I've asked this before in various places (forums and newsgroups) and the question came up (again!) in the pub after our club meet. It occured to me I have the opportunity to ask a professional. From the IBF rules a fault is : 13.6 if, in play, the shuttle: 13.6.2 is hit twice in succession by the same player with two strokes; The problem we have is really the definition of a stroke. I say a stroke is a continuous movement of the racquet in one direction. A change in direction constitutes a new stroke. The natural follow through after hitting the shuttle is still part of one stroke. My friend says that the stroke is over after the first hit of the shuttle. For example. One shot that some of our members do is to 'slice' the shuttle to take the pace off it. In such a shot it is possible that the head of the shuttle would hit the strings and then as the shuttle rotates the feathers also hit the strings - a second hit. I say this is NOT a fault, my friend says it is. Who is right?
In the IBF Laws book, under "Instructions to Umpires" section, this is quoted: " 3.8.6 Law 13.6: a double hit by one player with one stroke is not a ‘fault’." I guess it would hinge on your definition of what is consider a stroke. A stroke is one continous motion of the racquet (including follow through).
Ok... so here's another question. If when retrieving a shot, the shuttle hits the frame and rebounds upwards and instead of making a second stroke to hit the shuttle (which would be illegal), the player spins around (as a result of following the swing of the racquet), brings the racquet back around and hits the bird again (cleanly). I guess we could still argue that it's still one stroke since the player allowed to racquet to continue moving smoothly along one path that's always in a forwards direction relative to the racquet face. Is this a fault?
Tomsk, Personally, I think the "slice" ur described is not a fault. The 2nd hit is more like an "unpurpose" contact. Even though the law book did not really specify "2 stroke 1 hit" should be purposely or not, but I think unpurposely contact should not be considered as 2nd stroke. However, a clear slice should not be like the case ur describe. At least, not very often. If ppl doing more like a "carry" (big curve, let the shuttle sig. changing direction after the 1st hit), then it's a different story. Months ago, I asked a question about something similar. In my case, when ppl perform a quick drive (around net tap height) really close to the net, it's possible the racket and net "sandwich" the shuttle. Therefore, there could be more than 1 hit involved. However, that's a clean stroke, and pros been doing that in tournies. I agree it's a "border" line case, might bring up arguments.
What about slinging the shuttle? An old guy from my club did it once and I asked if it was a fault because he had slung it. He said that it was legal because it was all one stroke. I didn't try to debate it because there is no point arguing with old people because they never change. Anyways, I think maybe he was confusing this two-hit rule in one stroke with being allowed to sling it. Phil
Sling shot is one continuous hit of the shuttle without a change in direction of the racquet. I play that as legal, until the umpire calls a fault. In UK, it was once common for club members to regard a slingshot as a fault, and they call their own fault! Never saw the logic in that!! A slice shot is legal. I think Tom's friend had better watch some top players in action. Slice is a very important part of the game, backhand, forehand. Another example. even a tumble shot at the net, if the person hits it on the feathers to do a lift, it might inadvertently hit the base as well on further rotation. This is not a fault..........never seen called a fault either.
Sling shot is a fault. Take a look at Law 13.6.1 The difference here is that the shuttle is caught and held on the racquet (even if for a split second) as compared to the "double-hit in one stroke". If the sling shot is legal, it would be very easy to win a point by carrying the shuttle and slinging it back in any direction you desire.
Discussed this before in another thread. Many people regard a slingshot as a situation where the shuttle slides along the racquet face when the stroke is still one continuous stroke when the intention is to hit the shuttle cleanly. Rule 13.6.1 states the shuttle being caught first and then held. Different situation i.e. two seperate racquet movements. Sorry for not being more specific earlier.
I agree with the double hit not being a fault if done in a single stroke but what if..... You are trying to play a hairpin net-shot with a smooth upwards stroke. Your initial contact with the shuttle does not send it high enough to go over the net, but you intentionally continue smoothly with your follow through and hit it again and it goes over the net. Double hits are mostly unintentional, and intentional double hits usually involve jerking the racquet and turning it into 2 strokes and the player calls the fault. But the laws make no mention of the players intention to double-hit. Regarding sling shots, I'm not sure. I think there are different interpretations of what Law 13.6.1 means. 13.6.1 specifically mentions "during the execution of a stroke" The exaggerated version where a player catches the shuttle with one motion AND THEN slings it with another motion must be a fault The version Cheung considers legal, I would generally consider a fault (whether I would be right or not I don't know) Every shot involves the shuttle being "held" on the racquet. Usually for a fraction of a second while the strings stretch and rebound. This is not considered a sling or a fault. For me, if the shuttle slides across the racquet but flies off in an unexpected (to me) direction I call it a fault. If the shuttle parts company from the racquet somewhere in the follow through of a single stroke, rather than in a single crisp hit, I call it a fault. If the shuttle slides on the racquet but goes where I intended it to go it would probably depend on how long it felt like it was on the racquet. How much sliding should be considered legal. I've played shots where the initial contact is between the shaft and the shuttle, but the shuttle slides up to the head and then flies off. I played one stroke and the shuttle went back where I wanted it to go, but is it legal? I think it is still common. I'm not sure what logic you can't see. If I think I've played an illegal shot (not just a sling, anything, e.g. shuttle touches me, my clothing or glances off my racquet) I'll call it.
Let's keep things in context of the double shot. I don't think it needs to be called a fault. It's like the ambiguity with serves. Haven't you seen wierd shots in top class tournaments. Many don't get called a fault - and others do. Basically, I don't call a fault on a shuttle sliding because 1) it's difficult to reproduce, 2) there's no umpire present. It's not an obvious situation so why should I give away a point? Bad sportmanship? - these are two views of the situation. Neil, I play you any time if you're going to give me free points
