Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - why did lebesson complain?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

why did lebesson complain?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2038
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 6:23pm
Originally posted by amateur amateur wrote:

Lebesson does not mean "the kiss." And he was right to complain and win the point.
It's fine that he complains, but Harimoto smashed the ball and France did not return it so technically Japan should win the point unless the umpire calls for a let.
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 7:11pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

tell me I am wrong.   No let for disturbances or interruptions within control of the players once the rally has started if the rules are applied 
This depends on the interpretation by the umpire of what constitutes a disturbance. Even though I don't think HH saying sorry here is enough of a disturbance, but a liberal interpretation by the umpire could think so and since that's beyond Lebesson's control, the umpire could call a let, but certainly not give the point outright to France (which is exactly what he did). Usually, the disturbance is a ball coming into the court.
I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.
Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 7:40pm
Originally posted by amateur amateur wrote:

Lebesson does not mean "the kiss." And he was right to complain and win the point.

lebesson = le + besson

le (french) = the (english)

besson = beso (spanish) = kiss (english)

hence his official name is "the kiss".
----------------------------------------------------------
the french always seem to be related to these kinds of things.

there's a type of kiss called "french kiss".

also I recall this very recent topic

and I quote:

Maybe too gossipy, so I don't want to name names, but one male French player who is dating a female player from another NT, did enjoy bragging about his big **** to his gf at the expense of the noisy Japanese player (not Harimoto no) they were watching, who, and I quote: "is small down there" "I'm big!".


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/16/2019 at 7:46pm
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2038
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 8:16pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

tell me I am wrong.   No let for disturbances or interruptions within control of the players once the rally has started if the rules are applied 
This depends on the interpretation by the umpire of what constitutes a disturbance. Even though I don't think HH saying sorry here is enough of a disturbance, but a liberal interpretation by the umpire could think so and since that's beyond Lebesson's control, the umpire could call a let, but certainly not give the point outright to France (which is exactly what he did). Usually, the disturbance is a ball coming into the court.
I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.
I think we both are saying that HH is the one to have created the "disturbance" (if in fact that actually transpired).  But the player that may have been negatively affected was Lebesson.  The rule in question is:
2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player;
The player who fails here is Lebesson (actually he made a return, just not a good one).  The disturbance (HH saying sorry) is outside the control of the player (Lebesson).  So I think technically, the umpire could call a let if he deemed HH saying sorry is worthy of being called a "disturbance".


Edited by pongfugrasshopper - 11/16/2019 at 8:18pm
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 8:29pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

tell me I am wrong.   No let for disturbances or interruptions within control of the players once the rally has started if the rules are applied 
This depends on the interpretation by the umpire of what constitutes a disturbance. Even though I don't think HH saying sorry here is enough of a disturbance, but a liberal interpretation by the umpire could think so and since that's beyond Lebesson's control, the umpire could call a let, but certainly not give the point outright to France (which is exactly what he did). Usually, the disturbance is a ball coming into the court.
I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.
I think we both are saying that HH is the one to have created the "disturbance" (if in fact that actually transpired).  But the player that may have been negatively affected was Lebesson.  The rule in question is:
2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player;
The player who fails here is Lebesson (actually he made a return, just not a good one).  The disturbance (HH saying sorry) is outside the control of the player (Lebesson).  So I think technically, the umpire could call a let if he deemed HH saying sorry is worthy of being called a "disturbance".
we are more clear on what each other mean, I still don't agree with your interpretation of the rule above.  I have to say first that I am a not a ref, so my interpretation is not tested.  The beyond control should refers to outside of both players and not within the control of one and beyond the other.
Back to Top
penholderxxx View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 09/19/2016
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 323
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote penholderxxx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 8:49pm
'I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.' - tom

IF the umpire had determined the disturbance was caused by HH; due to bad sportsmanship or misbehaviour as in uttering something which had affected play or her opponent's play, the umpire would still have called a 'let' and warned HH with a yellow card. 

IF the umpire had determined that there was no mischievous intent by HH when she had uttered ' sorry ' or whatever else when her return clipped the net, the umpire could have still called a 'let', advised/warned HH so that she does not repeat it. No yellow card.

Either one, it would still be a 'let'. 

No penalty point to be awarded to the French pair...........unless it was the case where HH had already been warned previously in the same match and was already given a yellow card ......... in which case, the umpire will need to bring out the yellow and red cards to indicate a penalty point is awarded to the opponent.

