Print Page | Close Window

Did Ma Long has the right feeling for this point?

Printed From: Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET
Category: General
Forum Name: General
Forum Description: This forum is for general discussions about table tennis.
Moderator: NextLevel
Assistant Moderators: position available

URL: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=91765
Printed Date: 10/04/2022 at 12:26am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Did Ma Long has the right feeling for this point?
Posted By: kolevtt
Subject: Did Ma Long has the right feeling for this point?
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 7:49am
Hello good people!

Edit: Posted this topic after just cleaning my computer from useles files. Then I found that printscreen I made from a match between Timo Boll and Ma Long. Couldn't remeber which one was that exactly until Zeio posted a link to the point. Thanks Zeio!
Now I remember correct the situation. Umpires gave the point to Timo, but Ma Long complained, so Timo gave him next point.
A true champion that is Ma Long to has such a behaviour...

But why he wanted to stole that point? And why Timo gave him the next one?
Had Ma Long the right feeling here for this point?

In this situation I have been educated : When the hit is done out of side lines and ball touch the edge of the table's nearside - The ball must jump on the level of the table or higher. Then the point is for the player who hit the ball. Nothing like that happened, but the ball just dropped from the edge. Point is 1000000000% for Timo.
And Ma Long complained. Is this behaviour of a true champion?

Thanks for your comments.
https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582





Replies:
Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 9:10am
Each clever umpire should declare "replay" because of uncertainity.
Most memorable case of disconsent happened between Persson and Samsonov at Olympics 2008.


Posted By: cole_ely
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 2:28pm
I didn't think the ball had to be served from within the sidelines, but I could be wrong. I guess I always figured you don't need a rule for it because it doesn't make a lot of sense to serve from that far out of court.

-------------
W1 St with Illumina 1.9r, defender1.7b

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.


Posted By: cole_ely
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 2:29pm
I'm thinking I don't understand the scenario

-------------
W1 St with Illumina 1.9r, defender1.7b

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.


Posted By: Vince64
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by cole_ely cole_ely wrote:

I didn't think the ball had to be served from within the sidelines, but I could be wrong. I guess I always figured you don't need a rule for it because it doesn't make a lot of sense to serve from that far out of court.
The player can stand anywhere they want to on the serve as long as the during the serve the ball is contacted behind the end line on the table.


-------------
ustabletennisresults.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/408008237063185


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 3:26pm
Originally posted by cole_ely cole_ely wrote:

I didn't think the ball had to be served from within the sidelines, but I could be wrong. I guess I always figured you don't need a rule for it because it doesn't make a lot of sense to serve from that far out of court.


It is not about a serve, but Ma Long attacked a ball out of table, visible on the picture.
And ball touched the timo's half's edge and dropped. Who is the point winner? - Timo, of course!
But umpire gave the point to Timo and Timo gave the next point to Ma Long.


Posted By: Simon_plays
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 3:34pm
I always assumed that if the ball is within the two side-lines of the table then the ball cant (apart from with extreme sidespin) contact the (out)side of the table. 

However, if the ball is outside of the two side-lines (as the picture seems to indicate was the case for this shot) then it is possible for the ball to contact either the top-edge of the table or the (out)side of the table. 

Thus, the above picture doesn't prove anything. I think.


Posted By: mjamja
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 3:44pm
The picture does not prove anything, but he made the comment that the ball deflected downward as it hit on Timo's side.  For balls struck from outside the sideline I use the direction of deflection to determine whether the ball hit  the edge or the side of the table.  If there is any upward. deflection, then I consider it an edge.  If not then I consider it a side hit.  Not a perfect method as there are some weird shot trajectories for which it might not work, but these are extremely rare.

Just the way I make my calls.  Yours may differ.

Mark.


Posted By: dajdosta
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 4:02pm
We need a video of that situation otherwise it's pointless guessing.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 4:16pm
https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582

-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 4:38pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582


Thanks a lot! What's your opinion, who is the point winner here?


Posted By: penholderxxx
Date Posted: 05/15/2022 at 8:25pm
obvious, is it not ?
Umpire made a good and correct call and have the point to Timo.
reason ?
The ball having being struck by Ma Long from outside the sideline of the table, had contacted the side of the table before it continued with its downward flight. 
Do not see anything unbecoming with Ma Long disputing the call though we see Timo tried to explain how the point was correctly given to himself.
The greatness of the man Timo was when he gave Ma Long a 'free' point next.


-------------
Iloveplayingtabletennis


Posted By: ClimbK2
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 10:09am
Yes, Ma Long struck the ball wide of the table, so the ball could easily have hit the side of the table.  I looked several times at 9:46 of the linked recording, and couldn't tell for sure whether the ball caught the top edge or side.  

-------------
DHS ML5 (W968), Hurricane 3, Dignics 09c


Posted By: cmugica
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 11:16am
It's Timo's point.

-------------
SDC custom st
FH G-1 max
BH Evolution FX-S 1.9


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 11:29am
I 100% don't believe ML was trying to steal the point and Timo a good sport and probably didn't want ML to feel cheated gave him the point.  Is there a big controversy here?  I don't believe you guys could find much better sportsman than these two in TT.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 11:44am
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

I 100% don't believe ML was trying to steal the point and Timo a good sport and probably didn't want ML to feel cheated gave him the point.  Is there a big controversy here?  I don't believe you guys could find much better sportsman than these two in TT.


Thanks to zeio (he shared the link to the video, because I couldn't find it, I had only one picture as printscreen I did when I noticed that bad behaviour, but forget to make the topic during that time) I remember clearly what happened there.
Please. Ma Long was with ALL HIS BODY OUT of side line of the table also and the ball was out.
He hit the ball and ball just dropped after touching the edge...Chance the point to be for him is Zero or Negative. Ma Long started to show with finger that he hit the edge to one of the umpires. He continued to to argue with his eyesight like someone stole his breakfast. Even Timo explained him (Please see again the body language of Timo after that rally) the ball just dropped.
Even if the ball was on the edge, Ma Long is OUT of side lines, Ball is OUT of side lines.
What Ma Long wants here?
That's disturbing player like Ma Long doesn't knows the rules who is the point winner here.
Should be interesting if he is able to explain WHAT EXACTLY he wanted after that rally.
And Timo.......made bad decision after all. All that situation was weird for me. And just shared it.


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 12:21pm
Kolevtt, not debating whether the ball was an edge or side - just saying ML did not try to cheat , that is he thought  that he really won the point (and yes he would know the rule and the reaction of the ball).  And when you say that Timo made bad decision - you are just talking about the technical view - not the sportsman view


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 12:23pm
I looked at your subject - to be frank it is insulting to one of the greatest players of all time


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 12:29pm
You can't say 100% that if your contact point is outside the line, that the ball won't come in.
Around the net shot is like so common nowadays.

If you look at Ma Long's shot, his angle is going from out to in.
So if it didn't hit the edge/side, he would have landed that ball deep onto the white line.

The theory of ball hitting table and going down = side is mostly the case. But not always the case.
A faint edge will go downwards too.
The question is the arc then, on when did the ball start dipping and how close was it to the edge.

Maybe in our children or grand children's life time, they will start using some technology and get rid of all these doubts for good :)



Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

I looked at your subject - to be frank it is insulting to one of the greatest players of all time


I'm sure Ma Long knows more of the ITTF handbook than most qualified umpires in this forum, yet alone amateur players


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:20pm
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

I looked at your subject - to be frank it is insulting to one of the greatest players of all time


I'm sure Ma Long knows more of the ITTF handbook than most qualified umpires in this forum, yet alone amateur players


To Tom: I am not insulting anyone. I just posted a question. By logic, if he was familiar with the rule he should know better who is the point winner, not to argue and make sad face to Timo.
That was probably the reason Timo gave him next point. There is something connected with psychology here, it's not about the rules. There was not any reason Timo to give him a point.
But they were double partners in a tournament I remember..................

To ZApenholder: Yes, sure he knows more than everyone here and that's why he said to umpires he had hit the edge.
The ball was not so close to the table when he hit it. It was all out. Despite of that, he argued.

Pretty strangely from your side, but thanks for the opinion.




Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Kolevtt, not debating whether the ball was an edge or side - just saying ML did not try to cheat , that is he thought  that he really won the point (and yes he would know the rule and the reaction of the ball).  And when you say that Timo made bad decision - you are just talking about the technical view - not the sportsman view


He didn't try to cheat. Okay Nobody wrote so.
He just asked Timo's point for himself Big smile



Posted By: alford
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by mjamja mjamja wrote:

The picture does not prove anything, but he made the comment that the ball deflected downward as it hit on Timo's side.  For balls struck from outside the sideline I use the direction of deflection to determine whether the ball hit  the edge or the side of the table.  If there is any upward. deflection, then I consider it an edge.  If not then I consider it a side hit.  Not a perfect method as there are some weird shot trajectories for which it might not work, but these are extremely rare.

Just the way I make my calls.  Yours may differ.

Mark.

Agree with mjamja completely about edge balls.

Again it is hard to say without ultra slow motion analysis but slowing down the max 25% possible with YouTube,  It does look like the ball hit the edge almost 75% to 100% and also dropped as mjamja says. Therefrore it is Timo Boll's point IMO.

