Hugo CALDERANO x Timo Boll

Baal wrote: jackwong23 wrote: Notice that Steger and tan got into a conversation and both of them made action of serve with their racket ( without the ball ). So obviously that was something to do with tanˊs serve. This dispute happened immediately after tan had an easy put away after Steger popped up his serve. Judging From the above evidences I can be very sure that Steger was complaining about the hiddeness of tanˊ s serve. I don't see any of that!  In any case, the umpire didn't call it.  Too bad for Steger.  He was fooled by a serve.  It happens.  And as I said, from the same camera angle, Steger's serves appear to be equally hidden.  I have watched Tan play a lot on video because his quickness amazes me and their aren't that many SP players among top men.  I can't recall EVER seeing him get called for an illegal serve.  Clearly the vast majority of ITTF umpires see it differently.  So calling him a "cheater" is over the top, really says more about you than it does about him.

if you pretent not see Stegerˊs complaint about the
hiddeness of tanˊs serve, well, it is up to you. End of discussion.
Umpires not calling tanˊs serves does not mean it is legal.
His serves were illegal as the racket contact of his serves were not visible to his opponents.

Hugo's serves are just as legal as Timo's. Why? (edit: Both players' serves are tossed at a non-vertical angle except Hugo tosses higher, so it is more obvious.) The trajectory of Hugo's toss is as (if not more) vertical than Timo's serves, but it is because it is tossed higher, the ball falls down to the side of the table. So, if Timo were to toss his serve equally as high, the ball would too be falling quite a distance away from where tossed.

If you don't believe me, then I urge you to check Timo's serves in the video, just his first 3 serves will do. You will realise in each Timo's serve, the ball travels horizontally quite long in proportion to the vertical flight. So, the ball would too travel in the same manner as that in Hugo's serve, if Timo were to toss his serve as high. Think of physics.

Remember, the rule is the ball must be tossed near vertical. Hugo's toss is as vertical as Timo's if not more so.

(edit: The real questions would then be: 1) are both serving legally? 2) how should vertically be interpreted?)

Edited by hithithit - 10/22/2014 at 12:19am

hithithit wrote: Ringer84 wrote: [QUOTE=hithithit]Hugo's serves are just as legal as Timo's. Why? (edit: Both players' serves are tossed at a non-vertical angle except Hugo tosses higher, so it is more obvious.) The trajectory of Hugo's toss is as (if not more) vertical than Timo's serves, but it is because it is tossed higher, the ball falls down to the side of the table. So, if Timo were to toss his serve equally as high, the ball would too be falling quite a distance away from where tossed. If you don't believe me, then I urge you to check Timo's serves in the video, just his first 3 serves will do. You will realise in each Timo's serve, the ball travels horizontally quite long in proportion to the vertical flight. So, the ball would too travel in the same manner as that in Hugo's serve, if Timo were to toss his serve as high. Think of physics. Remember, the rule is the ball must be tossed near vertical. Hugo's toss is as vertical as Timo's if not more so. (edit: The real questions would then be: 1) are both serving legally? 2) how should vertically be interpreted?) The issue is not the verticality or trajectory of the serve, but whether or not the ball remains visible to Timo for the entire duration. My opinion is that Timo probably can't see the serve from where he's standing, but since none of us possess supernatural powers, the only person in the universe that knows whether or not the serve is legal is Timo. Regardless of anything else, Calderano's serve is always illegal because he does not immediately remove his free arm "as soon as the ball has been projected" as the rule requires.

Hey, thanks for your reply. Right, so we are questioning his free arm.

In which case, I do see your point but the video is inconclusive as to whether the free arm obstructed Timo's view from where he was standing. As you have pointed out, Timo would know if visibility was hindered.

Though note, Hugo's serve doesn't look too much different to the many Ma Long's serves he did in this video (yes, it is a training video, but nonetheless).
Ma Long in training

Edited by hithithit - 10/22/2014 at 1:33am

Funny thread. The moral of the story is you cant beat Timo Boll unless you are using illegal serves and are somehow cheating or you are Chinese.....LOL

Criminy, these forums can be the official whiners club for nitpicking serves!  Get over it people!

naijachief wrote: Funny thread. The moral of the story is you cant beat Timo Boll unless you are using illegal serves and are somehow cheating or you are Chinese.....LOL

Edited by suds79 - 10/22/2014 at 11:42am

hithithit wrote: NextLevel wrote: naijachief wrote: Funny thread. The moral of the story is you cant beat Timo Boll unless you are using illegal serves and are somehow cheating or you are Chinese.....LOL Ah, finally, the unstated subplot has been brought to light... Timo and Dima serve no differently to the Chinese. In some serves, the free hand moves away just moments before the ball is struck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBBwdZMOfUc

I don't know if any of you guys are referring to me or not, but let me make it clear that I personally could care less whether or not Timo Boll loses to a non-Chinese player.  Boll did not lose this match because Calderano did not remove his free arm, but that doesn't change the fact that Calderano's serve is illegal according to the rules.  So is the high toss serve of Ma Long, Ovtcharov, and many others...

GMan4911 wrote: Even though Calderano doesn't remove his free arm, at least it doesn't obstruct your view of the serve, IMO.  What's illegal is him hiding the serve with his body and difficult to see unless you're standing on the opposite diagonal.  Either way, except for a few instances, Boll didn't seem to have any problems with it. That raises the question - is it the responsibility of the receiver to stand in a position so that he can see the serve clearly? The rule only states that it is the responsibility of the server to ensure that the serve is not hidden and if Boll were standing more to his right, it would be hidden.

Yes.  And if the umpires are satisfied that pretty much settles the matter.

Anyway, it is nice to see someone new emerge, especially someone from one of the continents not well represented among the top echelons.  It's good for the sport.

the thing is if his serves look a bit dodgy to some members here and seem to give the server some advantage, then thats it, It dosn't have be argued and won