DISCUSS - A change of scoring system?

[GordonSim]

Passing comment has been made on this board about the incompetence of the new IBF set-up now operating from Malaysia. This is manifest in the hopeless amateurism of the new website and the process by which the old world badminton site was effectively shut down. The website is however only the tip of the iceberg and it appears a much more sinister agenda is shaping up and this is effectively an attempt by the IBF to impose a dictatorship controlled from the centre i.e Asia.

The latest posting by the EBU on their own site http://www.eurobadminton.org/ should be a cause for concern amongst people interested in the development of European badminton and perhaps the site administrator on this board could post the article in its entirety.

It seems that the EBU are not willing to allow themselves to sleepwalk into this Asian morass despite the somnolence of several European IBF representatives and for this they should be applauded.

The IBF should be exactly what its title indicates and that is an International Federation representing all interests as opposed to a back slapping club only paying dues to its own power base.

If dictats like the new scoring system are to be at least logically debated Europe must ensure a way of securing more effective representation, the EBU must insist on the highest standards of transparency and accountabilty from IBF and fight any attempts to centralise power.

[Site Support]

In Neil Cameron's controversial article (http://www.badders.com/news/item/740/A-change-of-scoring-system%3F) he states that the IBF haven't approached the issue well at all. He also states that:


There is no information on the purpose of the IBF’s planned changes
no visible analysis backing up their proposals
questions whether the plan contravenes the IBF’s own Rules, and
There has been little consultation with the national associations


As chief executive of the IBF from 1998 to 2003 Neil has a good understandinjg of how the governing body works...so should we be worried that our sport is now being sold down the river?

[Site Support]

Martin Dew-Hattens' thread on the Danish reaction to the proposed change can be found here - click (http://www.badders.com/forum/showthread.html?t=1731)

[Sack O Spuds]

New so be gentle! Although there is no talk of this scoring system filtering down to club level, I assume it will happen sooner rather than later, we can't have two systems can we?

[Martin Dew-Hattens]

One of the reasons why the IBF wants to change the scoring system is that the games are too boring and too long. If you try to think why they are too boring it must be because the rallies go on for ever and the shuttle cannot be killed.

During the last 20 years the players have got fitter, stronger, can run for longer and the rackets have got much better in design.

However the basic rules governing the testing of shuttles have stayed the same. At present the shuttle when tested can lie in and around the inner tramline. How often have you seen the shuttle tested to go past the inside tramline ? Very rarly I would guess.

If we want to make it more attractive to be an attacker rather than a defender then we have to speed the shuttle up. Hence a testing rules such as "the shuttle when tested must lie within the rear tramlines" will help to speed the shuttle up and make the rallies more explosive.

Using a scoring system in which you can score with serve or not makes the players more equal - in a mathematical sense. In the "normal" scoring system a player with a 45% or winning one point has up to 70% of winning a match. This is very much to do with the need to win two rallies to make one point.

The revised scoring system makes this 45/70 percent more like 45/55. Hence the players are closer in standard - the result is closer matches which take a longer time. Exactly the opposite of what the IBF say they want.

I don't think they have looked at the figures properly.

[CWB]

The revised scoring system makes this 45/70 percent more like 45/55. Hence the players are closer in standard - the result is closer matches which take a longer time. Exactly the opposite of what the IBF say they want.

I don't agree with this analysis, except for the conclusion that the IBF will get not get a more appealing TV spectacle.

I believe the matches will be shorter because they will be an absolute maximum of 61 rallies. However, the play will be more careful (the server will no longer be able to play more aggressively because he/she has only the serve to lose) and inevitably more boring to watch - the very opposite of what the IBF say they want. A very strong premium will be placed on not making errors.

The bizarre thing is that the very worst TV spectacle will be prolonged (a one-sided 15-0 becoming 21-0) and the very best, close badminton will be shortened from an unlimited number of rallies of exciting play to a maximum of 61 ralies of more cautious play.