It was too early in the match & so considering gamesmanship or cheating on the part of Ma Long is COMPLETELY out of the question,  I would think

Most sports are adding like 2 review requests per team per match or per half or something.  So for professional tabletennis events, it would make sense to add a video umpire & allow 2 review requests per player  (or doubles team) in 7 game matches or 1 review request per player (or doubles team) in 5 game matches.

For amateur event matches I do not know but I am sure someone can come up with a method such as like alternate possession in NCAA basketball but limited to say 2 calls per player per match  (otherwsie  I can tit for tat every point if I think my opponent cheated) 

I think the dispute on an edgeball between Persson & Samsonov in some Olympics (2008 or 2012 ?) was more iffier I think

How does tennis or other racket sports handle disputes ?

 


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by ClimbK2 ClimbK2 wrote:

Yes, Ma Long struck the ball wide of the table, so the ball could easily have hit the side of the table.  I looked several times at 9:46 of the linked recording, and couldn't tell for sure whether the ball caught the top edge or side.  


For a good point of ML ball must go minimum at table's level or higher after its jump.
If ML was inside the side line then the point should be for him and no one will discuss anything here.
It a question of professional view here. He is professional, he has pretty good eyesight I believe much
more better than ours and he could very well estimate where is the ball, where is the side line and how the ball jumped. But not sure what he tried to do there complaining for nothing.
Sometimes these things are making deep sign on psychical level in your opponent.



Posted By: alford
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:43pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ClimbK2 ClimbK2 wrote:

Yes, Ma Long struck the ball wide of the table, so the ball could easily have hit the side of the table.  I looked several times at 9:46 of the linked recording, and couldn't tell for sure whether the ball caught the top edge or side.  


If ML was inside the side line then the point should be for him and no one will discuss anything here.


Not necessarily.
The ball could still could nick ONLY edge and drop COMPLETELY down. Very very rare of course but that is what happened here. That is why I said that there should be 2 allowed video review request per player. If they are so sure they want to contest the umpire ruling and waste a call this early in the match, by all means go ahead.
  


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:52pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

But not sure what he tried to do there complaining for nothing.




It seems like you had a much better view, angle, and feel than Ma Long on where that ball is going.

From a psychical point of view, I think he will argue for the point that he thinks he deserve.
I don't think he will argue for the sake of psychical advantage.

I think this is becoming too psychical focused now.



Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:54pm
Originally posted by alford alford wrote:

Originally posted by mjamja mjamja wrote:

The picture does not prove anything, but he made the comment that the ball deflected downward as it hit on Timo's side.  For balls struck from outside the sideline I use the direction of deflection to determine whether the ball hit  the edge or the side of the table.  If there is any upward. deflection, then I consider it an edge.  If not then I consider it a side hit.  Not a perfect method as there are some weird shot trajectories for which it might not work, but these are extremely rare.

Just the way I make my calls.  Yours may differ.

Mark.

Agree with mjamja completely about edge balls.

Again it is hard to say without ultra slow motion analysis but slowing down the max 25% possible with YouTube,  It does look like the ball hit the edge almost 75% to 100% and also dropped as mjamja says. Therefrore it is Timo Boll's point IMO.

It was too early in the match & so considering gamesmanship or cheating on the part of Ma Long is COMPLETELY out of the question,  I would think

Most sports are adding like 2 review requests per team per match or per half or something.  So for professional tabletennis events, it would make sense to have a video umpire & add 2 review requests per player  (or doubles team) in 7 game matches or 1 review request per player (or doubles team) in 5 game matches.

I think the dispute on an edgeball between Persson & Samsonov in some Olympics (2008) was more iffier I think


For amateur event matches I do not know but i am sure someone can come up with a method such as like alternate possession in NCAA basketball but limited to say 2 calls per player per match  (otherwsie  I can tit for tat every call if I think my opponent cheated) 

How does tennis or other racket sports handle disputes ?

 


Thanks for your post, I do agree for the video reply, but at least Ma Long is the last one who was NOT familiar what happened there. As someone mentioned, he is pretty well equipped with the needed know-how about TT. So, what's the conclusion? 

I will share you something. Once at tournament my team mate played versus me at 1/2 final. He did probably the same, but from the opposite side. And he claimed he is the point winner, but he is barely familiar with the rules. I just leave the match and gave him the place in the final. Next day he said he was not right and asked for my apology.

Especially in these cases when happened in the begging of the match they are ruining more the psychics of the players. Why Timo gave ML the next point? Because his psychics was partly broken after Ma Long's behaviour. Why Timo didn't gave the next and the next and the next ball?
I think this point will go in books of tt some day.

Please do not write Ma Long had no any idea he is Out of the side line with all his body and his bat in the moment of the hit was also out and he didn't recognized that fact. It will sounds more than funny for him in both cases.



Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

But not sure what he tried to do there complaining for nothing.




It seems like you had a much better view, angle, and feel than Ma Long on where that ball is going.

From a psychical point of view, I think he will argue for the point that he thinks he deserve.
I don't think he will argue for the sake of psychical advantage.

I think this is becoming too psychical focused now.



Please. The behaviour of ML has nothing common with me as part of the problem. I will never do such a thing. First of all, you are trying to tell me ML didn't recognize he was with all his body out of the side line and also his bat with the ball in the moment of the contact? Second - he didn't see the ball just dropped?
Come on....

Edit: Even Timo shown him ball just dropped, see his body language on Reply. But for me it sounds funny after all.
If play with ML and there are two skilled umpires and I need to explain him where the ball gone I will surely leave the table. If I haven't seen that point I shouldn't believe it happened.

Yes you are right, these things are psychical tactics, probably. I can not be sure what exactly ML wanted after all. That's my question here. There are two points of view:
1/Lack of knowledge
2/Action on purpose

I go for number 2.


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

But not sure what he tried to do there complaining for nothing.




It seems like you had a much better view, angle, and feel than Ma Long on where that ball is going.

From a psychical point of view, I think he will argue for the point that he thinks he deserve.
I don't think he will argue for the sake of psychical advantage.

I think this is becoming too psychical focused now.



Please. The behaviour of ML has nothing common with me as part of the problem. I will never do such a thing. First of all, you are trying to tell me ML didn't recognize he was with all his body out of the side line and also his bat with the ball in the moment of the contact? Second - he didn't see the ball just dropped?
Come on....


Do you think Ma Long will know where he is standing before, during and after hitting the ball, and where the line is?
If you have played table tennis in some form of fast level and in the moment (and not watching video replays 100 times), then ask yourself if he knew or not.

Let me tell you a story. When I'm playing, I move with feeling, not with my eyes.
I pivot when the feeling is right and some how, I will adjust to cross court or down the line with my feeling (I don't think about it). How - I don't know, I guess it is just like dreaming.
So if you asked me questions like you are asking about Ma Long, my answer will be, I didn't know that.

However, what I believe in What he believed in, was edge ball.
Ma Long is one of the sportmanship players out there for a decade +. He could be wrong, but I won't be calling him for not knowing the rule. Plus, what rule are you  talking about? which is this rule? There is no rule in the ITTF Handbook on how the ball can or cannot hit the edge.

The only way to tell for sure is technology.
And from a players point of view, its feeling.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

But not sure what he tried to do there complaining for nothing.




It seems like you had a much better view, angle, and feel than Ma Long on where that ball is going.

From a psychical point of view, I think he will argue for the point that he thinks he deserve.
I don't think he will argue for the sake of psychical advantage.

I think this is becoming too psychical focused now.



Please. The behaviour of ML has nothing common with me as part of the problem. I will never do such a thing. First of all, you are trying to tell me ML didn't recognize he was with all his body out of the side line and also his bat with the ball in the moment of the contact? Second - he didn't see the ball just dropped?
Come on....


Do you think Ma Long will know where he is standing before, during and after hitting the ball, and where the line is?
If you have played table tennis in some form of fast level and in the moment (and not watching video replays 100 times), then ask yourself if he knew or not.

Let me tell you a story. When I'm playing, I move with feeling, not with my eyes.
I pivot when the feeling is right and some how, I will adjust to cross court or down the line with my feeling (I don't think about it). How - I don't know, I guess it is just like dreaming.
So if you asked me questions like you are asking about Ma Long, my answer will be, I didn't know that.

However, what I believe in What he believed in, was edge ball.
Ma Long is one of the sportmanship players out there for a decade +. He could be wrong, but I won't be calling him for not knowing the rule. Plus, what rule are you  talking about? which is this rule? There is no rule in the ITTF Handbook on how the ball can or cannot hit the edge.

The only way to tell for sure is technology.
And from a players point of view, its feeling.


Thanks for that comment. Very good point you mentioned here.
Player during moving didn't feel where is he exactly. But maybe you mean player on lower level?
Because I think after these 29378910238728190238473289034847329034873290 hours in the hall,
Ma Long pretty well know where is his body according to the table. And during the hit, his eyes are focused on the ball. Do you think he didn't recognize he was all out with the ball and bat from the side line? At least here we are talking for a loop versus pushed ball, not counterlooping.
According all these facts I mentioned (or you think ML can't recognize there are about one racket space between his bat and sideline) with your help - do you still think his behaviour was not in purpose? Of course everyone wants to win, but I don't think this is the way to do. Especially on that level.


