NEW: Fixed Height Experiment for Service
- Thread starter CantSmashThis
- Start date
s_mair
Regular Member
Have you forgot to add a smilie at the end or are you serious there?
stradrider
Regular Member
You do realize guys, the 1.15 rule will be the height limit no mater if you stay straight or bend your knees? Therefore the cloth lines, tattoes, etc. will not be really that useful 
.
.
s_mair
Regular Member
You want to know the truth? No, I actually haven't really considered that yet. But this would in fact easily resolve most the tall guys problems regarding "...mee mee mee.. But I need to change my service action... mee mee mee..."- Viktor only needs to bend his knees a bit more and he doesn't have to change his service action at all. Of course he will have to play the serve with different trajectories, but that's what the shorter guys had to deal with in the past anyway.
stradrider
Regular Member
Actually, that is a very good argument! Now that I think of it even for the most tall players, serving a bit 10 cm lower and than bending knees to go another 10 cm and they would have a perfect serve... Ok, ok, Ivanov will have to bend his knees 20 cm lower..
s_mair
Regular Member
In fact that makes it really interesting again too see where the taller players will set their individual sweet spot combination of bending the knees and actual service height. I wonder if we will see some "innovative" serves there as well. Especially if the racket downwards rule indeed becomes obsolete - although I still cannot fully believe that.
Last edited:
stradrider
Regular Member
OK, I may be wrong, but in my opinion NO WAY THEY ARE GOING TO DISMISS THE OVERHAND RULE.
Here I said it
. (was it a bit too loud 
)CantSmashThis
Regular Member
As you can see that the "lowest rib" becomes the "alternative" service law as well, so does the shaft. I think when it comes to all the Grand Prix (Level 6+ tournaments) that means that only 1.15m matters. When it comes to the lowest rib, then the shaft will matter, as now they're both alternative rules when 1.15m is in place. Not sure if I make sense...If you read the link I posted, hopefully you can understand what I'm saying. When I explained to a fellow umpire, he didn't understand at 1st until he read the link.
stradrider
Regular Member
I understand, you mean if the waist rule becomes alternative and the overhand rule as well than some tournaments can choose to use them or the fixed rules. However...
Out of 15 rules there are 3 main rules that umpires put mostly their attention/ enforce. The height of service, the shaft pointing downwards and the feet contact with the floor. These are the faults that, if not called, almost always lead immediately (something that I really observed) to a lost point of the opponent.
The height of the service, while been changed, stays the same at the core - all players are limited to a certain height exactly as before. Why would that change dismiss the overhand rule, which is as important if not more important than a height one?
CantSmashThis
Regular Member
Well, overhand would be an overstatement. It's quite difficult to overhand while under 1.15m unless you're on your knees.
In the end, it makes things easier for the service judge. That's 1 less thing that is objective. (Aka, is the shaft pointing down even at 0.1 degree? Then that's a legal serve. Or if it's super quick serve and you have a split second to make the decision).
I'd assume with the new device, 1.15m would be more clear cut to call.
It is something we will have to wait and see as there isn't as much information about the device yet right now. They are looking to make this permanent rule with a vote coming by mid-year next year.
Lol tactim, it's a very simple point you (and a lot of others) are missing: Natural advantages vs outright discrimination.
Natural advantages such as serve height in tennis or being smarter than everyone else in a test is fair, but different boundary limitations on a person based on their body shape is discrimination. A shorter person in badminton should not serve from a lower position even if it means he likely has a better time using drives, as much as the smarter person should not start a test 20 minutes later than everyone less intelligent.
The only possible counter argument is if you want to use the argument that it becomes physically difficult to serve from 1.15m, you're gonna have to find me robert wadlow, and even then it might not be enough.
Natural advantages such as serve height in tennis or being smarter than everyone else in a test is fair, but different boundary limitations on a person based on their body shape is discrimination. A shorter person in badminton should not serve from a lower position even if it means he likely has a better time using drives, as much as the smarter person should not start a test 20 minutes later than everyone less intelligent.
