What's the point? Enforcement is what matters! The rules at international level aren't even enforced in a consistent way (it's hard as an umpire, I should know, I've been one for years at national level), let alone club level matches. I had a match in my 4th division league this weekend, and this guy was just ridiculous. He was 2m long and still felt the need to serve illegally in every way possible: serving waaay too high (I tell people they're nipple-serving to get in their heads and get some advantage back for them serving too high), racket shaft not pointing down but flat or high, and even shuttle not even traveling upwards sometimes! (first person I met who was tall enough to do this) Of course, I said something, he demanded it was illegal, but even his teammate agreed afterwards it was ridiculous. You can't demand a point for a fault or even a let with these people, it just makes it silly. At least with 1.15m their is less ambiguity and a small error in leagues isn't such a big advantage as this guy's. So yeah, maybe?
I think enforcement is definitely one factor that needs to be addressed but it isn't the only one. There are some players that I believe fault serve on every serve, but are only faulted on the odd ones that are worse than their normal serve. I think service judges are under a bit of pressure not to fault every serve, even if all of a certain player's serves could be considered fault serves. Statistically, we hardly ever see a fault serve being called during the first few points in a match. I personally think that, even if the service judge considers these serves (early in the match) to be fault serves, he/she won't call it because if that is the "normal" serve for that player, then they will have to call a lot of fault serves throughout the match, perhaps every time that player serves - which would not be popular with the fans. So, I'm guessing they would make a mental note of how their player serves (consciously or subconsciously), and only call a fault if it is worse than their normal serve. I think if we had the technology to do away with a human service judge, we could potentially see a lot more fault serves in a match. But I guess that would damage the sport and cause huge arguments among fans, though it could force players to serve properly as it couldn't really be disputed.
Here's the official newsletter from BWF: http://bwfbadminton.com/news-single/2017/11/29/experimental-service-law-from-march-2018/
I'm somewhat surprised that they test at World Championships and Thomas and Uber Cups. For me, the idea of a test would be that even if the new rules turn out to be absolutely horrible, the result would be limited to tournaments without massive price money and huge audiences. On the other, this way nobody can claim that the test results would not apply to top-level players.
We have discussed a couple of options before: Markings on the net or netposts, a bar in the service judges' view, or even electronic camera-based assistance.
It would be presumptuous of me to assume that I had any pert in bringing about this change but I did, in 2015, have an email discussion with Nora Perry and Torsten Berg, pointing out that the current ruling about the badminton service is clearly wrong. I wrote because, at the time, I had watched a small lady player (probably just about 5 feet tall) persistently called for 'foul serving' in a match. She was forced BY THE RULES to serve from a strike height of about 3 feet. Her opposition was a man, probably about 6 feet 4 inches tall, who was permitted by the rules to strike the shuttle at least about a foot higher. This is clearly unfair. One of the main principles when playing badminton is to get the opposition to 'lift', thereby enabling the next shot to be downwards. The service is ALREADY a shot which, in most cases, going to go in an upwards trajectory. How much harder is that for a short person. Before you say it, that is NOT the same as asking for a basketball net to be lowered. Smaller people happily play basketball and over a distance of many feet expect to be able to compete with taller players. There are few games which relate its rules to the height of the player which BADMINTON DOES ALREADY. Whether you agree with me or not, most people who play or watch will know things at the moment are wrong. I would quote Anthony Clark, who, whilst commentating on on an NBL match, said he had no idea where the lowest rib was on a server. The inconsistencies are there for everyone to see. I assume that Viktor Axelson's ridiculous pose from a crouched position when serving was a joke. However, it does little to address a serious problem, which clearly exists in badminton. The old man
Ultimately it's about the umpire making the call consistently, infallibly, fairly, and perhaps even challenge-able in the future with instant video replay. Similar to line calls now with Hawk-Eye. Judging the serve by the lowest rib is the most ridiculously archaic, arbitrary and subjective part of badminton currently, and BWF deserves to be applauded for taking this step to bring the sport into the 21st century as they did going with Hawk-Eye.
whoaw.... that is very bold move to practically changes the rule at all top international tournaments. a bit too bold for me, expected to see it at a smaller scale initially...
One question, if someone serves higher than 1.15, will that be a 'fault' or 'let'? In my point of view, this fix number is good to have better standard in creating the limit. But the taller athlete is much more disadvantaged if it is meant to be a service fault as they have more chance to serve high. That is also after they are forced to serve in a more awkward position than those smaller ones. I feel that if this fix height to be implemented, illegal serve must be ended with 'let' instead of 'fault'. One reason to implement this fix height rule is to diminish the advantage due to height (mainly refers to tall player). But I see that the other spectrum (short player) is given a lot of advantage with less chance for service fault in this scenario.