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:


Thanks for that comment. Very good point you mentioned here.
Player during moving didn't feel where is he exactly. But maybe you mean player on lower level?
Because I think after these 29378910238728190238473289034847329034873290 hours in the hall,
Ma Long pretty well know where is his body according to the table. And during the hit, his eyes are focused on the ball. Do you think he didn't recognize he was all out with the ball and bat from the side line? At least here we are talking for a loop versus pushed ball, not counterlooping.
According all these facts I mentioned (or you think ML can't recognize there are about one racket space between his bat and sideline) with your help - do you still think his behaviour was not in purpose? Of course everyone wants to win, but I don't think this is the way to do. Especially on that level.


Thats the problem.
you only thinking he could be making a tactical decision by calling for the point and not that he thinks he deserved the point as he feels the ball hit the edge.

There is no rule of if it goes down it is side.
Both will argue and umpires makes the call without technology.

If you feel it is yours, you make the call.
There is no time to think, you act base on your feeling.

and no matter if it is a push or counterloop, the action is split second, its all based on feeling.

So to answer your question again, his behavior is on purpose of him thinking the ball did hit the edge and not some other theory you are trying to claim.

And I'm saying your theory could be wrong because:
1) he can't be 100% sure that his contact point is in or out side the line (so take away his thinking of wanting to cheat)
2) the ball can hit the edge faintly and go down (take away your "rule" that doesn't exist in a rule book)
3) and since the angle of the ball will land on the table and not outside, there is always some chance of it getting the edge

Now, Ma Long could be in the wrong, it won't be a tactic calling for the point. During such fast tempo and pace, its all based on feeling.

I'm starting to wonder, do you understand this feeling im talking about? :)

you are claiming he is a cheat.... 5 years ago, 1 point.
i'm not a Ma Long fan, but I think you need a bit more to proof he uses "these kind of method" to win points.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:


I'm starting to wonder, do you understand this feeling im talking about? :)

you are claiming he is a cheat.... 5 years ago, 1 point.
i'm not a Ma Long fan, but I think you need a bit more to proof he uses "these kind of method" to win points.


Maybe we talk for different things. I am talking in general they both with Timo are TOP class players and ML complained in a situation he has not any right, as he was out of the side line with all his body together with the ball in the moment of the hit. If you think he didn't recognize that fact, ok, possible, but hard to believe.

Honestly, about the rule for edge balls I don't remember what exactly was written, because on the course 15 years ago we had additional notices for such a case and I should search about it, but I clearly remember our teacher explained : If the ball is being hit out of the side line and just drop down from the nearest edge, point is for the opposite player. If the ball jump out approximately on the line of the table or higher after touching the edge - then the umpire has right to call point for the player who has been out of the side line during the hit.

Of course, we had several schemes where everything was explained with examples. I am not going to explain you anything more about rules, before to check it again, because the method of estimation who is the point winner here is connected also with Maths ( Law of tangent lines or something like that (geometry). There is no chance to pretend the point is yours if the ball just go down after hitting the edge and you have been hit it out of side line (nearest).

And yes, I know what's the feeling to be in motion in tt. Belive me I know that much more better than you think. Not sure what's exactly your point here.

According the time of the situation happened - 5 or 10 or 20 years or just in the last day.....It just happened, right? And there will be conclusion after that. I am not talking for fans.
I remember once I made topic how many players are using illegal serves and so many people first said it is hard to estimate if this is cheating or not. Later everyone started to show these illegal serves and to comment them. And somehow players improved. Just a connection. You can accept it if you want.

No doubt ML is the most successful player in TT and his results won't be reached soon again by other player I think. It will be pretty hard. But here I am talking for a point where he complained without any reason. It is not enough to be in motion when the facts are talking enough. I will try to search the rule about this situation.



Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:


I'm starting to wonder, do you understand this feeling im talking about? :)

you are claiming he is a cheat.... 5 years ago, 1 point.
i'm not a Ma Long fan, but I think you need a bit more to proof he uses "these kind of method" to win points.


Maybe we talk for different things. I am talking in general they both with Timo are TOP class players and ML complained in a situation he has not any right, as he was out of the side line with all his body together with the ball in the moment of the hit. If you think he didn't recognize that fact, ok, possible, but hard to believe.

Honestly, about the rule for edge balls I don't remember what exactly was written, because on the course 15 years ago we had additional notices for such a case and I should search about it, but I clearly remember our teacher explained : If the ball is being hit out of the side line and just drop down from the nearest edge, point is for the opposite player. If the ball jump out approximately on the line of the table or higher after touching the edge - then the umpire has right to call point for the player who has been out of the side line during the hit.

Of course, we had several schemes where everything was explained with examples. I am not going to explain you anything more about rules, before to check it again, because the method of estimation who is the point winner here is connected also with Maths ( Law of tangent lines or something like that (geometry). There is no chance to pretend the point is yours if the ball just go down after hitting the edge and you have been hit it out of side line (nearest).

And yes, I know what's the feeling to be in motion in tt. Belive me I know that much more better than you think. Not sure what's exactly your point here.

According the time of the situation happened - 5 or 10 or 20 years or just in the last day.....It just happened, right? And there will be conclusion after that. I am not talking for fans.
I remember once I made topic how many players are using illegal serves and so many people first said it is hard to estimate if this is cheating or not. Later everyone started to show these illegal serves and to comment them. And somehow players improved. Just a connection. You can accept it if you want.

No doubt ML is the most successful player in TT and his results won't be reached soon again by other player I think. It will be pretty hard. But here I am talking for a point where he complained without any reason. It is not enough to be in motion when the facts are talking enough. I will try to search the rule about this situation.



What i'm trying to tell you is, your claims is only valid on the sense that Ma Long knew for a fact that he hit the ball out the line.

But I'm trying to tell you is, there is a good chance he doesn't know it was out side the line.
So the "facts" you are talking about is because you had replays and Ma Long didn't. He could very well acted based on his feeling.
And in Ma Long's defense, if that was true (the he honestly thought he had a valid call), what you are claiming all just goes down the drain.

You can't argue he did x hours in the sport, so he knew he is out side the line and making some tactical decision. That is just pure speculation without merit.
So since you say you know more than I think you do, I'm sure you can accept the above with ease, since its common sense.

The same applies for let balls too, one play could call, the other might not.
Most players will call it base on feelings. Your scammers would use tactics and with so many videos and footage on Ma Long, I think you need a few more to put him in that whatsapp group.

Let me add, I know  your "rule", I've learnt it from my coaches when I was a kid.
You really don't need to explain to me.
I'm only debating on your assumption that has a some flaws, as you left out motion/feeling and the possibility of Ma Long being innocent (you found him guilty 5 year ago already)


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 3:27pm
I am a ML fan as I believe most TT players are.  I refuse to believe the ML "needed to" or "wanted to" act in an unsportsman like manner.  Think about it rather than arguing about something (his state of mind) that cannot be verified.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

I am a ML fan as I believe most TT players are.  I refuse to believe the ML "needed to" or "wanted to" act in an unsportsman like manner.  Think about it rather than arguing about something (his state of mind) that cannot be verified.


Of course we all are partly and Ma Long's fans because he is among the best in last decade.
And looking closely, each of us is a fan of some player by some reason. Nothing bad here.
I like very much Timo for his perseverance, athleticism, sportsmanship.
I like Werner Schlager and Kreanga for their backhands, Waldner was so much unpredictable and fun to watch and so on.

But when we are talking for a state of mind, we reach the rules in the end. Table tennis is a true game with emotions. As into each sport, feelings are mixed with the rules. Umpires were pretty clear the point is for Timo.

I accept what ZApenholder wrote as suggestion. My own opinion is also based on my own experience.
And exactly because ML is much better player than us I think he is even better in his so called by ZApenholder "feeling" about his position.
I am not sure, but I saw several years ago another situation like that and the player who argued was even more wrong than Ma Long. Talking again for TOP players.

For a final, should be pretty good if someone have possibility to ask ML about that point.
Do you think he will say : Yes, I was not right? I just had "feeling" I am right despite the umpires gave the point for Timo, but so good Timo refunded me that point. Smile




Posted By: LongLips
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 6:35pm
This is such an odd post: bringing up a single point from years ago - where it's not even clear from the camera angle who actually won the point - to insinuate that Ma Long's a cheat.

Are you saying you think he's a cheater? The fact you're still thinking about this and that you only rank him as 'among the best of the last decade' makes me think you really don't like him LOL




Posted By: shinshiro
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 7:32pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Hello good people!

Edit: Posted this topic after just cleaning my computer from useles files. Then I found that printscreen I made from a match between Timo and Ma Long. Couldn't remeber which one was that exactly until Zeio posted a link to the point. Thanks Zeio! Now I remember correct the situation. Umpires gave the point to Timo, but Ma Long complained, so Timo gave him next point.
A true champion that is Ma Long to has such a behaviour...

