User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 18
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Who is in the right? - help

    Playing a mixed doubles game recently I suspected that the opposition man was rushing both my and my partners serve (moving before the serve was delivered), I obviously queried this but its was denied and in my view continued.

    I waited until I was serving to him (backhand serve) - drew the racket back, no pause, moved forward then stopped short of the shuttle (did not hit it) as suspected he lunged forward towards the net. I calmly moved to the opposite service box and counted the score up in my favour. - not suprisingly I was accused of cheating!

    Was I techncally right to claim the point?. - discuss

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sketchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Westcountry
    Posts
    707
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're both in the wrong.

  3. #3
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,104
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    you'll need a third party ie. umpire to judge whether his feet moved before your racket hits the shuttle

    that is all that matters, if yes, then that's a fault

    if only his upper body and arms move forward but his feet stay planted, then it's not a fault

    the only way to serve to rushers is to have a very good tight serve (obviously!) or to purposely serve short or flick serve when you sense him rushing

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sykes4211 View Post
    Playing a mixed doubles game recently I suspected that the opposition man was rushing both my and my partners serve (moving before the serve was delivered), I obviously queried this but its was denied and in my view continued.

    I waited until I was serving to him (backhand serve) - drew the racket back, no pause, moved forward then stopped short of the shuttle (did not hit it) as suspected he lunged forward towards the net. I calmly moved to the opposite service box and counted the score up in my favour. - not suprisingly I was accused of cheating!

    Was I techncally right to claim the point?. - discuss
    If this is a tournament then get an umpire to check, if it's social play then just don't play with him again.

    In terms of what you did to check, you were wrong. The first forward motion of the racket starts the serve, if you don't complete the serve (hit the shuttle) then you're at fault and it doesn't matter what he does....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for the replies so far.

    Just to clarify, the receiver did infact rush foward, moving his feet. The shuttle was not touched.

    His argument was that the service had started, i.e movemnt had commenced to hit the shuttle, mine was that foot movement had occured before the shuttle played.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    407
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If both the server and receiver commit a fault, it's counted as a let (rule 14.2.2). So no, you can't claim the point in this situation, it should be replayed.

    To be precise, the service starts when the racket begins to move forwards, and is delivered when the racket his the shuttle. The receiver's feet must be stationary until the service is delivered.

    In practice, it's impossible to settle this sort of argument without an umpire present.
    Last edited by alexh; 02-14-2011 at 05:57 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,104
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    In this case, theoretically you're correct because his fault occurs a split second before your fault. But you need a third party eg umpire to see this.

    Like I said earlier, a few flick serves or short serves will put him off this rushing. Also you can change thee tempo of your serve so that it is unpredictable.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    In this case, theoretically you're correct because his fault occurs a split second before your fault. But you need a third party eg umpire to see this.

    Like I said earlier, a few flick serves or short serves will put him off this rushing. Also you can change thee tempo of your serve so that it is unpredictable.

    This was my thinking also.
    The opponents actions were really effecting my partner as the shuttle was being hit straight back at her and effecting the consistency of her serve. I know its not strinctly in the spirit of the game, but it did make my point and seemed to sort the problem out.

  9. #9
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,814
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow You are at 'fault' for not completing your 'Service Stroke'

    Quote Originally Posted by sykes4211 View Post
    Playing a mixed doubles game recently I suspected that the opposition man was rushing both my and my partners serve (moving before the serve was delivered), I obviously queried this but its was denied and in my view continued.

    I waited until I was serving to him (backhand serve) - drew the racket back, no pause, moved forward then stopped short of the shuttle (did not hit it) as suspected he lunged forward towards the net. I calmly moved to the opposite service box and counted the score up in my favour. - not suprisingly I was accused of cheating!

    Was I techncally right to claim the point?. - discuss
    .
    Sorry to say, you are at 'fault' for not completing your 'Service Stroke'.

    Your opponent estimated the time at which your racket will hit the shuttlecock. If you stop your stroke, and your opponent moves - your opponent cannot be faulted.
    .

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    @Home
    Posts
    58
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well Alexh is actually right, it is the normal procedure to call a let when both reciver and server is called for a fault. According to 14.2.2 as written earlier.

    /Krysser
    Last edited by krysser; 02-15-2011 at 03:07 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for the comments so far, I must admit I find the rules are a little ambiguous, Do the rules say its a fault not to complete the serve or is this rule saying no double movement before the shuttle is struck.

    Here are the extracts I see as relevant:

    9.1.3 some part of both feet of the server and the receiver shall remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

    9.1.7 the movement of the server?s racket shall continue forwards from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

    9.2 Once the players are ready for the service, the first forward movement of the server?s racket head shall be the start of the service.

    9.3 Once started (Law 9.2), the service is delivered when the shuttle is hit by the server?s racket or, in attempting to serve, the server misses the shuttle.

    Thx

  12. #12
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,814
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow I must admit I find the rules are a little ambiguous

    Quote Originally Posted by sykes4211 View Post
    Thanks for the comments so far, I must admit I find the rules are a little ambiguous, Do the rules say its a fault not to complete the serve or is this rule saying no double movement before the shuttle is struck.

    Here are the extracts I see as relevant:

    9.1.3 some part of both feet of the server and the receiver shall remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

    9.1.7 the movement of the server?s racket shall continue forwards from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

    9.2 Once the players are ready for the service, the first forward movement of the server?s racket head shall be the start of the service.

    9.3 Once started (Law 9.2), the service is delivered when the shuttle is hit by the server?s racket or, in attempting to serve, the server misses the shuttle.

    Thx
    .
    Read 9.1.7 and 9.2 again.