It should be noted that the rally DID NOT end with the French player protestations and had ended with HT smashing in the winner. The umpire did not raise his arm to indicate a decision ( let or point ) when the French player was in the process of returning the shot which clipped the net. The umpire did not see anything wrong up to when the French player made the return. The umpire had only put up his ( right ) arm to indicate a point to the French pair when the French player protested after his return.

I maintain my earlier observation that the French player raised his arms to protest after he realised his return would be killed off by HT. He would not have protested if he thought his return was a unreturnable and a winner.
Iloveplayingtabletennis
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2038
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 8:57pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

tell me I am wrong.   No let for disturbances or interruptions within control of the players once the rally has started if the rules are applied 
This depends on the interpretation by the umpire of what constitutes a disturbance. Even though I don't think HH saying sorry here is enough of a disturbance, but a liberal interpretation by the umpire could think so and since that's beyond Lebesson's control, the umpire could call a let, but certainly not give the point outright to France (which is exactly what he did). Usually, the disturbance is a ball coming into the court.
I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.
I think we both are saying that HH is the one to have created the "disturbance" (if in fact that actually transpired).  But the player that may have been negatively affected was Lebesson.  The rule in question is:
2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player;
The player who fails here is Lebesson (actually he made a return, just not a good one).  The disturbance (HH saying sorry) is outside the control of the player (Lebesson).  So I think technically, the umpire could call a let if he deemed HH saying sorry is worthy of being called a "disturbance".
we are more clear on what each other mean, I still don't agree with your interpretation of the rule above.  I have to say first that I am a not a ref, so my interpretation is not tested.  The beyond control should refers to outside of both players and not within the control of one and beyond the other.
I think the reason for the control of the player is that in addition to something obvious like a ball coming into the court, for example, if a player's coach accidentally knocks over a chair and it creates a disturbance such that the coach's player misses, then there is no let because that player/coach (one team) is the one who created the disturbance.  But if an opposing player/coach creates a disturbance, that is outside the control of the player who missed due to that disturbance.  Without clarification, we could run into situations such that if a player knows the ball is about to get smashed, he could yell out something like PLEASE DON'T HIT ME and possibly disturbing the other player enough to miss ... maybe even intentionally yelling it out.  It's still up to the umpire to judge what constitutes a disturbance.
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by penholderxxx penholderxxx wrote:

'I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.' - tom

IF the umpire had determined the disturbance was caused by HH; due to bad sportsmanship or misbehaviour as in uttering something which had affected play or her opponent's play, the umpire would still have called a 'let' and warned HH with a yellow card. 

IF the umpire had determined that there was no mischievous intent by HH when she had uttered ' sorry ' or whatever else when her return clipped the net, the umpire could have still called a 'let', advised/warned HH so that she does not repeat it. No yellow card.

Either one, it would still be a 'let'. 

No penalty point to be awarded to the French pair...........unless it was the case where HH had already been warned previously in the same match and was already given a yellow card ......... in which case, the umpire will need to bring out the yellow and red cards to indicate a penalty point is awarded to the opponent.

It should be noted that the rally DID NOT end with the French player protestations and had ended with HT smashing in the winner. The umpire did not raise his arm to indicate a decision ( let or point ) when the French player was in the process of returning the shot which clipped the net. The umpire did not see anything wrong up to when the French player made the return. The umpire had only put up his ( right ) arm to indicate a point to the French pair when the French player protested after his return.

I maintain my earlier observation that the French player raised his arms to protest after he realised his return would be killed off by HT. He would not have protested if he thought his return was a unreturnable and a winner.
whether the protest is launched in good faith is not considered by me.  I want to discuss the rule.  I did not consider the warning part, because I have only seen it done on illegal serves and bad behaviour (i think this one could get a red card right away depending on the action).  Could you cite the rule that a warning have to be given before a point is taken when it is an infraction during the rally or a video where this was done without controversy
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 9:56pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