But why he wanted to stole that point? And why Timo gave him the next one?
Does Ma Long knows the ITTF Rules?
In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher. Then he has full right to complain. Nothing like that happened, but the ball just dropped. Point is 1000000000% for Timo.
And Ma Long complained. Is this behaviour of a true champion?

Thanks for your comments.
https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/raFxP6mURGk?t=582



I think part of this discussion is due to this statement:

In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher

I'm not TT rules expert (far from that), but I think if the ball hits the top of the table, even if just by little (top-edge), it is valid.
Assuming that this is true, the question than is: is it possible for the ball to hit the top-edge and go down?
In this situation where ML hit, it is possible. He hit almost palalell to the table. 
If the position of the ball when he hit were too far to the side, than it would be easier to assume ball down = Timo's point. 
But he is very close to the side of the table. It can hit the top-edge of the table very lightly and still go down.
I don't see anything wrong/unethical from ML




Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/16/2022 at 10:27pm
Originally posted by shinshiro shinshiro wrote:


I think part of this discussion is due to this statement:

In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher

I'm not TT rules expert (far from that), but I think if the ball hits the top of the table, even if just by little (top-edge), it is valid.
Assuming that this is true, the question than is: is it possible for the ball to hit the top-edge and go down?
In this situation where ML hit, it is possible. He hit almost palalell to the table. 
If the position of the ball when he hit were too far to the side, than it would be easier to assume ball down = Timo's point. 
But he is very close to the side of the table. It can hit the top-edge of the table very lightly and still go down.
I don't see anything wrong/unethical from ML




That is another problem with this post from OP.

This is not a ITTF / TT Rule, it is only a theory.
A theory that is not strong enough to be used as a rule, in the official rule books


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:05am
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

I think part of this discussion is due to this statement:

In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher

That is another problem with this post from OP.

This is not a ITTF / TT Rule, it is only a theory.
A theory that is not strong enough to be used as a rule, in the official rule books

So, how the umpires gave the point for Timo? By which rule then?


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:16am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

I think part of this discussion is due to this statement:

In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher

That is another problem with this post from OP.

This is not a ITTF / TT Rule, it is only a theory.
A theory that is not strong enough to be used as a rule, in the official rule books

So, how the umpires gave the point for Timo? By which rule then?


Umpires are human and they can easily make a mistake.
Regarding if it is the right call or not (that is another question).

So you asked me, how the umpires  gave the point to Timo - my answer: the umpires believe it was side and not edge.

The umpire used the below to award the point
2.10.1 Unless the rally is a let, a player shall score a point
2.10.1.2 if an opponent fails to make a correct return

No theory required, umpires just do as they feel is correct, even if they made the wrong call.
That's life and no cheating involve from the umpire.

umpires are so human that, even scorecard errors, not identifying service faults in doubles etc etc etc.
That is why,  TECHNOLOGY  is required.
Otherwise, too many forum posts about cheating.... whereby it could really just be innocent.
Thing really is border line cyber bullying


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:16am
Originally posted by shinshiro shinshiro wrote:



I think part of this discussion is due to this statement:
In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher
I'm not TT rules expert (far from that), but I think if the ball hits the top of the table, even if just by little (top-edge), it is valid.


Of course, but it depends the position of the player's body and ball according the side lines. That's what I am trying to explain from the start ot the topic. Did Ma long realize he is out with the ball together of the side lines, or he still thought he is "in". That's the question. At his place I will never ask for a point until I see the ball is jumping at the table's surface level, minimum. That definitely didn't happen. Ball just dropped and he was out of the side lines. Should be interesting to know which rule the umpires have used for this point if such a thing don't exist in the official ittf rules.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:21am
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Umpires are human and they can easily make a mistake.
Regarding if it is the right call or not (that is another question).

So you asked me, how the umpires  gave the point to Timo - my answer: the umpires believe it was side and not edge.

No theory required, umpires just do as they feel, even if they made the wrong call.
That's life and no cheating involve from the umpire.

umpires are so human that, even scorecard errors, not identifying service faults in doubles etc etc etc.
That is why,  TECHNOLOGY  is required.
Otherwise, too many forum posts about cheating.... whereby it could really just be innocent.
Thing really is border line cyber bullying


Too much sense and feelings here. By these answers I think the umpires definitely must be equipped with a crystal balls, because if everything is connected with "feelings", then they don't need any video Replay.
You believe there is no rule involved in this situation? Just feelings?



Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:23am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

Umpires are human and they can easily make a mistake.
Regarding if it is the right call or not (that is another question).

So you asked me, how the umpires  gave the point to Timo - my answer: the umpires believe it was side and not edge.

No theory required, umpires just do as they feel, even if they made the wrong call.
That's life and no cheating involve from the umpire.

umpires are so human that, even scorecard errors, not identifying service faults in doubles etc etc etc.
That is why,  TECHNOLOGY  is required.
Otherwise, too many forum posts about cheating.... whereby it could really just be innocent.
Thing really is border line cyber bullying


Too much sense and feelings here. By these answers I think the umpires definitely must be equipped with a crystal balls, because if everything is connected with "feelings", then they don't need any video reply.
You believe there is no rule involved in this situation? Just feelings?



The only rule is here:
2.10.1 Unless the rally is a let, a player shall score a point
2.10.1.2 if an opponent fails to make a correct return

the rest is human decision making, which is bound for human errors.
you sound suprised that umpires can make errors?
Do you want to vote against technology? You are making a claim that I trust feeling and don't need any video reply.

Human can make mistake, Ma Long, Timo, Umpire, everyone on earth can make mistakes.
Honest mistake is not cheating though


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:35am
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

The only rule is here:
2.10.1 Unless the rally is a let, a player shall score a point
2.10.1.2 if an opponent fails to make a correct return

the rest is human decision making, which is bound for human errors.
you sound suprised that umpires can make errors?
Do you want to vote against technology? You are making a claim that I trust feeling and don't need any video reply.

Human can make mistake, Ma Long, Timo, Umpire, everyone on earth can make mistakes.
Honest mistake is not cheating though


I agree for mistakes, they are possible.
I already explained you for additional advices we had 15 years ago for such a situations. I am surprised these advices are still not in use in the official rules, because they are at 1st stage logical and 2nd, no one will argue then like ML did. In this case your statement is connected about the fact ML was in motion and he didn't realize where the ball in fact is before his stroke.

Of course! Too many situations in tt could be registered by video replay for correct decision, but it is still not arranged. Why? To keep the "feelings" for human's mistake ...



Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 4:40am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

The only rule is here:
2.10.1 Unless the rally is a let, a player shall score a point
2.10.1.2 if an opponent fails to make a correct return

the rest is human decision making, which is bound for human errors.
you sound suprised that umpires can make errors?
Do you want to vote against technology? You are making a claim that I trust feeling and don't need any video reply.

Human can make mistake, Ma Long, Timo, Umpire, everyone on earth can make mistakes.
Honest mistake is not cheating though


I agree for mistakes, they are possible.
I already explained you for additional advices we had 15 years ago for such a situations. I am surprised these advices are still not in use in the official rules, because they are at 1st stage logical and 2nd, no one will argue then like ML did. In this case your statement is connected about the fact ML was in motion and he didn't realize where the ball in fact is before his stroke.

Of course! Too many situations in tt could be registered by video replay for correct decision, but it is still not arranged. Why? To keep the "feelings" for human's mistake ...



No, because it is very expensive to implement. TT is a poor sport remember.
They already started with service toss angle, and how many places uses that? A rich tournament uses that.

Other than costs, the time/technology required for a replay is another issue.

So I think please stop assumptions. They are trying to make things better, but it isn't simple.
So until then, I as a Coach, train kids to face umpire human errors, and don't be pissed about it, and continue the game.

Let me leave you with this 'yellow' card offense.
player is a student of one of my mates.




Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 5:13am
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

No, because it is very expensive to implement. TT is a poor sport remember.
They already started with service toss angle, and how many places uses that? A rich tournament uses that.

Other than costs, the time/technology required for a replay is another issue.

So I think please stop assumptions. They are trying to make things better, but it isn't simple.
So until then, I as a Coach, train kids to face umpire human errors, and don't be pissed about it, and continue the game.

Let me leave you with this 'yellow' card offense.
player is a student of one of my mates.


 

I am not talking for assumptions but for a facts about ML's position together with the ball. Out of side line. No need to repeat the same each time.
Each student with Math could tell you if such a hit is part of the table surface or table's side line's surface.
But surely Ma Long doesn't has any imagination where is the ball posted during the hit, okay.

Once I was eyewitness how an European champion started badly arguing with his opponent and umpire for a situation he was NOT right. He was right by "feelings" as you mentioned early, but not and by rules. He just put up his hand during rally and returned several balls with a hand in this position and after the 3r or 4th ball he just catch the ball in hand LOLLOLLOL Of course umpire counted the ball for his opponent, because he has no right to do so during rally. That's by law. But the match was interrupted for near 20-30 minutes, because this EU champion was not familiar with the ITTF rules. I can share many curious things more, but here the topic is for Ma Long's behaviour. I think situation is clear after the long discussion and several points of view. Thank you very much.