Definitely a fault - it was so in the last fixed height experiment and BWF communicated it as such. I think it should be a fault, because otherwise players can intentionally delay the game by serving incorrectly, or gain an advantage by exhausting the service judge (will he really dare to call 5 lets in a row?). Tall players simply have to learn how to serve legally - it's part of the game. And as long as there is a gray zone (i.e. it's determined by humans), service judges will bear in mind RTTO §1.3 and §4.4 and not call fault if in doubt. The change will disadvantage taller players, but will it truly be a disadvantage overall to be tall? Actually, there is a really simple test to see whether the new change makes badminton unfair: Will there be any tall players winning tournaments? I for one fully expect Viktor Axelsen to be in the top 5 even after a full season with fixed height rules.
Yeah, of course everybody (the tall player) has to adapt to the new rule. It is just I think the rule itself is not fair to allow 'short player advantage' if it ends with a fault How about limit of let because of service, like in table tennis when the ball hits the net at service or like tennis with their service? Twice lets then it be a fault and point for opponent. Anyway, what are those RTTO §1.3 and §4.4 ?
I thought you did not want require players to learn new technique? In tennis, the double serve rule has lead to players developing 2 serves: One risky first service, and a second one with different technique in which they try to safely serve. Do we really want this in badminton? Also, double serves would increase match lengths, which is not desirable for a number of reasons. And do you really want the service judge to fault dozens of serves per match? How do these rules translate to matches without service judges (where umpires are more hesitant to call service faults), or matches without umpires? Two regulations that allow and require service judges to let some minor faults slide:
Good point. Double let is not good idea Though I don't see a problem here. Let the umpire decides whether that was a let or a fault (after a let). The one without umpire is problematic though and the system should not be used. That said, it is also just like in any common non-umpired matches: the service rules often being neglected I still don't see how this help much with the 'short player advantage'
It means tall players will not suddenly be helpless to do a valid serve. There might be a couple more calls at the beginning, but Viktor Axelsen will not be faulted 10 times a match. Tall players will adapt.
I'd like to believe this, but with 1,83 m, I'm not exactly a giant and even I'd have to serve around 5 cm lower. Unless the new rule will be enforced the same way as the old one: not. Fortunately, I'm not good enough to play at a level where it will matter.
Now that this new rule becomes very real, I took a measuring tape and made the test for myself. I'm 1,84 m so I was expecting that I it would mean to lower my serving height. To my surprise, I end up about pretty much exactly at the same height than I'm allowed to currently (about 2 cm above the navel). So either my legs are shorter than yours or you are currently serving at a boe'ish height. I'm just guessing that the break even body height between old and new rule will be at around 1,80 - 1,85 m which means that only the really tall guys (or really, really tall ladies) will in fact get a disadvantage. Shorter players will all benefit from it - although it has to be seen how much they will actually raise their services before the movement will feel uncomfortable. Just imagine Nozomi Okuhara - with her 1,55 m she would be allowed to easily serve from chest height. With still having the racket pointed downwards, this could end in a really awkward movement that most likely will not get her any advantage. So it will be interesting to see where the sweet spot height for the shorter players will settle and if this will push more ladies in singles to switch from the good old forehand to a backhand serve. I expect the following consequences of the new rule (for pro play!): 1) With having some sort of orientation marking, it will become easier for the service judges to determine between legal/illegal. But: They still have to call fault serves a lot more consequently than at the moment. As with every rule, some will push it again to the limit and a tad beyond it. 2) Some of the currently heavily discussed serves will become legal (hello Marcus Gideon, 1,67 m), whereas the discussion will remain the same for others (hello Mathias Boe, 1,83 m). 3) The "racket pointing downwards" part of the service rules will become more important to check and enforce by the judges. That BWF is testing the new rule for all big events incl. the WC surprised me too. But thinking about it, it makes perfect sense to make a clear cut between old and new rule. If they said "Let's try it at the AE, but for the WC we'll stay with the old rule!" they would force the players to change their serves with every tournament they are playing - which doesn't make sense. With following the new rule consequently, they allow the players to fully go for the new rule heights in their preparations for the upcoming season and without having to keep their old serve as backup in parallel.
4) Short players will almost never be called 'service fault', while tall players have the limitation and chances being called. But to know that the threshold is about 1.80-1.85 actually quite helpful. So basically: 1. Players < 1.70 will be able to serve freely before achieving their limit of awkward position. Shuttle trajectory will still be considerably parabolic considering their stature. 2. Players 1.70-1.80 will be able to increase their serve height without having awkward position and considerable chance to being called service fault. Some advantage compared as current condition in term of shuttle trajectory. 3. Players 1.80-1.85 must be careful in their serve to not get fault (psychological effect may kick in) while trajectory will not be affected that much. 4. Players > 1.85 will really have to watch their serve carefully (strong psychological effect), do it in an awkwardly low height and still have high chance of being fault. Trajectory is worse than now. Overall, I think 1.70-1.80 players are helped a lot through this change of rule. But the 'short players advantage' is not as bad as I initially thought. I see your point, but still not very convinced. But quite acceptable.