tell me I am wrong.   No let for disturbances or interruptions within control of the players once the rally has started if the rules are applied 
This depends on the interpretation by the umpire of what constitutes a disturbance. Even though I don't think HH saying sorry here is enough of a disturbance, but a liberal interpretation by the umpire could think so and since that's beyond Lebesson's control, the umpire could call a let, but certainly not give the point outright to France (which is exactly what he did). Usually, the disturbance is a ball coming into the court.
I didn't mean Lebesson, the disturbance (whether penalty or not) would have been caused by HH which could not be interpreted as beyond her control, so either penalty or no penalty but no let.  Ball coming into court is beyond their control so a let.
I think we both are saying that HH is the one to have created the "disturbance" (if in fact that actually transpired).  But the player that may have been negatively affected was Lebesson.  The rule in question is:
2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player;
The player who fails here is Lebesson (actually he made a return, just not a good one).  The disturbance (HH saying sorry) is outside the control of the player (Lebesson).  So I think technically, the umpire could call a let if he deemed HH saying sorry is worthy of being called a "disturbance".
we are more clear on what each other mean, I still don't agree with your interpretation of the rule above.  I have to say first that I am a not a ref, so my interpretation is not tested.  The beyond control should refers to outside of both players and not within the control of one and beyond the other.
I think the reason for the control of the player is that in addition to something obvious like a ball coming into the court, for example, if a player's coach accidentally knocks over a chair and it creates a disturbance such that the coach's player misses, then there is no let because that player/coach (one team) is the one who created the disturbance.  But if an opposing player/coach creates a disturbance, that is outside the control of the player who missed due to that disturbance.  Without clarification, we could run into situations such that if a player knows the ball is about to get smashed, he could yell out something like PLEASE DON'T HIT ME and possibly disturbing the other player enough to miss ... maybe even intentionally yelling it out.  It's still up to the umpire to judge what constitutes a disturbance.
Pongfu, I think we need the contribution of a ref who have tested this situation to clarify the rule behind this.
Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 10:24pm
either

1- hayata is a great ventriloquist


or

2- she never says a word to lebesson.


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/16/2019 at 10:25pm
Back to Top
kenneyy88 View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/06/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kenneyy88 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:12pm
Seems like the right call. You can't talk during the point. 
Back to Top
stiltt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Pongville, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 16539
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stiltt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:16pm
so it happened many times at clubs, somebody celebrates with the ball still in play; they think it won't come back, yell and they lose the point because the distraction: is that a "basement rule" then? 

Frankly I would put that in the same category where touching the table with the free hand is.

I agree with pongfu that the rules are not clear on the Lebesson issue, the umpire's decision seems to interpret the rules more than applying them.

So is it a basement rule then? or an unspoken rule that naturally evolved to a full rule overtime - "distraction = lose the point" -  even not written in stone? write it in stone then! make it clear.

The problem is maybe the interpretation of the distraction later on; if I do high jumping jacks with my legs and arms after lobbing high, do I distract? are you telling me that doing jumping jacks is wrong technique? are you coaching me now?

Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:36pm
Originally posted by stiltt stiltt wrote:

so it happened many times at clubs, somebody celebrates with the ball still in play; they think it won't come back, yell and they lose the point because the distraction: is that a "basement rule" then? 

Frankly I would put that in the same category where touching the table with the free hand is.

I agree with pongfu that the rules are not clear on the Lebesson issue, the umpire's decision seems to interpret the rules more than applying them.

So is it a basement rule then? or an unspoken rule that naturally evolved to a full rule overtime - "distraction = lose the point" -  even not written in stone? write it in stone then! make it clear.

The problem is maybe the interpretation of the distraction later on; if I do high jumping jacks with my legs and arms after lobbing high, do I distract? are you telling me that doing jumping jacks is wrong technique? are you coaching me now?


just look directly at hayata.
don't move away, don't get anxious....
do you see her celebrating?
do you see her yelling?


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/16/2019 at 11:37pm
Back to Top
stiltt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Pongville, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 16539
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stiltt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:41pm
not at all. I was just pointing at the lack of clarity in the rules and the unspoken rule that made the umpire decide that way.
Back to Top
penholderxxx View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 09/19/2016
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 323
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote penholderxxx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:42pm
' whether the protest is launched in good faith is not considered by me.  I want to discuss the rule.  I did not consider the warning part, because I have only seen it done on illegal serves and bad behaviour (i think this one could get a red card right away depending on the action).  Could you cite the rule that a warning have to be given before a point is taken when it is an infraction during the rally or a video where this was done without controversy ' - tom

since the rules are of interests to you and you have been active in the foregoing discussion on the rules and this episode, would you care to cite any specific rules to buttress your contributions in the discussion ?

Are you aware, for example, the show of protest by the French could constitute a misbehaviour which warrants a yellow card from the umpire ?