Why the player in your video received yellow card? For his leg hitting the ball, right?
Anyway, the serving of the other player was terrible illegal. If you are trying to show me umpire's mistakes I will tell you for a case where I was damaged by umpire counting a ball out (about 10cm far of the table's edge) for a table edge point. I gone for the ball and when I was back I found result is not correct. Something more - the player (my opponent) said it was an edge, no matter the ball was a way too far from the table. But his reaction started after the umpire's decision. It was European championship. So, I don't want to keep the feelings for umpire's mistakes because most of them are on purpose. Same I think for ML's behaviour here, according my own opinion.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 6:08am
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

That is why,  TECHNOLOGY  is required.

Welcome to the modern world.

Badminton
https://youtu.be/AQHib8lpTC8" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/AQHib8lpTC8
https://youtu.be/MtM1yIZ8t3I" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/MtM1yIZ8t3I
https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/hawkeye-not-infallible.171104/" rel="nofollow - https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/hawkeye-not-infallible.171104/
Quote It is important to realise, no matter how accepted it is by players, and the popularity with spectators, that the technology is probability based, a predictive system. For instance, the second screen-grab is the actual picture, in technology parlance, it was the first measurement, the green-screen graphics is the result of a 'secondary measurement' that Hawk-Eye provided.


Tennis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot3GGJ3tWbw" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot3GGJ3tWbw
https://tennishead.net/hawk-eye-is-not-at-all-accurate-gilles-simon-blasts-electronic-line-calling-and-umpiring-standards/" rel="nofollow - https://tennishead.net/hawk-eye-is-not-at-all-accurate-gilles-simon-blasts-electronic-line-calling-and-umpiring-standards/
Quote Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, most tournaments have opted for a fully electronic line-calling system to restrict the amount of people on court.

It has generally be well-received by players, but Simon has expressed his disdain, saying it does not work and leads to a general decline in umpiring standards.

“The main problem is that it’s not at all accurate,” Simon told the French press. “That’s the big, big problem.

https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roland-garros/2021/french-open-hawkeye-not-100-accurate-forget-on-umpire-controversy-over-barbora-krejcikova-match-poin_sto8368552/story.shtml" rel="nofollow - https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roland-garros/2021/french-open-hawkeye-not-100-accurate-forget-on-umpire-controversy-over-barbora-krejcikova-match-poin_sto8368552/story.shtml
Quote It’s a long debate we’ve had before – the image Hawk-Eye shows and the mark that actually shows on the court can actually be different. If the ball touches the line and on Hawk-Eye it looks out should we show it on TV while the system is not 100% accurate?


-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 6:15am
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

That is why,  TECHNOLOGY  is required.

Welcome to the modern world.

Badminton
https://youtu.be/AQHib8lpTC8" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/AQHib8lpTC8
https://youtu.be/MtM1yIZ8t3I" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/MtM1yIZ8t3I
https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/hawkeye-not-infallible.171104/" rel="nofollow - https://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/index.php?threads/hawkeye-not-infallible.171104/
Quote It is important to realise, no matter how accepted it is by players, and the popularity with spectators, that the technology is probability based, a predictive system. For instance, the second screen-grab is the actual picture, in technology parlance, it was the first measurement, the green-screen graphics is the result of a 'secondary measurement' that Hawk-Eye provided.


Tennis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot3GGJ3tWbw" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot3GGJ3tWbw
https://tennishead.net/hawk-eye-is-not-at-all-accurate-gilles-simon-blasts-electronic-line-calling-and-umpiring-standards/" rel="nofollow - https://tennishead.net/hawk-eye-is-not-at-all-accurate-gilles-simon-blasts-electronic-line-calling-and-umpiring-standards/
Quote Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, most tournaments have opted for a fully electronic line-calling system to restrict the amount of people on court.

It has generally be well-received by players, but Simon has expressed his disdain, saying it does not work and leads to a general decline in umpiring standards.

“The main problem is that it’s not at all accurate,” Simon told the French press. “That’s the big, big problem.

https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roland-garros/2021/french-open-hawkeye-not-100-accurate-forget-on-umpire-controversy-over-barbora-krejcikova-match-poin_sto8368552/story.shtml" rel="nofollow - https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roland-garros/2021/french-open-hawkeye-not-100-accurate-forget-on-umpire-controversy-over-barbora-krejcikova-match-poin_sto8368552/story.shtml
Quote It’s a long debate we’ve had before – the image Hawk-Eye shows and the mark that actually shows on the court can actually be different. If the ball touches the line and on Hawk-Eye it looks out should we show it on TV while the system is not 100% accurate?


Yep, I know the problems of it too.

I ready there  "decline in umpiring stands" lol. without technology, there is a big decline already


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 6:49am
Lot of information here.
Seems technology is also not solution of all the problems.
Okay, maybe I must change my topic again.
This time it will be : Did Ma Long has the right "feeling" here? Handshake Beer

ZApenholder: In a match on Deaflympics Games in 2017 one polish player received red card from umpire for such a leg hitting the ball when result was 2:2 in the countergame. But that happened after I asked umpire what this player is doing and has he rights to do so? Then Umpire said Yes, you are right and just gave him red card Confused Then Polish coach started to argue with me WHY I HAVE TALKED to the umpire? I told him I just asked question, nothing else.

When we are talking for experience about rules it seems I have some. That's why I asked for your own and found such a rule (after 15 years I was educated with the possibilities in such a situation) is not involved.
So, what's the conclusion? Rules are definitely not perfect and no one is looking to make them better, even with technology integrated.


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:00am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

So, what's the conclusion? Rules are definitely not perfect and no one is looking to make them better, even with technology integrated.


ITTF handbook is indeed very problematic, many grey areas and no where in the handbook does it say you cannot kick the ball.

at most, it is misbehavior:

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

So my video, is it misbehavior? maybe a warning offence, not yellow card.

problem is:
1) unclear rules
2) interpretations of such unclear rules
3) umpire makes final call and no one can change it

also you bounce up or down rule, is not a rule. Its a theory.
the rules i'm talking about is what is documented in the ITTF handbook - of which the umpires need to use when  umpiring. So the only issue is my interpretations vs umpires interpretations. And trust me, there are lots of times where the interpretations by the umpire is very questionable


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:04am
https://youtu.be/fpcSDTRdJqg?t=147" rel="nofollow -
Let me show you one point made by Samsonov. No one complains here who is the point winner, right?
Samsonov is out of side line, but the ball is touching the next one of the table's edges and not the nearside. But once I saw near the same situation with another chinese player. His return in defense with upper spin touch the edge from nearside and he started to argue badly who is the point winner when for everyone it was pretty clear he is not right. And we are talking again for a "feeling", nothing common with any logic about ball position and table, Maths (Geometry, tangents and so on).
So ITTF don't want to make rules for these situations and still rely on player's or umpire's feeling.

http://youtu.be/fpcSDTRdJqg?t=147" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/fpcSDTRdJqg?t=147


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:05am
umpire rocks



Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:09am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

https://youtu.be/fpcSDTRdJqg?t=147" rel="nofollow -

So ITTF don't want to make rules for these situations and still rely on player's or umpire's feeling.



you going to confuse things further.
(a non bad behavior)kicking is not in the handbook, but its a yellow/red card offense, because its bad behavior.

see how the umpires can spin the rules
more than we can spin the ball


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:10am
Yes, definitely that "feeling" of the umpire was wrong. Kasumi didn't hit with her legs the ball by purpose as the Polish player did in my case. He even played several leg kicks with the ball in the air, that was the reason I asked the umpire what this player is doing. Then he received red card, but here with Kasumi is not the same case.
Exactly for these cases made by purpose by Umpires I am talking about.



Posted By: LongLips
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:17am

"I am not talking for assumptions but for a facts about ML's position together with the ball. Out of side line. No need to repeat the same each time. "

Saying that his body and the ball were outside of the lines proves absolutely nothing. Here is a well-know example which I'm sure you wouldn't argue should be FZD's point.

From a camera angle that is above the table, as we have for this point you're talking about, it's almost impossible to tell what vertical trajectory the ball bounced at. That's where ML clearly disagreed with the umpire. But you can stop mentioning where the ball or his body were at point of contact




Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:23am
Originally posted by LongLips LongLips wrote:


"I am not talking for assumptions but for a facts about ML's position together with the ball. Out of side line. No need to repeat the same each time. "

Saying that his body and the ball were outside of the lines proves absolutely nothing. Here is a well-know example which I'm sure you wouldn't argue should be FZD's point.

From a camera angle that is above the table, as we have for this point you're talking about, it's almost impossible to tell what vertical trajectory the ball bounced at. That's where ML clearly disagreed with the umpire. But you can stop mentioning where the ball or his body were at point of contact




Not sure what's your point here. Can you give me link of the situation on the right seconds?
 Edit: I watched that point. Nothing common with the point discussed here.
No one hit the edge and no complain here do you understand?


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:30am
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

Each clever umpire should declare "replay" because of uncertainity.
Most memorable case of disconsent happened between Persson and Samsonov at Olympics 2008.


If I was Umpire at Persson VS Samsonov, Persson should be fired out of the competition.
I remember he changed the result on the umpire's score by himself LOLLOLLOL

For these things I am talking here, when the players have the "feeling" they are right and they are NOT.



Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 7:44am
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:


you going to confuse things further.
(a non bad behavior)kicking is not in the handbook, but its a yellow/red card offense, because its bad behavior.

see how the umpires can spin the rules
more than we can spin the ball


No, I am not going to confuse anything. I want only to see the truth. Sometimes the truth is painful.
That rally had probably near the same structure with the difference Samsonov was in active moving versus counterloop.
Players on that level are pretty familiar who is the winner in these situations and here we are not talking for any "feeling". Do you think Samsonov is not familiar the point here is NOT for him? Same and for Ma Long.
That situation was painful for each Samsonov fan in the past. After they did repeat of the video everyone including Samsonov saw clearly it was side and not edge, but what he did? Agreed to play again his lost point. Is this correct?
That's why I don't understand both players behaviour. Timo knows point was for him, but gave to Ma the next one. At least they are at competition, not in a friendly match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bac4vPThcQ4" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bac4vPThcQ4


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 8:25am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:


you going to confuse things further.
(a non bad behavior)kicking is not in the handbook, but its a yellow/red card offense, because its bad behavior.

see how the umpires can spin the rules
more than we can spin the ball


No, I am not going to confuse anything. I want only to see the truth. Sometimes the truth is painful.
That rally had probably near the same structure with the difference Samsonov was in active moving versus counterloop.
Players on that level are pretty familiar who is the winner in these situations and here we are not talking for any "feeling". Do you think Samsonov is not familiar the point here is NOT for him? Same and for Ma Long.
That situation was painful for each Samsonov fan in the past. After they did repeat of the video everyone including Samsonov saw clearly it was side and not edge, but what he did? Agreed to play again his lost point. Is this correct?
That's why I don't understand both players behaviour. Timo knows point was for him, but gave to Ma the next one. At least they are at competition, not in a friendly match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bac4vPThcQ4" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bac4vPThcQ4


it all comes to the quality of the umpire and tools/resources for them.
now in most TT, there is no reply or technology, so the umpire is stuck and need to take a 50-50 call.

replaying the point is normally the old fashion way to settle disputes  in amateur level and it works!

Until the day that quality umpire is backed with resources (these umpires get paid peanuts if you didn't know - only cover the hotel/meals basically) of maybe tv reply for starters, having incorrect calls made during the match is going to happen many more times.

Now no matter the player, the adrenaline speed of the game and the instant reaction/time doesn't allow for players to think too much.
If they were to watch the tv replay, they could start process the information, but as you and I all know, if you in play, you believe what you see.
and pros are taught to live with calls not going your way.
most of the time, it is the amateurs that can't let go a bad call and unfortunately, bad umpire calls does ruin tournaments.

so umpire quality, resources, maybe our grand children will have something better than us


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 8:54am

If more people are talking for these things preliminary, more discussions to be made in advance and during the matches, maybe we can partly support umpire's decisions in the future.

Anyway, who won the match between Kasumi and Jia from 2012 after that ugly behaviour of the umpire? That was 100% with purpose by the umpire. I watched Kasumi's movement several times.

But people are different, that's why we must be talking/writing/discussing. Smile


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 9:08am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:




Anyway, who won the match between Kasumi and Jia from 2012 after that ugly behaviour of the umpire? That was 100% with purpose by the umpire. I watched Kasumi's movement several times.


I can't remember. Its too long ago.
I think Kasumi lost at the end.

It was also at the Japan Open too and guess what, nothing will happen to bad umpire calls, or atleast the average public never hears about it.

You are taught, umpire is always right and if you question an umpire, you will get a yellow/red card.
godlike.




Posted By: shinshiro
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 11:40am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by shinshiro shinshiro wrote:



I think part of this discussion is due to this statement:
In this situation the ball must jump on the level of the table or higher
I'm not TT rules expert (far from that), but I think if the ball hits the top of the table, even if just by little (top-edge), it is valid.


Of course, but it depends the position of the player's body and ball according the side lines. That's what I am trying to explain from the start ot the topic. Did Ma long realize he is out with the ball together of the side lines, or he still thought he is "in". That's the question. At his place I will never ask for a point until I see the ball is jumping at the table's surface level, minimum. That definitely didn't happen. Ball just dropped and he was out of the side lines. Should be interesting to know which rule the umpires have used for this point if such a thing don't exist in the official ittf rules.

From what you said, if I understood correctly, you don't think it is possible to the ball hit the top-egde and fall down from ML position. That is probably the reason that led all this discussion.

I have a different opinion. As my first post, I definetely think it is possible to to the ball fall down from there after hitting the top edge.

My earlier post, that you cut off the last part when quoted me:

"I'm not TT rules expert (far from that), but I think if the ball hits the top of the table, even if just by little (top-edge), it is valid.
Assuming that this is true, the question than is: is it possible for the ball to hit the top-edge and go down?
In this situation where ML hit, it is possible. He hit almost palalell to the table. 
If the position of the ball when he hit were too far to the side, than it would be easier to assume ball down = Timo's point. 
But he is very close to the side of the table. It can hit the top-edge of the table very lightly and still go down."




Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 12:27pm
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

You are taught, umpire is always right and if you question an umpire, you will get a yellow/red card.
godlike.

LOL



Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 12:33pm
Originally posted by shinshiro shinshiro wrote:

"I'm not TT rules expert (far from that), but I think if the ball hits the top of the table, even if just by little (top-edge), it is valid.
Assuming that this is true, the question than is: is it possible for the ball to hit the top-edge and go down?
In this situation where ML hit, it is possible. He hit almost palalell to the table. 
If the position of the ball when he hit were too far to the side, than it would be easier to assume ball down = Timo's point. 
But he is very close to the side of the table. It can hit the top-edge of the table very lightly and still go down."


Discussion finished several posts ago LOL
Read careful my conclusions. From the position of Ma Long by each known science (not rule, but science, maths, geometry), the ball must go minimum the level of table's surface after the jump or higher. Because it is OUT OF SIDELINE.
It didn't happen, but Ma Long asked the point for him. Please. Topic gone too large, we discussed all about that behaviour of Ma Long. Ask some professional player what he thinks for that and come back, you are welcome. Wink


Posted By: shinshiro
Date Posted: 05/17/2022 at 5:44pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Discussion finished several posts ago LOL
Read careful my conclusions. From the position of Ma Long by each known science (not rule, but science, maths, geometry), the ball must go minimum the level of table's surface after the jump or higher. Because it is OUT OF SIDELINE.
It didn't happen, but Ma Long asked the point for him. Please. Topic gone too large, we discussed all about that behaviour of Ma Long. Ask some professional player what he thinks for that and come back, you are welcome. Wink

Maybe it is due to language barrier, but I don't really understand your conclusion.
Maybe what you consider table's surface is difference from what I think it is.
I made the image below. From my point of view, the ball in that position can hit the the top surface, goes downwards, and it is valid.



You are emphasising that the ball comes from the side, but it has much more vertical movement than side movement. The shot is almost paralell to the table and goes over the net. I don't understand your point of the ball initial position being to the side of the table. It is almost irrelevant because it is too close. If we were talking about an around the net shot made a few feet from the side of the table, than I would agree with you, but that's not the case.

If in that position of the image it is not possible for the ball to go down, than I am really lacking in science/ maths/ geometry, and you can disconsider this post.





Posted By: LongLips
Date Posted: 05/18/2022 at 5:26am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by LongLips LongLips wrote:


"I am not talking for assumptions but for a facts about ML's position together with the ball. Out of side line. No need to repeat the same each time. "

Saying that his body and the ball were outside of the lines proves absolutely nothing. Here is a well-know example which I'm sure you wouldn't argue should be FZD's point.

From a camera angle that is above the table, as we have for this point you're talking about, it's almost impossible to tell what vertical trajectory the ball bounced at. That's where ML clearly disagreed with the umpire. But you can stop mentioning where the ball or his body were at point of contact




Not sure what's your point here. Can you give me link of the situation on the right seconds?
 Edit: I watched that point. Nothing common with the point discussed here.
No one hit the edge and no complain here do you understand?


My point I'm trying to make is this:
In your first post you made a little picture highlighting that at the point of contact, the ball and ML's body were outside of the sidelines. My point is that this doesn't matter at all, and it happens constantly in table tennis (e.g., my picture above from wttc final). You keep repeating this same argument about where the ball and his body are at contact, and it proves absolutely nothing. I copied the times I'm referring to where you keep making this argument at the end of this post. My point is that your picture and its zoom, and every sentence below, prove nothing.

Clearly there's disagreement and uncertainty regarding the trajectory of the ball off the edge of the table, or where exactly on that edge the ball hit. But that has nothing to do with your 'HIS BODY AND BALL ARE OUTSIDE THE TABLE' argument. Really we need a different camera angle to settle it.

quotes:
It is not about a serve, but Ma Long attacked a ball out of table, visible on the picture.

Please. Ma Long was with ALL HIS BODY OUT of side line of the table also and the ball was out.

Even if the ball was on the edge, Ma Long is OUT of side lines, Ball is OUT of side lines.

Please do not write Ma Long had no any idea he is Out of the side line with all his body and his bat in the moment of the hit was also out and he didn't recognized that fact.

