Can you call a fault, when your opponent breaks a string? Well according to rule 4.2 - you may just be able to do so. 4.2 The stringed area: 4.2.1 shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings either alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross. The stringing pattern shall be generally uniform and, in particular, not less dense in the centre than in any other area; and... The area with the broken string will definitely NOT be as dense as the rest of the string bed. I have never seen - or heard of - this rule been used.
Ha! I like your logic, sir. Imaginative thinking. That rule is intended to put some limits on racket design. It's not intended to apply to broken strings. I've seen players break strings in major tournaments and continue playing, without being faulted. As you say, however, there's nothing in the rules that makes this explicit.
I think the strings may not be broken at the start/beginning of the rally. anyway, even at high level, when the strings break during the rally ther's no call...
There is nothing that specifically says playing with a broken string is a fault. It only says the stringed area shall comply with certain prescribed criteria. If a racket's stringed area is not in compliance it simply means it cannot be used for play. When in play a string snaps it is not a fault. When a player first finds out his string is broken he will of course exchange for a new racket because a racket with a broken string is going to be quite useless. Only when the umpire finds out a broken string after the rally is ended can he then order the player to stop using it. But a fault? Not so.
True - and a racket not complying to the criteria of weawing and being as dense in the middle as in the sides, will probably be crap as well. What's the point of a rule which it is a disadvantage to break? A guideline for stringers and racket manufacturers? We might as well have a rule concerning clothing, stating that: "The clothing should not restrict the free movement of the player." Like someone would consider breaking that rule! or indeed - string a racket less dense in the middle. Mind you - I will try to string a non weaved racket to see if it should render me any unfair advantages. Stay tuned for updates. I will refrain from stringing a racket with no strings in the middle, as this (to me) seems to be obviously countereffective.
Let's be pedantic about this When interpreting any set of rules, there are two important questions: What things are allowed by the rules? What are the consequences if someone breaks the rules? In badminton, the word "fault" has a specific meaning (rule 13 is a list of things that are faults). If a fault occurs, then the opponents win a point (rule 7.3). When someone breaks a rule, it may or may not count as a fault. For instance, the rules tell you which side you should serve from, but if you serve from the wrong side then it isn't a fault (rule 12.2). A broken string definitely isn't a fault, because it isn't mentioned in rule 13. But the rules aren't clear on what should happen. The rules that are possibly relevant are: In principle, a broken string is an unforeseen situation, and should be a let. But that would be impractical: we can't expect the umpire to know the instant a string breaks. So I think 16.3.1 would be the applicable rule: when the broken string is discovered, the umpire should suspend play for as long as it takes for the player to change racket.
while playing, it should be ok to continue. At most, you can only have 2-3 shots to maintain if you are lucky and your opponent still can't kill you off.
Pedantic ? Yes please. Nothing is more fun than exploring the limits of things. Be it: rules, arguments or indeed you own badminton skills. If you always only go on the middle of the road and attempt only what you know you can accomplish, you'll never know what you can do or have. Today I tried stringing a non-weaved racket, to explore the hidden powers of this pattern. Powers apparantly so strong they had to be banned by our Badminton Forefathers. All the mains on one face and all the crosses on the other. Awesome powers? Indeed! The slight imbalance caused by the mains being pushed away from the centerline of the racket - by the crosses - was enough to bend the frame in the shape of a spoon. I did not have the courage to actually try hitting any shuttles with it. And I seriously doubt the racket would have made it all the way to the courts without breaking in the bag. I restrung it - now with the crosses still not weaved under/overthe mains, but alternating one cross on one side of the mains, the next on the other side. (to balance out the mains). i have still not tried it for real, but initial testing (in my basement) suggests that netplay will be erratic. AND - and this felt very peculiar - there is no PING from the strings when bouncing a shuttle. Very Odd. I will test it on court tomorrow.
Thanks for sacrificing one of your rackets for this fascinating experiment! I look forward to hearing more... I'm trying to guess: "mains" means the strings going one way, and "cross" for the other direction? Are you able to restring it to be less dense in the centre, and see what that does? Another thing that's actually not forbidden by the rules is to have the strings crossing but running diagonally!
Rules are made so that no unfair advantage is given to any player . Rules are made so that no unfair advantage is given to any player. Also, a rally is to be continuous if nothing is endangering the players on court. It is unfortunate for a player when his/her strings get broken during a rally. I cannot see why a fault should be given when there is no disadvantage experienced by his/her opponent(s). .
Mains = same direction as the shaft Crosses = well - the other direction. I have seen the diagonal pattern done once. Let me just say that this patten in no way balances out the forces of the strings going in the two directions. The racket very quickly ended up very pointy at the top - then snapped. to Chris: "Rules are made so that no unfair advantage is given to any player." I disagree! Rules are normally made so that no one would gain an advantage by breaking the rule. (shouting, overhand service, unneccesary delays, etc.) If a player wants to give the oppositiion an unfair advantage; by playing with eyes closed, in a coat, shoeless or with a poorly strung racket he/she is free to do so. Well apart from the poorly strung racket! If a string pattern other than the weaved should prove to be unfairly much better - we should be using it. We don't ban better shoelacing patterns or lighter and better rackets. "Also, a rally is to be continuous if nothing is endangering the players on court."
Rules are normally made so that no one would gain an advantage by breaking the rule . I was answering the opening post; I was saying that if your strings breaks during a rally, no fault will be called because; 1. No unfair advantage is gained by you (over your opponent). 2. No danger is expected to occur (that a rally has to be stopped). .
Illegal stringing test. I have now tried my highly illegal non-woven stringing. Crosses are not woven into the mains. However, to prevent racket head collaps, the mains weave through the crosses. This way each cross string is free to move, but is on the other side of the mains than its two neighbouring cross strings. The friction of string bed is very high in the direction of the main strings, and very low in the direction of the crosses. Feel and Effects: Clears: Very odd feel. The crack and ping of a normal stroke is replaced by a "thud". The stringbed feels very much softer than the applied 24 pounds woluld normally feel like. (Due to the fact that the non-woven strings, don't distribute the load to the neighbouring strings) Power is good though and the control in the clear feels fine. (as long as no cutting is applied !) Cut drops or clears: A different story. I guess, that the low friction perpendicular to the shaft direction, causes too much power to be lost. Slippery means low speed and less control (test it outside if your'e on the northern hemisphere). Net drops: If you move the racket sideways during execution look above. If you move the racket in a stabbing motion towards the net - expect to see some serious spinning ! We had great fun testing, but we didn't find that it would give us an unfair advantage over over opponents. Also we thought that durability would become an issue as the middle strings carry the load with only little assistance from the neighbours. Conclusion: Good: Stabbing netdrops. Good/Bad: The lack of crack & ping. Actually some players had that as a plus. Bad: cut clears/drops/smashes, smash return, short service. Verdict: Not recommended. Next Up: Mains placed alternating on the two sides of the crosses. Predictions anyone ?