can be rewarding, no? now i can pin down which rule that guy always break and fault him. "fault!" "what?" "you moved your feet. according to the Laws of Badminton Section 9.1.3, both feet must remain in contact with the court surface!"
If a law is worded badly enough that it needs interpretation, then I don't believe there can be a correct interpretation. If there is an interpretation that ALL umpires use, under all circumstances, then the IBF should clarify the laws. If it depends on circumstances, maybe there should be something in the "Recommendations to umpires". IMO
I tend to carry a copy in my racket case. I'm particularly fond of educating the club players over here about the "you can hit the shuttle twice" rule.
Well since you asked Here's the relevant law: Now, the laws define faults by an exhaustive list. Anything that is not explicitly mentioned is not a fault. The correct interpretation of the above law is that, if you make a single stroke movement that hits the shuttle twice, your shot is perfectly legal. This sort of shot occurs quite often, especially when using slice. Club players are in the habit of calling "no shot", but they are wrong! Clearly you can't change the direction of your shot in any way - no volleyball shots allowed! Nor can you carry the shuttle on the racket. But you CAN hit it twice in a single stroke movement.
Interesting point you brought out. However, I'm not quite in agreement whether in executing the 'slice' shot, you are actually 'hitting (the shuttle) twice in a single stroke". My understanding of the slice shot is that you are hitting TWO PARTS (the feathers and the cork) of the shuttle SIMULTANEOUSLY, ie. at the same time with a single stroke - only once, not twice. Otherwise it will be a 'slung' shot, which is a fault. I don't know what others think about our interpretations.
A slung shot is where the shuttle is caught, held and then slung. It's like the way many players catch the shuttle on their racket between rallies. I agree that most slice shots do not involve two hits. However, some slice shots and some flat-faced shots DO accidentally involve two hits, one immediately after the other.
Agree that it is very difficult to fault a well executed slice shot but if it is quite obvious to the eyes that the shuttle is hit twice with whatever kind of stroke, the umpire should call it a fault.
That's correct, because if it is obvious to the eye, then it must be an illegal "change in direction" shot. These legitimate double-hit shots occur in a small fraction of a second, from an odd contact with the shuttle.
You know you have read the rules one too many times when... you can quote the fault via the rule's number and its subsection..
What are your favourite rules? I too have read the rules front to back a couple of times. One time I read the English ( official Int. Bad. Fed.) and the Danish version in parallel to see if there were any discrepancies. In my club – as in many other places – most rule related discussions stem from service/service return situations. But also classics like: what if the shuttle gets stuck on the net? And: Can you play with two rackets. One thing has struck me when reading or looking up in the rules. When something unusual happens during a game, and you are not sure how to handle it. You look it up the rules and – WOW. It must have happened to someone else, and enough times for a rule to have been formulated. Then you can let your mind wander and see these old British geezers discussing the “terribly intriguing dilemma” – and for the very first time agreeing on whether or not it is fair to move before the service has been released. Well, probably there were heated arguments and people storming off for duelling pistols, but I prefer to imagine the fathers of the feathers to have been Imperial gentlemen. For most of the rules I am able to imagine how the rules have evolved as “the game of feathers” evolved into the sport of badminton. I can even remember some of them, like the banning of the Sidek service.( 9.1.4 ) But there are rules that disturbs my sleep. They fall in 3 categories. 1: Missing rules. Things (of relevance to the game) that are not or too loosely described in the rules. 2: Unnecessary rules. Rules which make no sense. For instance if breaking the rule does not give you an advantage. 3: Poorly or strangely formulated rules. Wordings that are self contradicting or are wide open to interpretation. Naturally I have my favourites, but I would like to ask all of you out there: Which is Your favourite in each of the 3 categories? Mads U Jensen.
Re: What are your favourite rules? Hi Mads, Can you give references or examples of the above 3 categories to share with us? Maybe then, we can give you our opinions.
my favorite rule, actually not really a rule, is the ones that defines the size of a badminton court. does anyone ever noticed that the badminton court is the "perfect" size? it is the length in which most of us can clear at. it is big enough to make us work very hard to cover the whole court, while not small enough to make it too easy. even for very fast players like the pros. the size of teh court seems to be just right, they are always at the boundary of being able to cover it. and all these was determined 100+ years ago. while at that time, the technology behind the shuttle is different, the physiques of the players are different, even the shuttlecocks are exactly made the same way. but despite that, it has stood the test of time. no one have ever suggested that the badminton court size needs to be changed. it is just right, just perfect. this has always intrigued me. "how did they come up with this perfect dimension?" i think that is the best rule of it all.
