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.
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.
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.
I really cannot feel sorry for the taller player. As I said before, every player would prefer the option of hitting the shuttle from the highest position allowed, thus enabling the flattest trajectory. Hitherto, the highest position available to the shorter player was (or could be) 30 or 40 cm. lower than his taller opponent. How can this be fair? I don't remember much sympathy being directed to shorter players. I also can't see what is more difficult for a tall player to strike the shuttle at a lower height. I have seen, over a period of 50 years, 'fashions' in serving change. In the 1970s, backhand serves were relatively rare, now they are the norm.
It is worth remembering that this thread was started by Viktor Axelson, and he is decidedly a SINGLES player (World No. 1, no less). I would suggest that he seldom, if ever, comes across an opponent less than 1.68 metres tall. I am aware that Lee Chong Wei is not a tall player but I would guess he is at least 1.75m. tall. Axelson himself, I would think, is about 1.93m. However, the effect of height when serving as a singles player is less of an issue. Receivers COULD elect to 'toe the line' to receive, but would be more prone to the 'flick' serve, and remember the full length of court is available to the server, so the flick would be more effective. As an observation, the question of height is far less of an issue in singles.
On the other hand, in doubles, particularly Mixed, it is not that unusual for a lady to be only 1.53m. tall serving to a man, possibly 1.93m. tall (40cm. difference). Also in this case, the receiving man is very likely to be 'toeing the line' thereby intimidating the lady. How can it be right to be saying to the lady "you may only serve from a height (below the lowest rib) of less than 1 metre above the ground", whereas the rule would allow the man opponent to serve from a height above the ground of, say, 1.25 or 1.3m. above the ground.
As an aside, I am happy to reveal that I would have (if I still played) a vested interest. I am only about 1.62m. high. That is small for a man. I have always found the serve to be a 'defensive' shot (unlike tennis, where the serve is decidedly attacking) and believe there is a case that a bit more assistance should be given to the server. I have heard the reply that this is to make the game closer, and thus more exciting. I don't follow this: does this imply that tennis does not have excitement?
Many readers will not remember, in badminton, the Sidek serve. In the early 1980s, some players were using a service where the feathers were struck deliberately instead of the base of the shuttle. This caused the shuttle to behave in a peculiar way, almost 'corkscrewing' over the net. Suddenly, the server had the edge. However, the 'powers that be' were unhappy with this new balance of power and changed the rules to ban the Sidek serve.
I hope everyone gives the new rule a fair chance. Whatever comes from it, the current system is simply unfair and wrong. There must be a better way.
The old man
