At the recent AE MD final, Ivanov attempted to serve Endo but latter lost balance (3rd game, score 6-6) . But it was called a let. Should it not be called receiver fault for moving before service contact, with point to serving team?
Receiver loses balance while anticipating serve. Happens occasionally when the server (intentionally or not) changes his service rhythm a bit. Even happened several times when I was serving in yesterday's games. In such cases, would be more neutral for the umpire to call a let as there is no obvious attempt to reach to hit the bird.
do u happen to know the score so we can look? it depends, if both sides are ready but the receiver falls over before the service starts, then it can be a let. however, once service starts, then it should be a fault.
The serve hasn't been started yet (no forward motion of Ivanov's racket) so playing a let was the right thing to do.
This is more about technicality than what is right by way of commonsense. I thought the rule is that once the players are set, both server and receiver, the latter cannot move till the shuttle is struck. I don't see anywhere in the rule that receiver can move before the server forward motion starts. Endo did not even put up his hand to indicate he was not ready. In fact, Ivanov thought it was fault by the way he half appealed to the umpire. Is there something legally stated that covers this? Kwun, the incident happened in the 3rd game at 6-6. I have to admit I have not actually looked into the wording regarding receiver during serve.
The law is very specific, as all laws should be: 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. 9.1.3 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); I watched the video, and as Ivanov was getting ready to serve, Endo got out of balance. But that was before Ivanov started the service according to law 9.2 above. so there is no fault. it was a good call.
This case isn't metioned directly but (citing the Laws of Badminton) covers it pretty well. Otherwise might also be valid for this case.
