Ok, so about the serving rotation, so I know about all the old rules and all that, but let me see if I have this right: Two teams: A and B. Player A1 serves to start off the game. They score a point, so as before, A1 and A2 (A1's partner) switch, as they've scored 1. A1 serves again, other side wins. In this case, the B team scores (I get this part), so B2 serves, as the B team has an odd (1) score, right? So if you have an odd score, the odd person serves, and if you have an even score, the even person serves? That was my biggest confusion. ************* * B1 * B2 * A1 serves, scores. * \* * ****** \****** * A2 * \ A1 * * * * ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------- ************* * B1 * B2 * Team A switches. * * * ************* * A2<--->A1 * * * * ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------- ************* * B1 */ B2 * A1 serves, but loses. Score is now 1-1 * / * *****/******* * A1 *A2 * * * * ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------- ************* * B1 * B2 * B2 now serves, as B team has odd score, so * */ * odd person (B2) serves? ******/****** * A2 /* A1 * * * * ************* Sigh. My diagram doesn't work. I guess I'll draw a picture and post up later.
You are right - your copy of the laws is out of date. However, in the scenario described the shuttle is in play becasue it has not yet hit the net or the floor. Actually the new 13.3 also applies because B hits it on the wrong side and the shuttle fails to go over the net. Again B is faulted.
actually what happend afterwards when B player hit the shuttle, the shuttle flew under the net and into the opponent's side (side A) but he argued that law 13.3.3 (shuttle not passing over the net) occured first, therefore side A is already at fault before he hit the shuttle, is his argument correct?
I THINK, this law is in place so that an umpire can automatically call out "fault" when a player at the net missed the shuttle, but his/her partner has the chance to hit it again. Without this law, the umpire could not call out fault untill the partner (second player) hit the shuttle. Allowing the Umpire to call out fault right away helps avoid any question. Just my opinion. Toddster
Sorry All, I meant to say that the umpire could call out fault if the first partner mis-hit or "ticked" the shuttle or hit a part of the shuttle and his/her partner has a chance to hit it over. Some day I will learn to write good english. Toddster:crying:
I'm not so sure about using 13.3 Faulting B for 13.3 when A's previous shot has also failed to pass over the net seems a little strange. It feels like we are struggling to find an appropriate law for this situation.
If A's shot went under the net, then A is faulted because of Law 13.3.2 the shuttle passes through or under the net
but remember that before the shuttle landed on the floor player B hit the shuttle under the net and on his side
Hang about. He said "remember also that when the opponent made the hit, the shuttle was not on their side yet". Which is the scenario I've been addressing (i.e. the shuttle hit neither the court nor the net or its posts and was hit by B before it crossed under the net). If B hits it then he is faulted in this scenario. If B hit the shuttle on his own side then the case is different because the shuttle passed under the net and A would be faulted by virtue of law 13.3.2. The fault occurs the moment the shuttle crosses the plane of the net underneath the net.
Gollum, This is Loh here using Kokcheng's pc as I'm now with him watching the Malaysian Satellite in Alor Star, Kedah. I'm afraid you were referring to the old set of laws. 13.3 (Fault, if in play, the shuttle...) is now divided into various sub-sections: 13.3.1 lands outside the boundaries of the court; 13.3.2 passes through or under the net; 13.3.3 fails to pass over the net; 13.3.4 touches the ceiling or side walls; and goes on until 13.3.10 touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponent's court; Law 15 on Shuttle Not In Play This Law now has only 3 sub-sections instead of 4 and Law 15.2 which you referred to is now changed to 15.1. As for the situation brought about by lorus blue (#13), I agree that A has committed a fault and the point should go against him. This is a question of what happens first. When A's drop shot failed to pass over the net it is first a fault (Law 13.3.3). When a fault is called, the shuttle is no longer in play (Law 15.3). So whatever subsequent action by opponent B is not to be considered. Team A still loses a point.
Your surmise about when the shuttle is not longer in play is wrong. I have now consulted an international umpire on this question. As I said, B is faulted and A gains a point. A's potential fault is not crystallized under law 15 by the shuttle striking the floor or net or by passing under the net. It may have still gone over. The shuttle is always in play (under law 15) until it strikes the floor, strikes the net or post and falls back to the striker's side or a fault occurs. It is therefore still in play when B hits it. By striking the shuttle on the wrong side B has contravened law 10.2 and is faulted under law 13.3.3 (shuttle fails to pass over the net) or 13.3.10 (fails to travel towards the opponent's side).
aaah, so that's where the old "13.3 if, when in play, the initial point of contact with the shuttle is not on the striker's side of the net...." has gone. 10.2 for singles, 11.2 for doubles.