The basic premise that this is the best way to increase TV coverage is deeply flawed, and the constant comparisons to other sports are also spurious. Yes, other sports allow scoring when not serving. But not being allowed to score compensates the server for the attacking disadvantage he/she has in badminton. In tennis the server has a tremendous attacking advantage. This will change to the extent that the server is at a disadvantage in the new system. Matches will APPEAR closer by virtue of the points scored against serve and because serving will be a disadvantage.

It is NOT a requirement of saleable TV for the matches to be over quickly (look at cricket, baseball, football, marathon, American football and, of course, tennis - all hot sellers to TV), nor does the time need to be particularly predictable (again, look at cricket, tennis and baseball).

Nor is badminton's scoring system so complex that the average viewer does not understand it, as argued by IBF. This is completely specious.

The IBF members who have put this experiment forward have not analysed what they are doing very intelligently and are being less than completely honest, in my view.

What are the success criteria for the experiment? - not published. Who will carry out the analysis? - the same bunch of no-brains that suggested the idea. It is a total stitch-up. The experiment will be declared a success and the permanent changed passed for political reasons.

The change will be bulldozed through regardless and badminton will suffer.

All the talk of reducing injuries and increasing the saleability to TV is total rubbish. The only benefit is that tournaments will be easier to schedule (and be less good value for the paying public and players).

There are two simple solutions to the TV problem. One is to allow 30 second rest breaks (in live televised matches only) every (say) ten points or (say) thirty rallies. The other is to change the way coverage is carried out (better camera angles, for instance).

[dlp]

Last night ITV showed over 4 hours of superbowl live from 11.00 p.m. This 255 minute tv marathon contains precisely 60 minutes of actual "play". Precisely how many people in britain play, understand or follow American Football. Yet ITV sees this as a spectacle worth covering live, meanwhile the AE highlights package on C4 arrived at 1.30 am for an hour, some 2 weeks after the event and is probably the only terrestial badminton of the year. (Outside of the token CWG coverage).

In the sunday times sports pages yesterday ( a large supplement) I found one line reporting that nathan and gail had reached the nationals final. I doubt Nick Kidd will be making the back pages today. Will any of this change one bit if the scoring is changed?

[Wedgewenis]

ah......... Badminton is too long and too boring? I dont find it long or boring....

compair it to Golf, or Baseball or Tennis....

The average length of a Badminton match is half that of a Tennis match.... God, how many times does this have to be said?

and lets talk about match length for a minute, I honestly dont care what the IBF says, The fact is - the longer the match (generally) the more exciting and memorable ..... if i look at the 150+ matches i've downloaded in the last 2 years the only ones I can specifically remember are the long ones.

There is no justification for these rule changes that make any sense...if you wheigh the pros and cons of it then its clearly the wrong direction to go - The IBF should be protecting Badminton's future, instead of selling out like this.

[GordonSim]

Looks like the drama is continuing...

IBF's secret plan for Europe.

http://www.eurobadminton.org/news_item.aspx?id=1141

[dlp]

Now we've had a chance to see the system at CWG what do we think?

One thing that stood out to me is that the womens matches are likely to be physically harder/longer. Under the 11 point system you often see one sided scores i.e. 11-2 even when played over three ends. With the new system you are guaranteed 21 rallies per games and can see around 50 rallies in a close match. In really close match such as Hallam's team event singles v Malaysia the physical demands are probably greater than the 3x11. Another example of this not having been thought through, surely the WS should be played to say 17 or 15 points?

[CWB]

Now we've had a chance to see the system at CWG what do we think?

Another example of this not having been thought through, surely the WS should be played to say 17 or 15 points?

Why? Do you feel the women are less capable than the men? I believe that the women should play 3x15 using the traditional scoring, just like the men.

[dlp]

The womens singles final at the AE was 55 mins for 3 sets, at CWG Hallam played for 69 mins! I'm just pointing out that while the other events are reduced by around 30-40% in duration terms the WS hasn't been.

[CWB]

The womens singles final at the AE was 55 mins for 3 sets, at CWG Hallam played for 69 mins! I'm just pointing out that while the other events are reduced by around 30-40% in duration terms the WS hasn't been.