The only possible counter argument is if you want to use the argument that it becomes physically difficult to serve from 1.15m, you're gonna have to find me robert wadlow, and even then it might not be enough.
Last edited:
Someone did a trig calculating the angle of serve, but calculated the less relevant angle (90-beta is the relevant one).
We want the angle upward from serve.
My service height is around currently 1.05.
At 1.05, the service angle would be 14.2 degrees upward
At 1.15, the service angle would be 11.42 upward.
At 1.25, the service angle would be 8.616 upward.
Now take pecentages with the rough (but incorrect) approximation angle percentage~~slope
at 1.05 to the new 1.15 the difference in slope would be abs((14.2-11.42)/14.2)~=20% (fairly significant!!)
at 1.05 to the new 1.25 the difference in slope would be abs ((8.616-14.2)/14.2)~=40% (a lot)
Or if we use percentages to be more accurate
1.05m=25.3% slope upwards
1.15m=20.2%
1.25m=15.2%
difference in slope would be 20.2%, and 40%
We want the angle upward from serve.
My service height is around currently 1.05.
At 1.05, the service angle would be 14.2 degrees upward
At 1.15, the service angle would be 11.42 upward.
At 1.25, the service angle would be 8.616 upward.
Now take pecentages with the rough (but incorrect) approximation angle percentage~~slope
at 1.05 to the new 1.15 the difference in slope would be abs((14.2-11.42)/14.2)~=20% (fairly significant!!)
at 1.05 to the new 1.25 the difference in slope would be abs ((8.616-14.2)/14.2)~=40% (a lot)
Or if we use percentages to be more accurate
1.05m=25.3% slope upwards
1.15m=20.2%
1.25m=15.2%
difference in slope would be 20.2%, and 40%
there's no advantage in that. if so, please demonstrate...
people feeling the need to complain about establishing the height of a serve may as well complain about the chosen height of the net and/or the size of the court.
a fixed standard needs to be established. all players need to deal with it.
Tactim said:
I wonder about that, too. What would make a drive serve difficult would be what I've seen some illegal servers in local gyms do, which is overhand but also way too high, like close to net height. Hitting a drive serve overhand but making contact below 1.15m would be extremely awkward for most players, involving a very low hand height and to generate any power, your hand would have to be considerably far in front of the shuttle or else the serve would go off to the side. No matter what you do, you can't make a drive serve much more dangerous than it is, so long as you are required to strike the shuttle at 1.15m and make it go upward to 1.55m.
Gollum
Regular Member
Topspin.
With practice, it's possible to put lots of topspin on the serve. It is surprising how much this can change drive serves. I've received topspin drive serves that come downward at me.
The additional rule (racket must point in a downwards direction) limits how much topspin can be applied.
Gollum
Regular Member
It's a difficult skill. I can't do it (although I've not really practised). One of my students could, though -- and definitely without serving above the waist.
Only slightly downwards, mind you -- but the shuttle is passing the service line at a height approximately equal to the net. In any case it's a fault serve, due to the rule about the racket pointing in a downwards direction.
Even so, it's still possible to pull off very flat drive serves that are legal. You will very, very rarely see this in professional competition, since the receivers are generally too good at countering them (and there is a high risk of being faulted). But I have seen it.
Last edited:
s_mair
Regular Member
See post #67 and following. Threshold is at around 180-185 cm, so your own measurement fits in.
CantSmashThis
Regular Member
As a 5'6" person, I get about a few extra cm to serve.
So from what I've heard, BWF already sent the tool SJs will use to determine 1.15m to MAs already. I have seen pictures, but I'm not 100% sure how to use such equipment yet, and still awaiting for the official word from BWF to TOs on how to use them.
So from what I've heard, BWF already sent the tool SJs will use to determine 1.15m to MAs already. I have seen pictures, but I'm not 100% sure how to use such equipment yet, and still awaiting for the official word from BWF to TOs on how to use them.