User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Surrey, Canada
    Posts
    1,581
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default consider this rule ...

    have you ever wondered why there is a doubles service end line that is shorter than the court length and different from the singles service end line? other than a possible advantage to the server for added real estate for the receiver to cover there doesn't seem to be any reason for the location of this service line.

    this line is superfluous after the service and often confusing to new players to the sport. so why not simply remove it and have just one end service line.

    Your thoughts to this?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the purpose is to make it harder for the server to score points. If I could serve deep, the receiver would be on the defensive at least 90% of the time and since in doubles you have a partner, that would make putting the shuttle away pretty easy when you have serve.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My thoughts:

    1) The receiver also has to cover the alley, so they are still covering about the same area of court.
    2) If the doubles service line was the same as the singles, then flick serves would probably end up being overpowered. They wouldn't be outright aces, but it would put the other team on the defensive, since the receiver would start out further back to receive.
    3) With the doubles service line where it is now, it places importance on the skill and accuracy of the serve. This also helps make it a more intense and faster-paced game.
    4) Besides, it's not a very hard concept at all. Must serve before this line in doubles, after the serve, it means nothing. Simple as that.

    Phil

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I consider it to be the same type of rule and thinking as in Tennis...two (2) chances in serving. Don't worry hit it as hard as possible if the ball goes out..no worries..still have an extra serve!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New York, US
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Agree with most above issues.

    I think with an extra "attacker" getting ready on serving side, if the serve end line is way deep back, it's will be extra harder for the receiving end to have a quick, high quality return to even get into the game.

    To get the game be more intensive, instead of a possible 10:0 run from serving side, current rule works better. It will be harder to put the receiving end way too much back, and need extra control skill to get opponents in trouble, but not a fault.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by LoveJoy
    I consider it to be the same type of rule and thinking as in Tennis...two (2) chances in serving. Don't worry hit it as hard as possible if the ball goes out..no worries..still have an extra serve!
    I have to disagree with this. I've read before that the serve differs in attitude between Tennis and Badminton in that in Tennis, the serve is an aggresive shot, and is meant to be able to score outright points. In Badminton, the serve is mainly to just start the game. The rules such as keeping it below the waist/wrist are there so that the serve does not become a weapon.

    I was at a tournament a couple months back, and in one game, a player was against someone much stronger than him, but he started using a very aggresive drive serve which scored him many points and he won the first game. All the players could see it was illegal. The opponent called a service judge (who happened to know nothing about badminton and illegal serves), and eventually won. So as you can see, keeping serves non-aggressive helps the quality of the game.

    Phil

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,373
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: consider this rule ...

    Originally posted by badrad
    have you ever wondered why there is a doubles service end line that is shorter than the court length and different from the singles service end line? other than a possible advantage to the server for added real estate for the receiver to cover there doesn't seem to be any reason for the location of this service line.

    this line is superfluous after the service and often confusing to new players to the sport. so why not simply remove it and have just one end service line.

    Your thoughts to this?
    Given that you have two people covering each side of the court, if you can serve long and wide, the receiver will be in a very defensive position to make a good return (most likely a defensive clear) so giving the serving side an added advantage to win points easily (in fact, the serve might not even be lost for the entire game!).

    I think I just rephrased Valourarc's post

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,133
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The reason for this rule originally was to make sure that the receiving area was the same for singles and doubles. In singles, the service court is thin and long and the service area is about the same as in doubles where the service court is thick and short. The strategies that developed in service were developed based on the service rule. The rule was not designed to make the double's serve more aggressive. Probably, when the rule was formulated, the standard of the game was much lower and service was not the potent weapon it is now, even with the below the waist service rule. However, under the traditional service rules, players developed various tactics and strategies to gain advantages within the rules and we hence have the general short serve in doubles and the long serve in singles. The backhand flick serve was developed to gain an advantage, and the current backhand serve in singles also developed to gain and advantage or (in this case) to minimize a disadvantage.

    Ron

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New York, US
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by LoveJoy
    I consider it to be the same type of rule and thinking as in Tennis...two (2) chances in serving. Don't worry hit it as hard as possible if the ball goes out..no worries..still have an extra serve!
    Can't agree. This 2 sports are very different.

    In tennis, most pts were decided in very few shot, only a few were about numerous rallies. The serve in tennis is a very useful attack weapon, can be used as a major scoring options for players have height and strength.

    In badminton (not club level, but higher lvl), u very seldom see server could score pts very easily just on serve. Serve mostly being used to make sure the receiving end won't being to attack easily. The beauty in badminton is strenght and height won't be as important as in tennis, and many good plays were scored after numerous of rallies.

    Another pt, tennis serve is "wait for ur turn". So, receiving end won't be wipped out, even if the server has dominating serves. Receiver can wait for his/her turn to serve, and try to score pts.

    In badminton, winning side will keep serve and keep scoring. If u make serve in badminton to be a deadly weapon by changing rules, then, the side serve first will get great advantage to win even before the game starts.

Similar Threads

  1. Do u prefer 15 points rule or 21 points rule?
    By Smichz in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 56
    : 03-07-2012, 01:06 AM
  2. what's the rule on this?
    By hesho in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 4
    : 10-13-2011, 11:52 PM
  3. Interesting IBF rule
    By silentheart in forum General Forum
    Replies: 10
    : 03-07-2006, 05:53 PM
  4. What Rule(Law) would you change....
    By serviceover in forum General Forum
    Replies: 18
    : 02-03-2006, 03:33 PM
  5. Receiving rule
    By seanrachy in forum General Forum
    Replies: 18
    : 01-27-2006, 05:06 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
  •