Yes I know, but I believe (as do many others) that the women should have similar matches to the men in terms of duration.

[carlos]

Has anyone "tested" the new points system?

Yesterday, a friend and I had a social game of singles, to 15 points.

We played 2 games of traditional. Each game lasted approximately 15 minutes. I lost count of the amount of no scoring rallies. All of that effort to win a serve, then lose it straight away. In one game I lost 15 - 7, the other game was much closer - a win of 15 - 12.

We then played 2 games and scored in the new way. Each game lasted about 8 minutes. Rather than a runaway victory like he enjoyed in the first game, the scored were 21 - 18 and 21 - 17. One win each. Again.

From a playing point of view, the games were played much quicker with the new style of scoring.

From a spectators pont of view, I would enjoy games where the points were ticking over.

[Phil McBride]

Has anyone "tested" the new points system?

Yesterday, a friend and I had a social game of singles, to 15 points.

We played 2 games of traditional. Each game lasted approximately 15 minutes. I lost count of the amount of no scoring rallies. All of that effort to win a serve, then lose it straight away. In one game I lost 15 - 7, the other game was much closer - a win of 15 - 12.

We then played 2 games and scored in the new way. Each game lasted about 8 minutes. Rather than a runaway victory like he enjoyed in the first game, the scored were 21 - 18 and 21 - 17. One win each. Again.

From a playing point of view, the games were played much quicker with the new style of scoring.

From a spectators pont of view, I would enjoy games where the points were ticking over.

tried it a couple of times, matches feel very short in duration

[dlp]

What about 15 x 5 with scoring every point:

21x 3 : Minimum number of rallies 42
60/40 split: 21-14 21-14 = 70 rallies
Longest match no setting 21-19 19-21 21-19 = 120 rallies

15 x 5 Minimum number of rallies 45
60/40 split 15-10 15-10 15-10 = 75 rallies
Longest match no setting 15-13 15-13 13-15 13-15 13-15 =140 rallies

I think this would maximise the chances of close games or the loser at least extending the match by taking a game. Would give a better chance for a comeback, player might lose first 2 sets and if opponent was tired could edge the third and win in 5. Under 21 point a fast player might take the first and be well up in the second before tiredness really affects player, and under 21 point there would be little chance of a comeback.

(Also would have maintained the traditional winning score of 15.)

[scsiscan]

I've got it

Lets change the method of scoring each and every year so that nobody knows what on earth is going on.

Ops .. just remembered thats what the IBF has been doing for the last few years anyway.

[chrisroe]

Watching the quarter-finals at the Commonwealth games, I didn't find that there were that many games that really gripped the crowd, and those that did when there were key points were over instantly as the serve couldn't go around as in the 'old' system. I haven't yet tried the new system so my opinions are based purely on watching but it seems as though the number of key points is less and the number of exciting periods reduced.

I would be in favour of a 5 x 7 scoring system where two clear points are required to win every set with no upper limit. This would make for a substantially larger number of key points and make the game more exciting in my opinion.

Chris.

[scsiscan]

Lets have 30 games to 1 point.

That would make for lots of interesting points.

[Woody]

I said that following my trip down under I would write an article about the new scoring system well its now published under the Interviews column on the front page of Badders.

It is written from a totally unbiased point of view

[danbelcher]

Is it possible to publish the official rules for the new scoring system on badders.com? (if it isn’t already here?)

They don’t seem to be on or readily accessible on the IBF website

http://www.badmintoninternational.net/website/featuresnewsmain.asp

although I remember they were easy to find on the IBF’s previous worldbadminton.net website before it was redesigned.

[scsiscan]

Rule 1: Change the rules every year so everybody is totally confused
Rule 2: Don't publish them in an easy to be found place
Rule 3: Make sure the rules suit t.v via the 500 tour players and not the rest of the world
Rule 4: Ensure you have an IBF group who tries to eradticate the EBU
Rule5: Make sure you have a web site which is impossible to use.

and on
and on
and on



Is it possible to publish the official rules for the new scoring system on badders.com? (if it isn’t already here?)

