NEW: Fixed Height Experiment for Service

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by CantSmashThis, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    Another interesting point: A friend of mine told me he worried about drive serves. Unfortunately, as an international umpire, this friend is not allowed to post on Badminton Central, but he/she allowed me to share their thoughts on the matter:

    (I've asked them for some specific examples in the video.)

    Clearly, BWF shares this view, since one of the options they were allowed by the 2018 AGM to do by themselves until December 2018 is reinstituting the downwards shaft rule §9.1.7.

    I disagree with this view, however, on fundamental grounds: For me, the rules are there to make the game interesting, by outlawing techniques that would dominate the game and make it boring.

    With the rules mandating that drive - or any - serves have to go upwards, a drive serve against a well-prepared receiver with good reflexes just gives them more power and speed to return, going downwards.

    The very fact that drive serves are used sparingly and as a surprise indicates that they enrich the game and do not detract from it. Now the server has yet another option: Standard short serve, serve to the side, flick serve, and drive serve (which was possible, but rare on high levels with the downwards pointing rule).

    One consideration I would allow is the prevention of positive feedback: We want the server to be at a slight disadvantage so that games are more likely to stay close. Again, I do not see any significant change of balance under the new rules.

    If servers switch to exclusively drive serves and receivers don't find an adequate defense, I would certainly reconsider. As it stands, drive serves as an occasional surprise on top of the flick serve make badminton more interesting to my eyes.
     
    #561 phihag, May 25, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2018
    event, pcll99 and Cheung like this.
  2. Slade

    Slade Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    NY
    I agree. I don't see what the concern is over a drive serve since it still needs to be struck below the top of the net. A drive serve was always possible with the old rule, it was just easier for taller players to execute.
     
  3. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    I don't quite follow the logic of preventing drive serves. On one hand BWF want to speed up the the games, on the other hand they are concerned about a shot that speeds up the game!

    Drive serves are good to mix up the game.
     
    samkool likes this.
  4. Master

    Master Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Location:
    somewhere on earth
    BWF Statutes got some updates & changes in June 2018 (including Laws of Badminton and it's Alternative)
    You could check the complete version here : http://bwfcorporate.com/statutes/

    Chapter 4 Rules of the Game

    Section 4.1 Laws of Badminton - Updated 1 June 2018
    Section 4.1.4 Alternative Laws of Badminton : Scoring Systems and Service - Updated 1 June 2018


    Summary:

    Note: Law 9.1.6 continues to be an experimental Law until no later than 10 December 2018, by which time BWF Council, as delegated by the membership at its AGM of May 2018, can do one or more of the following:
    • Make changes to the service height if the experience from international tournaments proves that this is more suitable;
    • Reinstate Law 9.1.7 (“the shaft and the racket head of the server’s racket at the instant of hitting the shuttle shall be pointing in a downward direction”);
    • Reject the new service height rules in case the experience with the rules are not successful, and revert back to the original service rules;
    • Make any such changes in the above and not again changed by Council latest 10 December 2018.
     
    phihag likes this.
  5. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    I'm a little surprised that the very popular 5x11_15 scoring system is not even available as an alternative scoring system, despite a majority of BWF members voting for it and some events (I know of the German Bundesliga) planning to use it in 2018/2019. Is this an oversight of the BWF law revision?

    The BWF announcement mentions rule 6.1.7, but sure this must have been a typo, as there is no rule, and rule 6 deals with the toss. The yellow marking within the rules seems incorrect, too, as it marks the whole of rule 9, which hasn't changed that much.
     
  6. Ch1k0

    Ch1k0 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    1,353
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Singapore
    Wasn't it announced just before TUC 2018 that the majority voted against that system? I think I read it on badzine.

    Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
     
  7. phihag

    phihag Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Germany
    According to the official BWF announcement, there were 129 votes for and 123 votes against the new scoring system. A two-thirds majority of 168 votes would have been necessary to confirm the rule change. This vote was held at the AGM on Saturday May 19th in Bangkok.

    This Badzine article reporting about the AGM seems to be quite accurate. Can you provide a link to the article you mean?
     
  8. Ch1k0

    Ch1k0 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    1,353
    Occupation:
    N/A
    Location:
    Singapore
    Right I remembered wrongly. Your statement is correct. Majority voted for but it wasn't the 2/3 required to pass. http://www.badzine.net/2018/05/bwf-scoring-system-change-fails-to-go-through/

    Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
     
  9. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Saw Huang Yaqiong use the drive serve two or three times in the third game very effectively against Chris Adcock in the Malaysian Tour. No complaints to the service judge by Chris.

    Good serving.
     
  10. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    So racket angle is not a fault anymore?

    We're gonna see way more drive serves from here on.

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
  11. xiaoqiao

    xiaoqiao Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    113
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    I don't see why racket angle is an issue. If you actually attempt to do the drive serve, the advantage seems minimal compared to the previous serve. Those drives were definitely counter-able.
     
  12. Ronster

    Ronster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2016
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Philippines
    I was just thinking that they could add a film of some sort that will change the color of the shuttlecock behind the sheets of glass. Makes it easier to distinguish if the shuttlecock is below/above 1.15m if ever.
     
  13. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Much is made of the racquet angle but I don't really get it if you have a reliable and constant method of judging strike of the shuttle.
     
  14. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Question then is why didn't we see more drive serves in the past?

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
  15. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Well they kept getting faulted.

    Even on this forum, people have said it is impossible to play a drive serve legally.
     
  16. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Aha! Then why is it not getting faulted now?

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
  17. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Because there is a service height rule. You mean you hadn't noticed?

    Maybe you are a a bit out of touch with what's going on? ;)
     
  18. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Lol... I'm in this thread am I not?

    Look. 115cm is the height of the lowest rib of an approximately 174cm person wearing shoes. Most players are plus or minus around that height (not counting the Danish and Russian MD pairs )

    So my question is why drive serves are not faulted now with the new 115cm rule while they were always faulted before. Which will also lead to more drive serves from now on as players learn from seeing that others are getting away with more drive serves.

    NB: I'm neither for or against the drive serve. Perhaps it's a good way to change the balance of the serve from slight disadvantage to slight advantage.


    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
     
    #578 visor, Jun 30, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2018
  19. Slade

    Slade Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    NY
    My guess is that many of the previous "fault" calls were not correct since the service height was somewhat arbitrary. With a fixed, consistent service height and markers to judge it against the refs are making more accurate calls. Also the new rule gives players an exact dimension to calibrate against so they may be more accurate as well.
     
    Cheung and visor like this.
  20. xiaoqiao

    xiaoqiao Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    113
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    115 cm sounds more like the lowest rib of a 6 ft 2 with shoes on. Drive serves were hardly used so I say there's not enough data.
    I think 120 cm serve height is also ok.
     

Share This Page