Let's take a look again at what actually happened as described by lorus blue: "...but the shuttle did not made it over the net instead, it went just below the net but before it landed on the floor, here's player B from team B who thought, for some reason or another, that the shuttle made it over the net and made an effort to hit the shuttle but at the last second changed his mind probably realizing that the shuttle did not went over the net but it was too late and the shuttle made contact with his racket....was hit by the opponent's racket, and remember also that when the opponent made the hit, the shuttle was not on their side yet, now who's fault will it be? Please note that I have emphasized "Which event comes first". This is important because if the first event (shuttle did not pass the net) is a fault, the second event (before shuttle lands on the floor, opponent hits it) is inconsequential. Your point on 'crytallization' is negated by Law 15.3 (which remains the same in the new and old laws) which emphasized that "a shuttle is not in play when a 'fault' or 'let' has occured. This has the same effect as Law 15.2 stating that "a shuttle is not in play when it hits the surface of the court". I therefore think that I interpreted the Laws correctly. So when the shuttle fails to pass the net, the umpire calls a 'fault' and the shuttle then becomes "not in play". The opponent's subsequent hitting the shuttle should therefore have no bearing on the decision since the shuttle was not in play then. The decision is crytallized once a fault is called. However, if both actions happen simultaneously, ie at the time of the shuttle hitting the net and not passing over it, the opponent also at the same time tries to hit the shuttle not knowing it hasn't crossed over to his side, then the opponent may be faulted for "invading the striker's court under the net" (Law 13.4.3). But I don't think this is what lorus blue has in mind.
An interesting point. A related situation occurs under the old Law 13.6.4 which states that "it is a fault if, in play, the shuttle touches a player's racket and continues towards the back of that player's court. There was a change in terminology. I recall that under the old laws, if the shuttle touches a player's racket it shall be a fault, as the racket is considered as part of the person (old Law 13.2.5; new Law 13.3.5). But a situation could occur whereby the shuttle could hit a player's racket, say the throat, the shaft or the handle and bounce back to the opponent's court. In such a situation, it is now considered not a fault. I suppose the change in terminology in the new Law 13.3.10 is to clarify the situation.
No. No. No. No! The shuttle cannot be said to have failed to pass over the net until one of the things in law 15.1 or 15.2 occurs. If it does not hit the net/posts or the floor it cannot be determined whether it would have passed over the net. Obviously, law 15.3 would come into play against A if his partner were struck by the shuttle, say, but that does not happen. The umpire calls the first fault that happens and one has not occured until B strikes the shuttle. In this case law 15.3 cannot be used to say that A faulted before the shuttle failed to pass over the net because A's fault would have been that the shuttle failed to pass over the net, which cannot be determined until the shuttle hits the floor or net/post and fell back on A's side. This is a circular argument and totally invalid. In fact, a fault does occur earlier than A's fault is crystallized, because B faults by hitting the shuttle on the wrong side of the net and not hitting it towards A's court. So the point is against B. As I said in my earlier post I double-checked this with an international umpire, so it is quite authoritative. By your logic, any shuttle that has been hit by a player at any time has failed to pass over the net until it actually crosses the net, and should therefore be a fault immediately after it has been hit. This is clearly nonsense. In this scenario, at no time does B invade under the net so as to cause obstruction or distraction to A since A was at the back of his court.
I think the key is was the shuttle still in play when player B "accidentally" touched the shuttle, at a point and location that was in team A territory, with his racquet? As long as the shuttle did not touch the net when it was descending the net, the shuttle was still in play until it touches the floor. Player B from side B touched the shuttle when it was still in play, which it was because it neither touched the net nor the floor. Player B'e racquet went over team A's side of the court when player B touched the shuttle with his racquet, then team B is at fault. Sometimes laws are stupid-a Hong Kong High Court judge me this when I asked for his advice on fighting a traffic offence ticket many years back-when the obvious (the shuttle never went over) is technically not lawfully right because the law says it is still in play (in the air or in space and has not landed on or into the net or the floor). About the traffic offence that I got fined, the offence was not committed by me-I was not even there-but as the owner the stupid law says I am "guilty".
Ah, now I understand why you objected so strongly. I thought what lorus blue said was the shuttle hit the net but did not cross over, that's why I said it would have been a fault. I might have misunderstood him. But if the shuttle has not reached and touched the net nor the floor on the striker's side (ie the shuttle is still in play as provided for in Law 15) when the opponent reacts prematurely and hits it from under the net, then the opponent is at fault as what you've indicated. Of course such a situation is rare if the opponent chooses to intercept below the net before the shuttle even crosses to his side or touches the court surface. I suppose this is a hypothetical case. My previous assumption was that the shuttle hit the net but it did not cross over to the opponent's side. This will be a fault and then the shuttle is not in play.
Yes, the matter is trivial if the shuttle touches the net or post and falls down on A's side. It is clearly a point to B - no debate needed. But Lorus Blue came up with a more difficult scenario. I cannot understand why every player does not actually read the laws from time to time. It would eliminate these discussions somewhat.
Frankly I don't think all those who contributed to this thread were wrong, based on their understanding of the actual status of the shuttle. The devil was in the easy trap one gets into in assuming the shuttle has touched the net when it did not.