They don’t seem to be on or readily accessible on the IBF website

http://www.badmintoninternational.net/website/featuresnewsmain.asp

although I remember they were easy to find on the IBF’s previous worldbadminton.net website before it was redesigned.

[djg]

Here's the rule changes taken from a PDF created in September 2005 (document author is listed as Paisan Rangsikitpho). I'm not sure if this is the official current version but it is the only one I have found (for example I I think rule 7.4 is wrong and has been changed so that its a lead of 2 points).


Rally Point Scoring System:

7. SCORING SYSTEM

7.1 A match shall consist of best of three games, unless otherwise arranged.

7.2 The side which first scores 21 points shall win a game, except as provided in Law 7.4 to 7.5.

7.3 The side winning a rally shall add a point to its score.

7.4 If the score becomes 20-all, the side which scores two consecutive points shall win that game.

7.5 If the score becomes 29-all, the side scoring the 30th point shall win that game.

7.6 The side winning a game serves first in the next game.

8. CHANGE OF ENDS

8.1 Players shall change ends:

8.1.1 at the end of the first game;
8.1.2 prior to the beginning of the third game (if any); and
8.1.3 in the third game, or in a match of one game, when a side first scores 11 points.

8.2 If players omit to change ends as indicated in Law 8.1, they shall do so as soon as the mistake is discovered and the shuttle is not in play. The existing score shall stand.

10. SINGLES

10.1 Serving and receiving courts:

10.1.1 The players shall serve from, and receive in, their respective right service courts when the server has not scored or has scored an even number of points in that game.

10.1.2 The players shall serve from, and receive in, their respective left service courts when the server has scored an odd number of points in that game.

10.2 The shuttle shall be hit alternately by the server and the receiver until the shuttle ceases to be in play.

10.3 Scoring and serving:

10.3.1 If the receiver makes a ‘fault’ or the shuttle ceases to be in play because it touches the surface of the court inside the receiver’s court, the server shall score a point. The server then shall serve again from the alternate service court.

10.3.2 If the server makes a ‘fault’ or the shuttle ceases to be in play because it touches the surface of the court inside the server’s court, the receiver shall score a point. The server shall lose the right to continue serving and the receiver then shall become the server.

11. DOUBLES

11.1 Serving and receiving courts

11.1.1 A player of the serving side shall serve from the right service court at the start of the game or when the serving side has not scored or has scored an even number of points in that game.

11.1.2 A player of the serving side shall serve from the left service court when the serving side has scored an odd number of points in that game.

11.1.3 The reverse pattern shall apply to the partner.

11.1.4 The player of the receiving side standing in diagonally opposite service court of the server shall be the receiver.

11.1.5 Only the receiver shall return the service: should the shuttle touch or be hit by the receiver’s partner, it shall be a ‘fault’ and the serving side shall score a point.

11.1.6 Service in any turn of serving shall be delivered from alternate service courts, except as provided in Laws 12 and 14.

11.1.7 The players from the receiving side shall not change their respective service courts until they win a point on their service.

11.2 Order of play and position on court

11.3.1 After the service is returned, the shuttle may be hit alternately by either player of the serving side and either player of the receiving side until the shuttle ceases to be in play (Law 15).

11.3.2 After the service is returned, a player shall hit the shuttle from any position on that player’s side of the net.

11.3 Scoring

11.3.1 If the receiving side makes a ‘fault’ or the shuttle ceases to be in play because it touches the surface of the court inside the receiving side’s court, the serving side shall score a point. The server then shall serve again from the alternate service court.

11.3.2 If the serving side makes a ‘fault’ or the shuttle ceases to be in play because it touches the surface of the court inside the serving side’s court, the receiving side shall score a point. The serving side shall lose the right to continue serving and the receiving side then shall become the serving side.

