One stroke is not a blanket licence for two contacts.

The ruleset used on this page

This page applies BWF Statutes Section 4.1, Laws of Badminton, Version 5.0 (2), in force from 26 April 2025 and current when checked on 25 August 2026. The controlling contact provisions are Laws 13.3.6–13.3.9, read with the BWF definitions and Laws 4, 7, 11, 15 and 17.

These are the international BWF laws for badminton singles and doubles. The relevant clauses do not create a different double-hit test for Para badminton. A school, club, domestic association or event may appoint modified rules, so its published regulations control if they expressly differ from the BWF baseline.

BWF says “one stroke,” not merely “one motion”

The BWF definitions describe a stroke as a movement of a player's racket with an intention to hit the shuttle. Law 4.1.2 calls the stringed area the part intended to hit the shuttle, while Law 4.1.3 says the racket head bounds that area.

Law 13.3.7 then uses two different ideas: the general fault is the shuttle being “hit twice in succession” by the same player; the exception is the shuttle hitting the head and the stringed area in one stroke. Calling the swing continuous does not remove the head-and-strings requirement.

Two successive hits by one player are a fault

Under BWF Law 13.3.7, a player faults when that player hits the shuttle twice successively. The obvious example is a mishit that pops the shuttle up, followed by another hit from the same player before an opponent returns it.

The law does not make intention to hit twice an element of the fault. An accidental second hit can therefore be faulted when the observed sequence is two successive hits. Intent does matter to the BWF definition of a “stroke,” but it does not turn a completed first hit into a free rescue attempt.

Head and stringed-area contact can be legal

Law 13.3.7 expressly removes one sequence from the double-hit fault: the shuttle hits the racket head and the stringed area in one stroke. In everyday language, that is the familiar frame-and-strings mishit within the same stroke.

The wording does not create a general “two touches are legal if the swing is smooth” rule. Two string-bed hits, two head contacts, a shaft-and-strings sequence, or a distinct second hit is not within the stated exception merely because it happened quickly. The facts must fit the parts of the racket that BWF names.

Two sounds do not decide the call

The BWF law does not use sound as its test. An audible frame-to-strings mishit may fit the exception, while a fast illegal sequence may be hard to hear. The legal questions are whether the shuttle was hit successively and, if so, whether the exact head-and-stringed-area exception in one stroke applies.

That is why “I heard two clicks” is incomplete. The sound may help an umpire notice the incident, but it does not establish which racket parts were involved or whether there was a second hit.

A carried shuttle is a different fault

BWF Law 13.3.6 makes it a fault when the shuttle is caught and held on the racket and then slung during the execution of a stroke. This provision addresses retention and propulsion, not two separate impacts.

The law gives no minimum contact time and does not say that every soft, sliced or untidy shot is a carry. The required sequence is caught and held, then slung. If the umpire doubts whether an infringement occurred, current BWF Instructions to Technical Officials (ITTO) 6.8 say not to call a fault and to allow play to continue.

Both partners may not hit the same shuttle successively

After a service is returned, BWF Law 11.2 allows either partner to play a side's next stroke. It does not allow both partners to hit the same incoming shuttle: Law 13.3.8 makes successive hits by a player and that player's partner a fault.

A partner swinging and missing does not by itself trigger Law 13.3.8 because the clause requires the shuttle to be hit by both players. Likewise, rackets clashing is not a partner double hit if only one racket contacts the shuttle. The decisive fact is successive shuttle contact by both partners.

A failed touch cannot be rescued

Law 13.3.9 makes it a fault if the shuttle touches a player's racket and does not travel towards the opponent's court. A player therefore cannot use a second hit to rescue a touch that sends the shuttle backwards or away from the other court; the direction fault has already occurred.

BWF does not state an angle, distance or minimum forward flight for “towards.” Close cases remain factual judgments for the umpire. The clause is about direction immediately after the racket touch, not where a later rescue hit would send the shuttle.

The fault ends the rally and gives the opponents a point

Once a Law 13 fault occurs, the shuttle is no longer in play under Law 15.3. Under rally scoring in Law 7.3, the opposing side wins that rally and adds one point. This is not a let, so the rally is not replayed.

• If the serving side faults: the receiving side scores and becomes the new serving side under Laws 10.3.2 or 11.3.2.
• If the receiving side faults: the serving side scores and the same server serves again from the alternate service court under Laws 10.3.1 or 11.3.1.
• If players continue after the incident: later contacts or where the shuttle lands do not reverse an earlier fault that the umpire has called.