Edited by penholderxxx - 11/16/2019 at 11:49pm
Iloveplayingtabletennis
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:47pm
Originally posted by penholderxxx penholderxxx wrote:

' whether the protest is launched in good faith is not considered by me.  I want to discuss the rule.  I did not consider the warning part, because I have only seen it done on illegal serves and bad behaviour (i think this one could get a red card right away depending on the action).  Could you cite the rule that a warning have to be given before a point is taken when it is an infraction during the rally or a video where this was done without controversy ' - tom

since the rules are of interests to you and you have been active in the foregoing discussion on the rules and this episode, would you care to cite any specific rules to buttress your contributions in the discussion ?

Are you, for example, the show of protest by the French could constitute a misbehaviour which warrants a yellow card from the umpire ?
what are you asking, to show a video where a mishaviour got a yellow or red card?

Edited by tom - 11/17/2019 at 12:01am
Back to Top
penholderxxx View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 09/19/2016
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 323
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote penholderxxx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/16/2019 at 11:48pm
 ' Seems like the right call. You can't talk during the point. ' - kenneyy88

  But a grunt, cho, cho-lei or sorry does not constitute as talking, as far as I know. Wink
Iloveplayingtabletennis
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 12:22am
"3.5.2 Misbehaviour 3.5.2.1 Players and coaches or other advisers shall refrain from behaviour that may unfairly affect an opponent, offend spectators or bring the sport into disrepute, such as abusive language, deliberately breaking the ball or hitting it out of the playing area, kicking the table or surrounds and disrespect of match officials. 3.5.2.2 If at any time a player, a coach or another adviser commits a serious offence the umpire shall suspend play and report immediately to the referee; for less serious offences the umpire may, on the first occasion, hold up a yellow card and warn the offender that any further offence is liable to incur penalties."
here PHXXX - I found this in the regulations just in case it is needed in future discussion.   BTW I still don't know what you were asking of me.
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 12:24am
Originally posted by penholderxxx penholderxxx wrote:

 ' Seems like the right call. You can't talk during the point. ' - kenneyy88

  But a grunt, cho, cho-lei or sorry does not constitute as talking, as far as I know. Wink
I see players allowed grunts in the rally, but not Cho or Say Sorry without penalty
Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 12:25am
meanwhile in Tucson, Arizona, BAAL's residence:

yyeeeaaahhhh......I'm just waiting for the right moment to hit that "block thread" button.

Image result for south park computer guy


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/17/2019 at 1:51am
Back to Top
Mytoman View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 05/28/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mytoman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 3:31am
Two possible options: Point for Japan or let. 

There was no yellow card for France from before, and no yellow/red was given. Point for France not possible.

There is no rule against speaking during the rally (basement rule). The umpire might give a let for two reasons. Disturbance, or misbehaviour (yellow) .


Edited by Mytoman - 11/17/2019 at 3:31am
Back to Top
balldance View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 01/28/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote balldance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 2:35pm
people who agree with lebesson and the ref are ridiculous. They either just say it is legal point by the rule for the french without citing any rule or talk about some rule that doesn't exist. One guy said he is not sure about the rule but insisted Lebesson's claim is totally legal. Wtf DeadDead

Edited by balldance - 11/17/2019 at 2:36pm
Back to Top
stiltt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Pongville, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 16539
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stiltt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 2:42pm
I'd be very curious to read the opinion of a experienced referee or a high level player. We are lacking that now to make the thread anymore useful. I wish we can tag people on the forum so they receive a notice when it happens.
Back to Top
amateur View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 4002
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amateur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 4:26pm
Originally posted by Mytoman Mytoman wrote:

Two possible options: Point for Japan or let. 

There was no yellow card for France from before, and no yellow/red was given. Point for France not possible.

There is no rule against speaking during the rally (basement rule). The umpire might give a let for two reasons. Disturbance, or misbehaviour (yellow) .

The ITTF Handbook for Match Officials mentions "shouting during play" as a type of misbehavior. It seems the options for the umpire are then to stop play or let the rally play out, and to give yellow or just a warning. I agree now that this should have been a let and not a point for France, but still think that EL was right to complain if he felt distracted by HH's vocalizations.

17.1.4 An example of behaviour which might justify action by the umpire is shouting during play, in annoyance or elation, but in deciding how to react the umpire should take account of the environment in which it occurs. If the general noise level is so high that the player’s shouting is hardly noticeable, it is more sensible not to stop play but to wait until the end of the rally before speaking to the offending player 

Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 4:32pm
It was not a scream/shout, otherwise it would have been caught by the microphones.

Also nobody screams SOOOOOORRRRRRRRYYYYYY!!!!!!
they say sorry in an almosy inaudible voice.
I mean inaudible in this general context of everybody screaming and talking and clapping.