11.4 Serving

In any game, the right to serve shall pass consecutively:
11.4.1 from the initial server who started the game from the right service court
11.4.2 to the partner of the initial receiver. The service shall be delivered from the left service court.
11.4.3 to the player of the initial serving side standing in the service court corresponding to that side’s score. (Law 11.1)
11.4.4 to the player of the initial receiving side standing in the service court corresponding to that side’s score (Law 11.1) and so on.

11.5 No player shall serve out of turn, receive out of turn, or receive two consecutive services in the same game, except as provided in Laws 12 and 14.

11.6 Either player of the winning side shall serve first in the next game, and either player of the losing side may receive.


16. CONTINUOUS PLAY, MISCONDUCT & PENALTIES

16.1 Play shall be continuous from the first service until the match is concluded, except as allowed in Laws 16.2 and 16.3.

16.2 Intervals

16.2.1 not exceeding 60 seconds during each game when a side first scores 11 points

16.2.2 not exceeding 120 seconds between the first and second game, and between the second and third game shall be allowed in all matches.




(For a televised match, the Referee may decide before the match that intervals as in Law 16.2 are mandatory and of fixed duration).



16.3 Suspension of play

16.3.1 When necessitated by circumstances not within the control of the players, the umpire may suspend play for such a period as the umpire may consider necessary.

16.3.2 Under special circumstances the Referee shall instruct the umpire to suspend play.

16.3.3 If play is suspended, the existing score shall stand and play shall be resumed from that point.

16.4 Delay in play

16.4.1 Under no circumstances shall play be delayed to enable a player to recover strength or wind or receive advice.
16.4.2 The umpire shall be the sole judge of any delay in play.

16.5 Advice and leaving the court

16.5.1 Only when the shuttle is not in play (Law 15), a player shall be permitted to receive advice during a match.
16.5.2 No player shall leave the court during a match without the umpire’s permission.

16.6 A player shall not:

16.6.1 deliberately cause delay in, or suspension of, play;
16.6.2 deliberately modify or damage the shuttle in order to change its speed or its flight;
16.6.3 behave in an offensive manner; or
16.6.4 be guilty of misconduct not otherwise covered by the Laws of badminton.

16.7 The umpire shall administer any breach of Law 16.4, 16.5 or 16.6 by:

16.7.1 issuing a warning to the offending side;
16.7.2 faulting the offending side, if previously warned. The Umpire shall report the offending side to the Referee, if it is necessary to fault the offending side for second time; or
16.7.3 in cases of flagrant offence or persistent offences or breach of Law 16.2, faulting the offending side and reporting the offending side immediately to the Referee, who shall have power to disqualify the offending side from the match.

[Woody]

TOKYO (AFP) - Badminton will have a new set of scoring rules intended to shorten matches and broaden its appeal, the game's governing body has announced, despite objections from some top shuttlers.

The Congress of the International Badminton Federation voted unanimously at their annual meeting in Tokyo to adopt the new format, which will come into effect at the next tournament.

Under the new system, points will be scored by the winner of every rally, not just by a player who wins a point while serving as is the case under the current rules. There will also be no second service in doubles.

In line with these fundamental changes to the game, the IBF agreed that matches would remain best of three for both men and women but would now be the first to 21 points for everyone.

Presently, the men play up to 15 and the ladies to 11.

"It was unanimously adopted and the 21 rally-point system will be used from now on," IBF vice president Punch Gunalan said Saturday.

"It's permanent (for the) future. The only request we had was not to change it again as soon as possible," Gunalan said.

The IBF hopes the new system will shorten the duration of the match and make the sport more appealing to the media, in particular television.

"The time of the game is more predictable, not so long as before, that means you can be sure the game is over in 40 minutes, 20 minutes. That's very important for television coverage," said Gunalan.

During the Thomas and Uber Cup team championships in Tokyo, some top players expressed strong opposition to the new scoring system.

"I don't like it. I don't understand why the IBF always tries to change the rules," said World and Olympic champion Taufik Hidayat of Indonesia.

"Under the new format, there's not an exciting situation and spectators also do not like it. The game has become monotonous.

"Previously they tried to introduce a seven-point system. Why can't they stick to the same rules like tennis? Of course, sponsors and television are important, but they should also think about players," Hidayat added.