    And be aware of 9.3: If you miss hitting the shuttle, the rally is over.
    .

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,092
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris-ccc View Post
    .
    Read 9.1.7 and 9.2 again.

    And be aware of 9.3: If you miss hitting the shuttle, the rally is over.
    .
    why do you do that? put a . above and below your post?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sykes4211 View Post
    Thanks for the replies so far.

    Just to clarify, the receiver did infact rush foward, moving his feet. The shuttle was not touched.

    His argument was that the service had started, i.e movemnt had commenced to hit the shuttle, mine was that foot movement had occured before the shuttle played.
    Ummm... how can you say that his feet moved before the shuttle played when you never actually played the shuttle?

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    In this case, theoretically you're correct because his fault occurs a split second before your fault. But you need a third party eg umpire to see this.

    Like I said earlier, a few flick serves or short serves will put him off this rushing. Also you can change thee tempo of your serve so that it is unpredictable.
    In a match, I highly doubt that an umpire would call a let. Not sure who here knows american football but it's similar to an illegal motion by the quarterback causing an off side call to the defense.

    sykes, you need to find a better way to figure this out than by intentionally faulting yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by sykes4211 View Post
    Thanks for the comments so far, I must admit I find the rules are a little ambiguous, Do the rules say its a fault not to complete the serve or is this rule saying no double movement before the shuttle is struck.

    Here are the extracts I see as relevant:

    9.1.3 some part of both feet of the server and the receiver shall remain in contact with the surface of the court in a stationary position from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

    9.1.7 the movement of the server?s racket shall continue forwards from the start of the service (Law 9.2) until the service is delivered (Law 9.3)

    9.2 Once the players are ready for the service, the first forward movement of the server?s racket head shall be the start of the service.

    9.3 Once started (Law 9.2), the service is delivered when the shuttle is hit by the server?s racket or, in attempting to serve, the server misses the shuttle.

    Thx
    Simply, the first forward movement is the START of the service motion and that motion MUST be CONTINUOUS. During this continuous motion the service is considered DELIVERED at the point when you actually contact the shuttle. At that exact point, both server and receiver are allowed to move.

    So is it a fault if the receiver moves before you hit the shuttle in your serve? Yes, it is and you're right but... by stopping your service motion you're also committing a fault (and a much more noticeable one) so in a tourney I doubt an umpire would call a let but rather call a fault on your service.

    If this is a social game then really... does it matter? If he insists on playing that way then don't play with him OR use the methods suggested to keep him honest.

  15. #15
    Regular Member pBmMalaysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kuching, Malaysia, Malaysia
    Posts
    4,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sykes4211 View Post
    Playing a mixed doubles game recently I suspected that the opposition man was rushing both my and my partners serve (moving before the serve was delivered), I obviously queried this but its was denied and in my view continued.

    I waited until I was serving to him (backhand serve) - drew the racket back, no pause, moved forward then stopped short of the shuttle (did not hit it) as suspected he lunged forward towards the net. I calmly moved to the opposite service box and counted the score up in my favour. - not suprisingly I was accused of cheating!

    Was I techncally right to claim the point?. - discuss
    Were you trying to prove your point that he moves before you deliver your service?

    you may have proved your point but that doesn't give you the right to claim that point,

    simply for sportsmanship

    unless there is an umpire then that will be a different case

  16. #16
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,814
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile It's just a habit

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    why do you do that? put a . above and below your post?
    .
    It's just a habit of saying when I start and finish my opinion in discussion.
    .

  17. #17
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,814
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow We cannot do what we like, but to follow the Laws from BWF

    Quote Originally Posted by druss View Post
    Ummm... how can you say that his feet moved before the shuttle played when you never actually played the shuttle?

    In a match, I highly doubt that an umpire would call a let. Not sure who here knows american football but it's similar to an illegal motion by the quarterback causing an off side call to the defense.

    sykes, you need to find a better way to figure this out than by intentionally faulting yourself.

    Simply, the first forward movement is the START of the service motion and that motion MUST be CONTINUOUS. During this continuous motion the service is considered DELIVERED at the point when you actually contact the shuttle. At that exact point, both server and receiver are allowed to move.

    So is it a fault if the receiver moves before you hit the shuttle in your serve? Yes, it is and you're right but... by stopping your service motion you're also committing a fault (and a much more noticeable one) so in a tourney I doubt an umpire would call a let but rather call a fault on your service.

    If this is a social game then really... does it matter? If he insists on playing that way then don't play with him OR use the methods suggested to keep him honest.
    .
    Personally, I don't like these 2 Laws, namely;

    (1) The first CONTINUOUS forward movement of a server's racket is the START of a rally
    (2) The receiver is not allowed to move before the shuttlecock is hit (during Service)

    However, we need to understand from the History of Badminton why laws makers implemented these faults.

    In (1), decades ago, servers would do a 'Multiple Action' when doing the Service.

    'Multiple Action (at Service)' = Doing the Service by moving the racket head forward and backward, and forward and backward (several times), before striking the shuttlecock. This creates a disadvantage to the receiver. Why? Because the receiver doesn't know which of the forward strokes is actually performing the Service.

    But I would tell my trainees to pay attention to the shuttlecock; and not to the server's action.

    In (2), the server could not concentrate in performing a good Service when the receiver is moving; that is, moves up and down, forward and backward, side to side, etc, etc, ......

    But I would tell my trainees to observe the receiver's movement and serve to the location/area of the court opposite to where the receiver is moving to.

    Conclusion: We cannot do what we like, but to follow the Laws of Badminton as laid down to all players by our Badminton authority, the BWF.

    .
    Last edited by chris-ccc; 02-16-2011 at 05:26 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

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
  •