First of all, you are trying to tell me ML didn't recognize he was with all his body out of the side line and also his bat with the ball in the moment of the contact?

Ma Long pretty well know where is his body according to the table. And during the hit, his eyes are focused on the ball. Do you think he didn't recognize he was all out with the ball and bat from the side line?

According all these facts I mentioned (or you think ML can't recognize there are about one racket space between his bat and sideline)

 as he was out of the side line with all his body together with the ball in the moment of the hit.


Of course, but it depends the position of the player's body and ball according the side lines. That's what I am trying to explain from the start ot the topic. Did Ma long realize he is out with the ball together of the side lines, or he still thought he is "in"

I am not talking for assumptions but for a facts about ML's position together with the ball. Out of side line. No need to repeat the same each time.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/18/2022 at 8:59am
Originally posted by shinshiro shinshiro wrote:

Maybe it is due to language barrier, but I don't really understand your conclusion.
Maybe what you consider table's surface is difference from what I think it is.
I made the image below. From my point of view, the ball in that position can hit the the top surface, goes downwards, and it is valid.

You are emphasising that the ball comes from the side, but it has much more vertical movement than side movement. The shot is almost paralell to the table and goes over the net. I don't understand your point of the ball initial position being to the side of the table. It is almost irrelevant because it is too close. If we were talking about an around the net shot made a few feet from the side of the table, than I would agree with you, but that's not the case.

If in that position of the image it is not possible for the ball to go down, than I am really lacking in science/ maths/ geometry, and you can disconsider this post.


I have explained everything pretty simple I think. Looking the table as aggregation of geometrical planes - you can see several different figures which are part of different planes/level. Not sure how to explain with maths language fully professional, but I will do my best with the picture bellow.

No matter the ball is coming vertical. Here is your mistake, because by the law of two nearside planes, we have completely different cases here depending its trajectory after the ball touch. If the ball after the touch is going equal or higher the line of the horizontal plane, it could be counted for EDGE. If the ball is going lower - it is SIDE.

Every teacher of maths can explain you this problem pretty easy.  Law of tangents could be in use here.
If I know these things from a long time ago, I am surprised Ma Long is not familiar with them. And If he know these things (he surely know them!?), why he is acting like that?
If he doesn't know these things (it will be suspicious), why he is not familiar? CNT don't make enough education for their members or what?

Specially for me, the reaction of Ma Long in that case was pretty dishonest.

Hope that was enough.





Posted By: vanjr
Date Posted: 05/18/2022 at 9:02am
A point not made in this 3 page discussion (at least not explicitly imo) is that two players can see the same thing and perceive it differently-while still being honest, fair sportsmen (sportspeople). While there are those who are willing to cheat, I default to being believing the best of an opponent. For myself, I would rather lose than even have the perception of cheating.
 


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/18/2022 at 9:05am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

I am surprised Ma Long is not familiar with them. And If he know these things (he surely know them!?), why he is acting like that?
If he doesn't know these things (it will be suspicious), why he is not familiar? CNT don't make enough education for their members or what?

Specially for me, the reaction of Ma Long in that case was pretty dishonest.


This is were you are stirring unnecessary nonsense again.

Even if Ma Long has known, during that adrenaline rush (and not video replay that you have at that moment), he felt it was in, so he called for it.

It is not the first time players both call for it (calling the opposite).
It doesn't mean one of the party is dishonest.

Because you face someone dishonest before, you think every one else is dishonest
This is a problem that I am trying to address all this time.

You tend to express that you are of a decent level. But if you are in that kind of zone, last thing going in your head is some mathematical theory. All action and reactions are based on feelings, and not the brain.


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/18/2022 at 10:50am
this whole insinuation of ML being unsportsman is just nonsense, anybody without great bias won't go on and on about it


Posted By: Love_my_dog
Date Posted: 05/18/2022 at 12:46pm

It's difficult to see if the ball hits the edge from the video but Ma Long thought it did and claimed, in which it is totally possible that the ball can hit the edge so Ma wins the point. The umpire did not agree while Boll was not sure and nevertheless gave the point to Ma in next play after he was awarded the point in dispute, which is applaudable.

Ma Long was not a cheater in this particular case and just behaved naturally as many may also do.

The ball at issue reminds me of the so-called "passing shot" (chuanyue, 穿越, in Chinese, and the term is borrowed from tennis), i.e., hitting the ball way side and without overpassing the top of the net and landing the ball on the table. To make a passing shot, you don't necessarily hit the ball above the table height (it is also possible that the ball touches the edge of the table) and the player win the point. It does not matter where you initiate the attack as long as the ball land on the table including the edge of the table, the attacker win the point.

 


-------------
Keep active


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/19/2022 at 8:59pm
Originally posted by vanjr vanjr wrote:

A point not made in this 3 page discussion (at least not explicitly imo) is that two players can see the same thing and perceive it differently-while still being honest, fair sportsmen (sportspeople). While there are those who are willing to cheat, I default to being believing the best of an opponent. For myself, I would rather lose than even have the perception of cheating.
 

Very nice comment from your side for the sportsmanship.
I was at your side when I was younger. And what I have found - If I know I am right,
but I make exceptions, next time my opponent is going more rude instead to return the
gesture. Umpires were not available, of course. So, what I found for best? Just leaving the table.
If there are enough proofs and technical explanations, why you are thinking you must always to
ignore the rules or science in someone's favour?
First part of your comment I think is wrong, because again we are going for perceiving and feelings.
Each ITTF umpire has instruction how to act in such a case, it is pretty simple and I have been displayed already.
Something more - Boll made verbal explanation to Long that the ball gone down, so it's side.
There is not any chance ball sent from outside the side lines and going down after touching the table's edge to be counted for EDGE. There is maths behind this.
The nearside umpire also confirmed that.
But Ma Long continued with his sad face and Boll gave him the next ball like he is playing with some junior from the middle school.
I don't agree with both sides, because no one is going to find America again or the hot water.
But at least, in the end seems Boll was at your side, despite he was pretty right when he explained
the dropping of the ball to Ma Long.

According to your opinion : What will happen if everyone is starting to has his own imagination for the situations like that and makes sad faces all the time something is not in his favour?
For what are these umpires posted there? Of course, umpires make mistakes sometimes, but here the ball just dropped without any even miniature chance to be counted as EDGE. It was SIDE not 100%, but 1100%.
Only Ma Long didn't see it/feel it.

And the topic gone too large because I have not expected 15 years later these technical things about the rules are still not regulated, so the key word to focus here were just FEELINGS.
Someone could say I probably envy to Ma Long. Nothing like that. All chinese players are genial  athletes, no one of CNT is some exclamation. But these dishonest things must be exposed.
Someone must call the things with their real names.
I am glad I was part of this discussion.  I found several points of view different than mine.

That situation I could compare with some catastrophe. You are pressing the gas to overtake the car in front of you and just hit the blinker of the car versus you before to go back in your lane. A policeman was driving behind you in that moment and saw everything. You won't go and say: But sir, I had feeling I will be on time back in my lane and to rely on condescension from the victim.

Hope my topic made sense, because if this situation was a matchpoint - I am not sure it would be done like that. So, here we have behaviour according situation. I don't like these things, anyway.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/19/2022 at 9:23pm
Originally posted by Love_my_dog Love_my_dog wrote:


It's difficult to see if the ball hits the edge from the video but Ma Long thought it did and claimed, in which it is totally possible that the ball can hit the edge so Ma wins the point. The umpire did not agree while Boll was not sure and nevertheless gave the point to Ma in next play after he was awarded the point in dispute, which is applaudable.

Ma Long was not a cheater in this particular case and just behaved naturally as many may also do.

The ball at issue reminds me of the so-called "passing shot" (chuanyue, 穿越, in Chinese, and the term is borrowed from tennis), i.e., hitting the ball way side and without overpassing the top of the net and landing the ball on the table. To make a passing shot, you don't necessarily hit the ball above the table height (it is also possible that the ball touches the edge of the table) and the player win the point. It does not matter where you initiate the attack as long as the ball land on the table including the edge of the table, the attacker win the point.


I am talking for experience too. You don't need to go 10cm from the table to see the ball is going down and not equal on the table's surface position after touching the table's edge. Touching table's edge in this situation when the ball is out of the side line is not any edge.
Here the situation in table tennis has nothing common with the same in the tennis, because tennis court is just 1 one plane (the ground), while in table tennis we have several planes, it is important.
Cheating or not, that behaviour was not correct for me and I posted all the proofs for that.
Of course, some members have posted things slightly out of topics, but these things don't make ML innocent in the situation.
And once again I will write - if the rally was for match point I doubt it would finish without scandal. Because it is scandal, no matter how invisible is looking at 1st view.





Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/19/2022 at 9:32pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

this whole insinuation of ML being unsportsman is just nonsense, anybody without great bias won't go on and on about it


Hi Tom! When the facts speak for themselves, I think it's okay not to offend me. I can call your involvement in the topic an insinuation. I have nothing versus TB or ML, but commented the situation they both were involved during a rally through my own view with detailed explanations.
The truth is usually coming after the arguing, I think it is visible already.

