another serving query...

in answer to your op

1. yes, it's not a fault, it's a let

2. i too face someone in my club who charges before i deliver my serve (ie. racket moving forward but not yet strike the shuttle). to counter this, i've added some variability in the speed of my forward stroke during serve. if i sense his body is moving forwards, then i accelerate the racket to deliver a flick serve over him. a few times of this and he kinda gave up trying to charge my serves.

your idea of trying to deliver your serve after he moves is possible, but in practice everything happens so quickly that it'll be very difficult for both you and the receiver to judge without an umpire present

 

I am not just punishing you as the unreasonable server, but also ......

.
What I have said doesn't just apply to you. I am not just punishing you as the unreasonable server.

It could be the other way around (as described below);

If I were the umpire, and;

(1) When your receiver charges before you serve, I would call it a 'Let'.

(2) When your receiver charges again before you serve, I would call it a 'Fault' and show him/her a Yellow card.

(3) When your receiver charges one more time before you serve, I would show him/her a Red card and announce "Game and Match Over".

I would not allow his/her 'Gamesmanship' to gain control over your Service.
.

 

I am not chris-ccc but this is how I see it. IMO it is more a matter of common sense to call "let" instead of "fault" the first time.

First time: the let is called as a cause of "benefit of doubt". Iow the umpire recognize a breach of the rules but is unsure about how to evaluate the action. Just point out the error to the players and call a let = no harm done .

Second time: now the umpire is sure the fault is done by purpose and thus should be punished = fault decided and point given to opponent.

However I'm not sure I'd consider this such a serious offence to give a warning (yellow card), definitly not a red card. But to call a "fault" = point to opponent is certain for every offence after the first. If the offending player tries to argue the decision I'd would however give a warning/yellow card.

Maybe the "rules" doesn't allow such liberal judgement. It might be that the way chris-ccc describes is how it must be applied.

/mats

 

I don't know the rules that well but I don't think you can be faulted for this if it happens only one time, a let should be called.
But if a player do this repeatedly and obviously by purpose after the umpire has told him/her to make sure the reciever is ready then I'd say a fault can be called under the rules of "unsportmanship behaviour/conduct".

 

I've been told (although it's not written in the rules) that consistency is an issue too. If your normal rhythm is to serve within a second or two, then you suddenly start taking three times as long, the umpire is more likely to decide that it's an undue delay, compared with a situation where someone is taking 4-5 seconds every time.

And yes, serving before the receiver is ready is a let not a fault (rule 14.2.1).

 

Perhaps I was a tad too strict

.
Oh no, please don't say that the "rules" doesn't allow such liberal judgement.

After I have reread my replies, I thought perhaps I was a tad too strict.

Perhaps I should have 'faulted' the offender twice before I pull out the Yellow card.

.

 

My understanding of the rules is that if you are the server and you have waited for your opponent to signal that he/she is ready to recieve serve. When you begin your serving routine, until you hit the shuttle the reciever is not allowed to move. It has happened a lot in pro games "jumping the serve" (moving before the shuttle has been stuck) is a fault on the recieving side.
Amleto, when you set yourself for serve always put your racquet out before you put the shuttle out. Anyone extremely OCD about rules could fault you for having the shuttle out and moving the racquet towards it before then moving back to start your serve. If this was not part of the problem, then just flick serve them a few times, if they intercept the shuttle because they are already too close to the net then they have jumped your serve, point this out to them and ask how they managed to intercept a flick serve at the net. If they let it fly past them then you win the point.
Also Chris-ccc a red card only gives the opponent the point and the serve, it does not end the game. A black card is the game ending card.

 

Andy,
The rules only say that the receiver shall have both feet stationary on the ground prior to the server striking the shuttle. The receiver can move and do anything with his upper body, arms, racket, even face before the shuttle is struck.

 

Isn't the person receiving not suppose to move before the server hits the shuttle when serving?
I don't get why you just don't call the person out on this...
or better yet,
Why don't you just practice your serves and be able to hold them and when you see them moving forward just flick it... o.o

 

Maybe I'm too liberal....

Sorry about that Chris I'm not an umpire myself, just a recreational player who tries to understand the rules and apply them with common sense.

After having a second thought I agree that a yellow card might be given after "faulting" the offence 2-3 times. The player obviously shows disrespect to the opponent, umpire and sportsmanship of the game by repeated and deliberate breach of the rules.

I might add that all my answers are based on the presumtion that we are talking about competitions in the "lower" classes. IOW youth classes, local/regional/county leagues and tournaments. I see this level as a "learning ground" and IMO a bit more liberal interpretation should be possible.

If this happened in any of the two highest national series, national tournaments/championships or any kind of international tournament I'd expect the players to be aware of the rules and more strict umpiring should be applied. A fault should be called the first time if it is a "jump start" by reciever. A let should be called if serving when opponent not ready, repeated offence = "fault". If and when to wave any card I can't tell

/mats

 

The idea is to minimise fault calling risk and keep it simple s.....

 

A bit more liberal interpretation should be possible

.
Yes, in lower tournaments, fewer 'faults' are called.

In recreational/social games, almost all of these types of problems could be called 'lets'.

.