China's Zhang Ning and Xie Xingfang, the world's top ranked women shuttlers, also criticised the changes during their defence of the Uber Cup.

"The duration of a match in the women's singles has become longer. Even if you have a weak opponent, it doesn't become shorter and you need more physical strength. I'm against it," said world champion Xie.

Athens Olympic gold medallist Zhang agreed, saying: "You have to keep your concentration longer and it's physically tougher, regardless of your opponent. I feel a match has become longer than before."

The IBF, the world ruling body of the sport, had been experimented with the new scoring system for more than three months before the final vote.

[flea]

Oh dear, I can see a mutiny happening before long if the IBF continue the way they are. Just like tennis there will be a professional tour and the national associations along with the IBF will not have a say how the game is run.

[djg]

The AFP report quotes Punch Gunalan as saying the vote was unanimous. Who actually has a vote ?

[flea]

The AFP report quotes Punch Gunalan as saying the vote was unanimous. Who actually has a vote ?Whoever Punch says can have a vote, or so it seems.

[danbelcher]

the new scoring system has now been offically implemented.

why then is there nothing on the IBF website other than "under a new scoring system that had been definitely implemented officially few hours earlier by the IBF general assembly" in an article about the Uber Cup

Surely concerning somehting so important to the game there would be a press release or an article.

It doesn't seem right and is all a bit odd.

[ferguwat]

This still appears on the website;
http://www.worldbadminton.net/rules.asp
under scoring it still states 3 games to 15 .....

Is this change going to affect everyone ... down to grass roots ?

[Woody]

Badminton undergoes makeover in Japan
Primastuti Handayani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Like a teenage girl trying to attract the attention of the boy next door, badminton underwent some makeovers during the just-concluded Thomas/Uber Cup championships in Japan to try to lure more viewers and media.

The most glaring change was, of course, the shuttlers' new uniforms.

Take a look at Olympic and world champion Taufik Hidayat's shirt. He no longer needs to roll up his sleeves -- he doesn't have them.

Wearing the latest designs from Japan-based sports apparel maker Yonex, the Indonesian ace and his compatriots wore black sleeveless shirts with thick red lines on the chest.

Nice outfit, quite fashionable... but it didn't help them achieve their goal of reaching the Thomas Cup final. Indonesia bowed out to defending champion China in the semifinals, in accordance with predictions.

Did the new uniforms affect their performance? Listen to Indonesia's second singles Sony Dwi Kuncoro: "I feel awkward wearing it... it's too cold inside the stadium, so we have to wear our jacket," he said.

The Chinese girls, on the other hand, looked nice in their yellow sleeveless shirts, with a thin Shanghai collar, and greenish grey skirts. No more old-fashioned T-shirts and shorts.

Whether fashion has anything to do with it or not, Li Yongbo's girls managed to hold onto the Uber Cup for a record fifth consecutive time.

Enough with the fashion.

Next comes the scoring system. The International Badminton Federation (IBF) announced Saturday that it would stick with the new best-of-three rally-point scoring system despite resistance from players.

The reason? The IBF hopes the new system will shorten the matches and make badminton more appealing to the media, in particular TV.

"The time of the game is more predictable, it's not as long as before. That means you can be sure the game is over in 40 minutes, 20 minutes. That's very important for television coverage," said IBF Vice President Punch Gunalan.

What did the players say?

"I don't like it. I don't understand why the IBF always tries to change the rules," said Taufik, who was named 2005 player of the year by the IBF.

"Under the new format, there's not an exciting situation, and spectators don't like it either. The game has become monotonous.

"Previously they tried to introduce a seven-point system. Why can't they stick to the same rules like tennis? Of course, sponsors and television are important, but they should also think about the players," he added.

He was right.

Look at Danish doubles team Jens Erikssen and Martin Lundgaard Hansen battling Malaysia's Chan Chong Ming and Koo Keen Kiat in the second game of the semifinals. The Danish pair had to put on long rallies before taming the Malaysians 30-28. It was like a never-ending rally... tack... tack... tack....