Yes I agree that the court layout is so simple yet intriguing! But I'm not sure whether it really started from 100+ years ago as earlier pictures showed very simple layout or it has evolved over the years. Maybe someone should do some research on this. This reminds me of the perfect calculations in building the pyramids of old! We have seen how even world class players had to struggle to keep the bird in and any shots that are either short of length or depth can be killed quite easily. And have you also pondered on the height of the net, a mere 5ft at the center and 5ft 1in at the posts? Despite taller players emerging over the years, they could not gain undue advantage when pushed to the baseline or when a perfect high serve is executed by equally world class players with unusual abililties with net plays and retrievals, including diving saves. But on the question of fairness, the Laws make sure this is adhered to at the very start of the game by mandating that both server and receiver must have "some part of both feet remain in contact with the surface of the court in a STATIONARY position from the start of the service until the service is delivered" (Law 9.1.3). So the receiver cannot pounce on the serve beforehand to gain an undue advantage.
The most useless rule! Sorry for not replying sooner, but here comes my favourite "This-rule-could-be-erased-and-no-one-would-miss-it rule" 4.2 The stringed area "4.2.1 shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings either alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross. The stringing pattern shal be generally uniform and, in particular, not less dense in the centre than in any other area; and "... (here comes 4.2.2 size of stringbed ) To me this looks more like a guidance for racket manufacturers than a rule. No player would gain an unfair advantage by breaking these rules. For instance by stringing less (LESS !!) dense in the middle of the racket, or by not interlacing the strings. I my opinion both of these would leave you with a less effective racquet. We might as well have a rule stating that the grip should be rolled round the handle with overlap and there should be no gaps - especially where the thumb is placed? What I do miss, however, is a rule regarding the playing surface or the condition hereof. We could be playing on grass or even a beachvolley court as far as the rules are concerned. There is one more sentence I think we could erase without consequences.... But You go find that yourselves. /Mads U
Should have read it a long time a go Hi there, voted "What are you talking about ?", and then I read through the whole thing. For a foreigner like my self, the language is very stiff, but when you chew your way through it, it's very educational in many ways. One definition is missing though (IMO). When exactly is the shuttle "out" ? Is it the exact point of contact between the shuttle and the floor in the moment of impact ? What if the contact point is outside the line, but the base of the shuttle still covers part of the line (when seen from above) ? Where can we find the exact definition of a shuttle beeing "out" ? take care all hatecapletters
heh I've read through it many times. I haven't memorized it word for word, but I remembered all the general ideas of all the little rules and large ones and ones that you rarely see in a game on court. Alot of the rules are very amusing to me. I like how it's written. The handbook I have includes one of these (well parts of it I think heh).
Read it through a few times and other times scanned to confirm a rule but it is just as interesting to read the instructions to the officials like this one recommendation to the Umpire regarding Gollum's and Loh's discussion about the double-hit. What is interesting is recommendation 3.8.2 which said that a player shouting to a partner about to hit the shuttle is not a distraction but calling "No shot" or "Fault" or etc (here I assume that notifying the partner that the shot is no good) SHOULD be considered a distraction. In response to MadU's comment on stringed area, there is an impact on how the racquet is strung. I think it was a result from tennis where a stringer/player strung his tennis racquet with every other main/cross and wrap string around each of the mains. This created an effect on the tennis ball hitting the string and bouncing off with all sort of weird spin. I would invite folks to do a search on google for "Spaghetti Stringing". After hearing and reading about this, I was tempted to try stringing a baddy racquet the same way to see what the result would be but have not gotten around to it. If anyone is brave enough to try, please post the results.
If a player calls "no shot" or "fault" it is a distraction to the opposition. Only the officials decide if there has been a fault. If a player hears a call of fault he may stop playing.
