Serving at net height? You can't be serious. This would change the game dramatically!! The rule is alright as it is. Some judges allow a bit more, some a bit less. There's some discretion, but overall it's fair, as the service judge judges both sides and should produce equal results. Not a big problem imho...
I don't think the rule is alright. Not when you have some games where the service judge sits there silent for the entire game, and the players start crying to the official that their opponent's serve is illegal. And some games, every 6 or 7 serves get called illegal, even though they look exactly the same as all the other serves. So you get the servers complaining that they don't understand what they did wrong. Having a service height determined by an almost imperceptible line (that changes based on posture and movement) is crazy. There needs to be a fixed height that is easily judged. Also, I don't see anything wrong with having a higher service height. As it is now, the serving side is at a disadvantage. It's far too easy to attack most serves. In most racket sports, getting to serve is a reward for winning the last point. But I'd rather receive serve in badminton, than do the serving. Because it's easier to get on the attack first.
I do not agree with you. If service judges were more consistent, nobody would complain, and if servers didn't push the boundaries of the rules, then nobody would have any excuses for complaint. I am not saying the current rule is the best that can be done, but I think the problems you are describing are down to poor player attitudes, not bad rules. I do agree that the current rule is difficult to enforce, so perhaps some sort of rule change is a good idea. I don't think the solution is to give the server complete power over the returner - raising the service height to the tape level would leave it virtually impossible to defend against drive serves - giving a massive advantage to the serving side - I believe this is too imbalanced - we need something that creates an equal starting point in the rally. I would approve of a fixed height that was below the net e.g. 1 foot below the net height - you could paint a second line on the net for the purpose of enforcing the new rule. Remember everyone - in the old days, serves had to be played from much lower than we currently serve. Serving from lower down means you need to be able to serve better - whereas the current rules make it much easier. Also bear in mind that there are some servers who have very good serves e.g. Setiawan or Kido but do not achieve it by serving from above the tape - they just have good serves. Lars Paaske was another example - yes he was tall (and by the current rules, his waist was higher than for a short person) but did not bend the rules and produced perfect serves from below tape height. If servers were better, receivers wouldn't have such a big advantage.
I'm not actually saying that I want the service height raised. I just want a more clearly visible point of reference. That's why service judges are so inconsistent. And inconsistent judges equates to more frustrated players. Which then leads to a degradation of the level of play in the game. Anything that takes their concentration off of the play, and on to other things is bad for the game.
Is that true? The rules used to say that the racket head must be below the hand holding the racket, whereas now that rule says that the racket must be pointing in a downwards direction. But neither of those rules affect the height of the serve. What rule are you thinking of?
I don't suppose you happen to have a copy of the rules from the 90s? I am struggling! I might be wrong... but if the only rule was about the racket head being discernably below the hand, then I am surprised people didn't serve overhead but with a strange grip allowing them to contact the shuttle below their hand. I am confident the serving height used to be lower - but I could be wrong!
It wasn't the only rule. We still had the "shuttle below waist" rule. I don't think I have an old copy of the rules, but I do have a copy of the old coaching manual somewhere.
I am confident the "waist" didn't used to be defined as the lowest rib thing. More a traditional waist (which is lower).
Maybe. I don't remember that. I do have a vague memory that the rules were less explicit about it, and that we had to keep telling players that "waist" meant lowest rib and not shorts-line. Anatomically, the waist is defined as the area between the hips and ribcage, which makes it rather vague for a serving rule.
