle touches the ceiling in order to prevent people using this to "escape" from very bad situation. But for the very first shot (the serve), what's the devious motive that mandates the rule to consider it a fault also?
if i am playing singles and i am tired and want to catch a breath, then i can just serve into the ceiling 50 times. getting 10mins of rest and the umpire cannot do jack about it. how devious indeed. but also how interesting.
The shuttle is "in play" from the moment the server strikes the shuttle. So your devious tactic doesn't work. Strangely, there's no rule about how high the ceiling needs to be. In theory, you could legitimately hold an international tournament in a hall with a 5-metre ceiling; there would be no basis for complaint from the Laws, anyway! Of course, this just goes to show that not everything depends on the Laws. In practice, you normally agree that hitting the ceiling is a fault, but hitting intermittent obstructions (such as a girder) is a let.
raymond was trying to understand why the rule should apply to the service as well. ie. he, hypothetically, wanted to change the definiton of "in play" to exclude the service. i merely tried to explain to him what devious tactic could arise if that were so.
I'm not, hypothetically or otherwise, trying to "change" the definition, but rather trying to "understand" it. BBC1 is hosting Junior National this year. The ceiling there might just not be high enough, esp. with the beams (and I forgot if there're any other fixtures up there) lowering the clearance further. If you have a good high serve, suddenly this works to your disadvantage.
In the UK clubs I have played at informyou verbally what the rules are regarding faults. Genrally they have somepart of the ceilings which are faults (eg ceiling) & some parts which are lets (eg the framework, cables, lights etc.. One club I played for did have a everythings a let policy..it was lower than most halls we play at. everytime i got in trouble I hit a massive lift and hit the ceiling....annoyed them a bit!
Hehe i wonder if they changed the policy. I think everywhere should play it as a fault. Its a get out clause to make it a let.
I agree....you should play to the court. then you can't play for a let, you have to play to win the rally.
At our club we play a let for the first one but if it happens again then its a fault. Sometimes an accident coz the end courts have basketball nets hung on the ceiling but after than it just gets annoying.
At my old school there used to be some wires hanging from the ceiling for winding out cricket nets and things, the shuttle would be doing a nice clear only to die for no apparrent reason, the amount of lets due to those wires was rediculous
It varies per gym and probably gym rules. At international tournaments, it'd be a fault because the ceiling would be a certain height. During Jr. Nationals at BBC, we got briefed as umpires that the ceiling is a fault at all times except for court 4 and 12 where a low pipe was hanging from it. The rule for hitting that pipe is that you get 1 let per serve (and only on serves). 2nd time you hit that pipe on a serve is a fault.
I agree. In (Inter)national tournaments this shouldn't be any problem at all. But otherwise I think common sense shall be applied with regards to the actual location. I have also played in club tournaments where certain courts have lower ceilings and/or pipes, ropes, basketnet etc. Most of the time the rule applied has been that a serve is a let but otherwise it is a fault. This is to avoid the tactics jamesd20 is describing. Of course one can do as kwun suggest but I think that's no big problem. /mats
Hitting the ceiling where I play on a serve would be simply ridiculous, as it is very high (around 20m above the ground would be my estimation). Since, once the server strikes the shuttle it is "in play", if the serve does hit the ceiling, it is supposed to be a fault. However, if the ceiling where you play is abnormally low, you may want to play with different rules (e.g. it is a let once, but if it is repeated twice consecutively it is a fault). Where I play, hitting the ceiling during play is more realistic and occassionally happens when people lift the shuttle straight up. Since the ceiling is flat and straight, though, the shuttlecock just bounces off and falls down. In unofficial practice (not counting points) we just continue to play, but in match play of any level with a ceiling that high it is definitely a fault.