And last, when people scream they move in a certain way, you know they are saying something even if you can't hear them.


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/17/2019 at 4:33pm
Back to Top
deams59 View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 09/11/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deams59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 4:52pm
I could go down to our TT centre tonight and ask Graeme Ireland who is an accredited international umpire and international referee for clarification. He is also the Technical Commissioner for the ITTF.  Would that convince those people who claim France should have won the point or would you just say I am making it up? If you don't believe he exists or has the above qualifications you can look his name up on the ITTF website, the Table Tennis Victoria website to see his qualifications and the CDTTA website to see his name as a current player. Oh! I forgot. You people aren't capable or too bloody lazy to look up the rules on the ITTF website.  

Edited by deams59 - 11/17/2019 at 5:22pm
Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 5:01pm
Originally posted by deams59 deams59 wrote:

I could go down to our TT centre tonight and ask Graeme Ireland who is an accredited international umpire and international referee for clarification. He is also the Technical Commissioner for the ITTF.  Would that convince those people who claim Japan should have won the point or would you just say I am making it up? If you don't believe he exists or has the above qualifications you can look his name up on the ITTF website, the Table Tennis Victoria website to see his qualifications and the CDTTA website to see his name as a current player. Oh! I forgot. You people aren't capable or too bloody lazy to look up the rules on the ITTF website.  

I would ask him if he thinks that is the correct call based on the audio and video available.
If you just tell him or anyone else "the opponent screamed in lebesson's face while he was trying to hit the ball" everybody will say "yeah lebesson is right".

The way in which you present the situation will guide people one way or another.



Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/17/2019 at 5:04pm
Back to Top
amateur View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 4002
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amateur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 5:55pm
Originally posted by pingpungpeng pingpungpeng wrote:

It was not a scream/shout, otherwise it would have been caught by the microphones.

Also nobody screams SOOOOOORRRRRRRRYYYYYY!!!!!!
they say sorry in an almosy inaudible voice.
I mean inaudible in this general context of everybody screaming and talking and clapping.

And last, when people scream they move in a certain way, you know they are saying something even if you can't hear them.

It was caught by the microphones, listen to the rally attentively. (A quick "sorry" just after the ball hits the table.)

And the handbook doesn't say "scream" but "shout", so don't move the goalposts here.


Edited by amateur - 11/17/2019 at 5:56pm
Back to Top
amateur View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/29/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 4002
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote amateur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by deams59 deams59 wrote:

I could go down to our TT centre tonight and ask Graeme Ireland who is an accredited international umpire and international referee for clarification. He is also the Technical Commissioner for the ITTF.  Would that convince those people who claim France should have won the point or would you just say I am making it up? If you don't believe he exists or has the above qualifications you can look his name up on the ITTF website, the Table Tennis Victoria website to see his qualifications and the CDTTA website to see his name as a current player. Oh! I forgot. You people aren't capable or too bloody lazy to look up the rules on the ITTF website.  

You seem to be very certain in advance of his answer. Go down and post a video. Also ask him what he thinks of Lebesson's serve while you're at it.
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 6:08pm
Originally posted by pingpungpeng pingpungpeng wrote:

Originally posted by deams59 deams59 wrote:

I could go down to our TT centre tonight and ask Graeme Ireland who is an accredited international umpire and international referee for clarification. He is also the Technical Commissioner for the ITTF.  Would that convince those people who claim Japan should have won the point or would you just say I am making it up? If you don't believe he exists or has the above qualifications you can look his name up on the ITTF website, the Table Tennis Victoria website to see his qualifications and the CDTTA website to see his name as a current player. Oh! I forgot. You people aren't capable or too bloody lazy to look up the rules on the ITTF website.  

I would ask him if he thinks that is the correct call based on the audio and video available.
If you just tell him or anyone else "the opponent screamed in lebesson's face while he was trying to hit the ball" everybody will say "yeah lebesson is right".

The way in which you present the situation will guide people one way or another.

ppp, the way you want to ask the question will not answer all the points raised by the members.
dreams, please ask the ref, if a player is allowed to cho or speak in an audible manner (including sorry)during a rally and whether a let is appropriate or what usually happens.  Whether HH said sorry or not might not be properly recorded and in any case once the rule is clear, everyone could judge for themselves.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
About MyTableTennis.NET | Forum Help | Disclaimer

MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd.

Copyright ©2003-2019 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.