The shuttlecock moved here and there, and there was no more beauty in the game. The speed-and-power shuttlers will definitely love it, but what about those stylish, crafty players?

Players like 1996 Olympics champion Poul-Erik Hoyer-Larsen, 2001 world champion Hendrawan and Danish ace Peter Gade build up their attacks beautifully, waiting for the right moment to launch their powerful smashes.

With no rush to score, these shuttlers create suspense for the viewers with their combinations of lobs, drives, dropshots and smashes.

The new scoring system also drew criticism from female shuttlers, who had to play in an 11-points-a-game system.

"The duration of a match in women's singles has become longer. Even if you have a weak opponent, it's not any shorter and you need more physical strength. I'm against it," said world champion Xie Xingfang of China.

Athens Olympic gold medalist Zhang agreed, saying: "You have to keep your concentration longer and it's physically tougher, regardless of your opponent. I feel a match has become longer than before."

The decision has been made. Let's see if the makeovers help badminton attract more viewers and sponsors at the World Championships in Madrid in September.

[egibney]

CWB, not sure where you got the 61 rallies maximum from. If each game goes to 21-19, and you go to 3 games the total number is 120 rallies. Also, while very, very unlikely, the score can go to 30-29, so technically the max number of rallies is 177 rallies (I doubt we will ever see that though). So your 61 rallies maximum is way off.

For anyone who thinks the new scoring system is bad, I have to disagree, I think is is great. Way more exciting in my opinion. But whatever way you feel about it, we're stuck with it now, unless people are seriously interested in overthrowing IBF, which I think is ridiculous. I do agree though, there is some fishy stuff going on in the world of badminton. I think this is typical in times of change, in any organization or "civilization" if you want to call badminton as a whole a "civilization", perhaps "community' is a better word for it.

I think we can expect even more change for badminton in the upcoming years (hopefully no more to the rules of the game), I hope the change is for the best.

www.badmintonsite.com

[CWB]

Yes, slip of the finger. I meant 61 points maximum for a GAME. And I was mistaken there as well, because you can only play up to 30-29, not 31-30 as I then thought. So I should have said 59 points maximum.

[Dimo]

I would like the new scoring system implemented at local league level in
the 2006/7 season. It is surely better during play to score a point for
winning a rally regardless of which side has served. When I first began
playing many years ago it seemed an oddity to score only on one's
serve, but then maybe that was partly because I was brought up on tennis.

Still, any clubs that embrace new scoring next season will get my support -
- I just hope there are one or two near enough to home that I can play for!

[Steve Parker]

Agree with your comments. I had a meeting at Milton Keynes recently and explaining that I could not understand how the new scoring system had been approved unanimously at the IBF meeting, asked who voted in favour of it from Badminton England / EBU. An interesting conversation then took place as I was sitting next to one of these delegates! Apparently our association has lost a great deal of credibility with IBF in recent years and is trying to get back in favour with them -"and Punch is not one to be argued with - you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of IBF particularly over an issue that you just can't win".
I suggested that where virtually every poll commissioned before the meeting, including Badminton England's own, showed a minimum of 75% against it and as I thought Badminton England represented its members, then on such a major issue, the representatives were failing in their responsibilities to simply go along with everything. In short, we dont need representatives who 'bottle' their decisions. There was a slight look of horror when i asked if the only way for BE to fight it was if leagues and counties chose not to affiliate next season. Maybe this remains an option as does sending emails to the EBU and IBF delegates directly. Fortunately the email addresses are on the websites!
An even bigger issue is the new service laws being applied to whichever scoring system you choose to use. How we will love those (almost) horizontal serves that we have tried to get rid of for years. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

[Markymark]

I don't think there is any point in fighting the new scoring system - indeed I think it would be counter-productive to do so. What we don't want is a two-tier badminton system. I hope that all counties and leagues adopt the new scoring system.

The new service laws are a big strange and they take away the service judge's main 'fault'. A racquet head fault will rarely be called now, and some of the very skilled players will be able to make a killing on the league and county circuit.