The umpire makes the factual call; IRS is for lines

BWF Law 17.6.1 requires the umpire to enforce the Laws and call a fault when one occurs. ITTO 5.4.8 likewise directs the umpire to call “Fault.” An official's decision is final on the points of fact for which that official is responsible.

The BWF Instant Review System in Law 17.5.2 and ITTO 5.8 reviews line calls; it is not a video challenge system for a double hit or carry. A dispute must be raised before the next service. An unsatisfied appeal may go to the Referee only on a question of law under Law 17.6.8, not simply to rejudge the umpire's factual view of the contacts.

ITTO 6.8 supplies the practical threshold for a close live call: if the umpire doubts whether an infringement occurred, the umpire should not call a fault. Crowd reaction or sound alone does not replace that judgment; ITTO 6.9 also says not to ask or be influenced by spectators.

How to classify a disputed contact

1. Confirm the appointed rules. This path uses BWF Version 5.0 (2); a published local modification must be checked separately.
2. Ask whether the shuttle was still in play. A tap after the shuttle has landed or another fault has occurred cannot create a new double-hit fault.
3. Check for a catch-and-sling. If the shuttle was caught and held, then slung, apply Law 13.3.6.
4. Identify who contacted it. Two successive hits by one player engage Law 13.3.7; successive hits by partners engage Law 13.3.8.
5. Apply the exact exception. For one player's successive contacts, ask whether the shuttle hit the racket head and stringed area in one stroke.
6. Check immediate direction. A racket touch after which the shuttle does not travel towards the other court is a Law 13.3.9 fault.
7. Apply the result. End the rally, award the opponents one point and set the next server from Laws 10 or 11.

The frame redirects the shuttle onto the strings

Situation: in one backhand stroke, the shuttle clips the racket head, then the stringed area, and travels over the net into the opponent's court.

BWF Version 5.0 (2) ruling: no double-hit fault under Law 13.3.7. Both named racket areas were involved in one stroke. The rally continues if no other fault occurs.

A smooth action produces two string-bed hits

Situation: slow-motion footage appears to show the shuttle rebound and contact the stringed area a second time during the same smooth racket movement. The racket head itself is not involved.

BWF Version 5.0 (2) ruling: if the umpire observes two successive hits, it is a Law 13.3.7 fault. Smoothness alone does not fit the exception, which specifically requires the head and stringed area in one stroke. The footage itself is not available as an IRS challenge.

The first mishit goes backwards

Situation: a forecourt player touches the shuttle, which travels towards the back of that player's own court. The player then hits it over the net with a second action.

BWF Version 5.0 (2) ruling: fault. Law 13.3.9 is satisfied as soon as the first racket touch does not send the shuttle towards the opponent's court; the second hit would also raise Law 13.3.7. The side cannot repair the first fault.

One partner misses and the other returns

Situation: in doubles, Player A swings but misses the shuttle completely. Partner B then strikes it over the net.

BWF Version 5.0 (2) ruling: no partner double-hit fault under Law 13.3.8 because only Player B hit the shuttle. Player A's unsuccessful racket movement is a stroke under the definition, but it is not a hit by both partners.

Both partners make contact

Situation: Player A's racket clips the shuttle; a moment later Player B's racket sends it across the net.

BWF Version 5.0 (2) ruling: fault under Law 13.3.8. It does not matter that the contacts were accidental or that Player B's shot would otherwise land in: the shuttle was hit by the partners successively.

Five claims to correct

• “Any double contact is legal in one motion.” The exception is limited to the racket head and stringed area in one stroke.
• “Two sounds always mean a fault.” Sound is not the BWF test and may come from the legal head-and-strings sequence.
• “A carry is just a slow double hit.” Law 13.3.6 instead asks whether the shuttle was caught and held, then slung.
• “Partners get one touch each.” Law 13.3.8 prohibits successive hits by both partners on the same shuttle.
• “A replay can overturn the umpire.” BWF IRS reviews line calls, not racket-contact faults; factual decisions assigned to an official are final.

Governing-body sources and effective versions

• Badminton World Federation — Statutes Section 4.1, Laws of Badminton, in force 26 April 2025, Version 5.0 (2): definitions and Laws 4, 7, 10, 11, 13.3.6–13.3.9, 15 and 17
• Badminton World Federation — Statutes Section 4.1.1, Instructions to Technical Officials, in force 17 November 2025, Version 8.0: Instructions 2.4, 5.4.8, 5.8, 6.8 and 6.9 (BWF document copy hosted by Badminton Denmark)

Checked on 25 August 2026 against the current BWF law book and technical-official instructions. Standard rulings on this page use Section 4.1 Version 5.0 (2). No separate competition variation is presented as universal; an appointed domestic or event regulation should be checked if it modifies the BWF baseline.