What is your goal here? There are lot of topics to get a part out of this one.
Of course, if you have some arguments I'll be glad to read them.


Posted By: ZApenholder
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 9:10am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

this whole insinuation of ML being unsportsman is just nonsense, anybody without great bias won't go on and on about it


Hi Tom! When the facts speak for themselves, I think it's okay not to offend me. I can call your involvement in the topic an insinuation. I have nothing versus TB or ML, but commented the situation they both were involved during a rally through my own view with detailed explanations.
The truth is usually coming after the arguing, I think it is visible already.

What is your goal here? There are lot of topics to get a part out of this one.
Of course, if you have some arguments I'll be glad to read them.


read your own words:
stole that point?

Should be interesting if he (ML) is able to explain WHAT EXACTLY he wanted after that rally.

I am not insulting anyone

I can not be sure what exactly ML wanted after all. That's my question here. There are two points of view:
1/Lack of knowledge
2/Action on purpose

do you still think his behaviour was not in purpose?


If he doesn't know these things (it will be suspicious), why he is not familiar? CNT don't make enough education for their members or what?

and now compare with this:

so if you do something stupid or make a mistake and  do we then go and say, why doesn't his parent teach him anything at home? how come he has no education? is his behviour on purpose
Oh and I'm not insulting any one (but only the parents and the person)

You are biased and people have tried to give you a wider view of the incident. But you can't accept it, because you made that judgement years ago already. And even if Ma Long came to speak to you, you won't believe him too.

As I said, many times 2 people argue over edge/side in ITTF events.
So your only theory is, one is dishonest and the other is honest?
There is a good chance that both is honest, but only one is right and the other could be wrong?
and wrong does not = dishonest you know.

right and wrong is okay.
claiming someone who plays dishonestly is insulting, so well done on labeling it
so Please, give it a thought that Ma Long could be honestly wrong and also honestly right and not only dishonestly wrong.

My last post in this thread.


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

this whole insinuation of ML being unsportsman is just nonsense, anybody without great bias won't go on and on about it


Hi Tom! When the facts speak for themselves, I think it's okay not to offend me. I can call your involvement in the topic an insinuation. I have nothing versus TB or ML, but commented the situation they both were involved during a rally through my own view with detailed explanations.
The truth is usually coming after the arguing, I think it is visible already.

What is your goal here? There are lot of topics to get a part out of this one.
Of course, if you have some arguments I'll be glad to read them.
not arguing about technical things.  My end point is this - I won't entertain any notion that ML is not a good sportsman.  No insult here but you are not ML (neither is anybody that will write in this forum).  Just my viewpoint.  No facts to be discussed and I won't change my view on this.  Thank you.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by ZApenholder ZApenholder wrote:

My last post in this thread.


You have 3 more to reach 4444. You are welcome.

Anyway, posting FACTS and asking questions aren't acts of insulting.
Everyone must be brave enough to discuss these things of bad behaviour.
Or maybe that behaviour is bad, but good in the same time? I am mixed here with
your statement. If you count the facts for all about I shared for insulting...........
Yes, you are right about something : I won't believe him if he says he didn't know
where is the ball according the side line in the moment of the shot.




Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

not arguing about technical things.  My end point is this - I won't entertain any notion that ML is not a good sportsman.  No insult here but you are not ML (neither is anybody that will write in this forum).  Just my viewpoint.  No facts to be discussed and I won't change my view on this.  Thank you.


haha not arguing for technical things, but here is the main point about that topic.
Nobody posted he is not a good sportsman, but here in this rally exactly I am going to be suspicious.
Same thing happened with Samsonov during his rally VS Persson in Beijing 2008.
Nobody said Samsonov is not a good sportsman, but there he was not right to do so.
It is a question of moral maybe more than the feeling you must win at each price.
No facts to be discussed? Maybe the video and all the explanations are not enough for you.
In this case I really have not what to add.


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

not arguing about technical things.  My end point is this - I won't entertain any notion that ML is not a good sportsman.  No insult here but you are not ML (neither is anybody that will write in this forum).  Just my viewpoint.  No facts to be discussed and I won't change my view on this.  Thank you.


haha not arguing for technical things, but here is the main point about that topic.
Nobody posted he is not a good sportsman, but here in this rally exactly I am going to be suspicious.
Same thing happened with Samsonov during his rally VS Persson in Beijing 2008.
Nobody said Samsonov is not a good sportsman, but there he was not right to do so.
It is a question of moral maybe more than the feeling you must win at each price.
No facts to be discussed? Maybe the video and all the explanations are not enough for you.
In this case I really have not what to add.
You know my position and I know yours but we are on different plains.
Let me ask you this, lets say that there is a truly saintly person and have never done anything wrong or immoral except for one instance he did something that is debatably wrong, but it did not have any great consequence.  Then someone keeps on debating this instance.  Do you think this person is wasting his time?  Maybe for you -no, but we could start a survey here or you could just ask your friends or love ones on their view.


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

You know my position and I know yours but we are on different plains.
Let me ask you this, lets say that there is a truly saintly person and have never done anything wrong or immoral except for one instance he did something that is debatably wrong, but it did not have any great consequence.  Then someone keeps on debating this instance.  Do you think this person is wasting his time?  Maybe for you -no, but we could start a survey here or you could just ask your friends or love ones on their view.


My opinion is simple -  there are no people who are sinless. Exactly here is the focus on this topic.
Several forum members, including yourself in that amount, are trying to explain even if he is not correct, he is also not wrong. I am not sure such a situation exist. According to the set of the circumstances, exactly in this point ML is more wrong than right. Each person is right for himself, that's why there are umpires involved in the sport games and not only. Seems no matter how great champion is someone, sometimes he is not getting correct decision exactly by the so called set of circumstances.
Ma Long no doubt is wonderful player, wonderful athlete, great champion. I am sure he has watched that rally after the match and get his lesson. I am not sure if he was involved in another situation like this after that.
I don't think I am wasting my time, I received valuable information, remembering what exactly has been happened there in this rally. The conclusion according the facts posted is pretty clear.
If you decide to add something additional we haven't discussed - you are welcome.





Posted By: LongLips
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

All chinese players are genial  athletes, no one of CNT is some exclamation. But these dishonest things must be exposed.
Someone must call the things with their real names.
I am glad I was part of this discussion.


I'm glad it seems like we're finally getting to the root of this bizarre and incredibly tedious thread. We could have saved a lot of time if you had have just come out and said openly from the start that you want to say the CNT are dishonest/cheaters. Or maybe you have a more general prejudice against the whole country. Just say what you think then, you'd save everyone time.

You keep talking about facts and maths but you've proven nothing. You're whole sideline thing is pointless, and you cannot tell better than anyone else here at what trajectory the ball bounced at, since you also only have this above camera angle. You just keep repeating the same non-points about it being outside the line and saying it bounced downwards, but with no actual support. Your use of capital letters however is unrivaled.

If this is the only evidence you've managed to find in these years, maybe it's time to reconsider your anti-CNT or anti-chinese thing



Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 5:59pm

"I don't think I am wasting my time, I received valuable information, remembering what exactly has been happened there in this rally. The conclusion according the facts posted is pretty clear."

If that makes your day or something like that , it's a free country.


Posted By: tom
Date Posted: 05/20/2022 at 6:21pm
if I was LongLips I would ask Kolevtt if he had  ever initiated a similar discussion on a non CNT player who is also of good reputation sportsman wise and is / was a great player.  If the answer is no - why not?


Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/21/2022 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

if I was LongLips I would ask Kolevtt if he had  ever initiated a similar discussion on a non CNT player who is also of good reputation sportsman wise and is / was a great player.  If the answer is no - why not?


Many threads I have started or I was a part of.
Mostly VS illegal serving or another dishonest things in tt.





Posted By: kolevtt
Date Posted: 05/21/2022 at 5:50pm
Originally posted by LongLips LongLips wrote:

Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

All chinese players are genial  athletes, no one of CNT is some exclamation. But these dishonest things must be exposed.
Someone must call the things with their real names.
I am glad I was part of this discussion.


I'm glad it seems like we're finally getting to the root of this bizarre and incredibly tedious thread. We could have saved a lot of time if you had have just come out and said openly from the start that you want to say the CNT are dishonest/cheaters. Or maybe you have a more general prejudice against the whole country. Just say what you think then, you'd save everyone time.

You keep talking about facts and maths but you've proven nothing. You're whole sideline thing is pointless, and you cannot tell better than anyone else here at what trajectory the ball bounced at, since you also only have this above camera angle. You just keep repeating the same non-points about it being outside the line and saying it bounced downwards, but with no actual support. Your use of capital letters however is unrivaled.

If this is the only evidence you've managed to find in these years, maybe it's time to reconsider your anti-CNT or anti-chinese thing



Are you chinese who is just not satisfied reading this topic?
I am not sure you have read all the comments I have posted here.
I have posted already the bad behaviour of Samsonov and Persson together from their match in Beijing 2008.

Why you are going to the racism's point?

I have nothing versus China or chinese players in general, but sometimes I am wondering about their behaviour together with many more and different players from all over the world. Here is forum for table tennis I think.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net