BADMINTON

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 252, 21 July 1936, Page 13

BADMINTON

Interpretation of Rules

IMPORTANT POINTS RAISED (B-r Shuttle.) In the hope that it will provoke controversy and lead to a settlement of the questions raised, “Shuttle” gladly publishes the following letter from “A Player for 15 Years,” who raises problems ot vital importance to the game of badminton. Everybody who plays badminton at all will recognise the truth of much that he says. “Shuttle” will be pleased to publish any replies that may be sent in. He trusts that players will not be backward in expressing their views, for it is only by frank discussion that a satisfactory solution to the problems presented will be found. The letter reads:— , . “I have just acquired a book that purports to give the latest rules of badminton. It has been produced by a wellknown sports firm of world repute, and I take it the rules are correct and complete. There appear, however, to be marked divergences from past rules or accepted rules. I would draw attention to several anomalies and vague definitions. In the first place rule 10 says: ‘lt is a fault if the service is overhand.’ A service shall be deemed overhand ... if the shuttle at the instant of being strut* be higher than the server’s waist. Obviously one wants to .know where is the server’s waist. One sees numerous bor-der-line interpretations of the waist-line. Devlin wore a waistless sweater, but many of his services were or were not faults, depending on where exactly his waist really is. As for women, their waists change every season. “Rule 10 c gives details about the position of the server, and says it is a fault ‘if the server’s feet, or the feet of the player taking the service, are not in.the half court, etc.’ Does being in the haltcourt’ mean on the half-court or can the server and the ‘receiver’ jump abandonly in the air or frolic in any other fashion at their own will? There used to be specific deterrents to this. Moreover there does not appear to be any rule specifying where one may expect to find the partner of the server or the partner of the receiver. Presumably at their own _ sweet will they may be found (1) on their own side of the court, (2) the opponent s side, or (3) in the local tea room or bar parlour. A powerful man player might in fact under the rules permit his weak woman partner to spend her time when not serving right off the court,, leaving the strong player to deal with his opponent in a single. Surely there ought to be something definite as to the whereabouts of all players. At one time, some ten or more years ago, all players were expected, I believe, to take their stand during service in their respective halfservice courts. Why this greater freedom to “ Rule 10 e also requires elucidating. It says among other things, 'lt is a fault if the shuttle touches the roof.’ One may neglect the fact that nearly every club has a local rule calling it a ‘let. Possibly in match play the rule is sound as it stands, but in that case the rule ought to specify the minimum free space above a standard match court. At one time a height of, I believe, 25 feet or so was P“ln conclusion and in the full knowledge that it may lead to controversy I contend that the stance taken up by Devlin when receiving a serve contravenes the spirit of rule 10 d, in that he intentionally baulks his opponent. “Anyway, this stance, I contend, is detrimental to the best interests of the game. It should he definitely banned under the above-mentioned rule. Badminton rules seem, even at this stage of the game, to be unduly vague. The only way to get them less so is for the matter to be discussed fully by ■fhofe’e competent to voire opinions.—l am, etc., ‘A Player for 15 Years.’ ” Inter-Club Matches.

One of the best games last week was between Miss O. Phillips and Miss I. Clarke. Greater stamina and coolness, not superior strokes, gave Miss Phillips the victory in the third game. Miss Clarke, while her strength held, played a superior game to Miss Phillips, winning points by cross-court shots to Miss Phillips’s weak backhand. But Miss Phillips played with great assurance and remained cool until Miss Clarke had spent herself. She then went ahead to win decisively. Although beaten, Miss Clarke showed that she is a fine player with a variety of strokes and a sound knowledge of tactics.

Another good game was that between H. N. Burns and J. Benfield. As mentioned before in these columns, Benfield is a greatly improved player. Burns was helped greatly by his height and when, as frequently happened in the third game, Benfield played short, it was “good-night, nurse” for the shuttle, and a lost point for Benfield. Benfield ran for everything that appeared possible of return, and he made brilliant recoveries. But the effort cost him too much, and as he tired, so he became erratic. Burns, on the other hand, improved ae the match prograssed. With Miss Warsaw as his partner, Benfield plaved fine forcing, badminton to beat Burnp and Miss C. Phillips, the only win for his team. A disappointing match was the mixed doubles between J. Vaughan and Mijsd Leach against Jupp and Miss VS hyte, disappointing from the point of vie wof the first-named pair, the losers. Vaughan took very little real interest in the proceedings. Whether he got the shuttle over the net or in court was of little moment to him. Many times he even refused to run. On top of this his partner lost confidence and made mistakes on easy shots. There was a complete lack of co-opera-tion and understanding between the pair. This made the task of defeating them comparatively easy, even if the winners were .not playing well, which they were.