Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  Help Desk Help Desk  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2 rules questions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login
tabletennis11.com

2 rules questions

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
ybok View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/06/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ybok Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 2 rules questions
    Posted: 08/25/2021 at 4:05pm
Sorry if these have been asked before. 
1. If my opponent's return is clearly going out of play and it touches my paddle before the ball crosses the white lines, is it my point or my opponent's point?

The rule I see is:
2.10  A POINT
2.10.1  Unless the rally is a let, a player shall score a point
...
2.10.1.4  if the ball passes over his or her court or beyond his or her end line
without touching his or her court, after being struck by an opponent;

It should be my point because both players agree that it was clearly going out, but did I invalidate it by touching it before it crossed the white lines?

2. I was just wondering what "through the net" means in the following rule Smile:

2.10.1.5  if the ball, after being struck by an opponent, passes through the net or
between the net and the net post or between the net and playing surface;
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
tuco View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/11/2007
Location: ValleyOfTheSun
Status: Offline
Points: 1424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tuco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/25/2021 at 6:09pm
if your paddle or any part of your body touches the ball before the ball crosses the white lines, a point is awarded to your opponent.
The Dark Side is:
"Quicker, easier, more seductive" - Yoda


Back to Top
Mytoman View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 05/28/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 89
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mytoman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 3:51pm
2.5.8 A player obstructs the ball if he or she, or anything he or she wears or carries, touches it in play when it is above or travelling towards the playing surface, not having touched his or her court since last being struck by his or her opponent.

If you obstruct a service, it is a let
If you obstruct a receive (any receive in open play), you lose the point

-------------

"Through the net" is just what it sounds like!
In football/soccer or ice hockey (or even basket ball), the ball/puck must go in to the goal "the right way". The puck must go in to the goal from the front - and trough the "frame" made up of the ice, the goal posts and the cross bar. If the puck goes trough the mesh from behind the goal, the goal will be disallowed.

Same in tt: The ball must go over or around the net. If the mesh on the net is broken (the holes are to wide) and the ball goes trough the net, well then you have not made a good return. 
The net shall be attatched to the net posts. It shall not be possible for the ball to go between the mesh and the net post, as long as it is not broken. If it happens, the ball has not gone over or around the net, and you did not make a good return.
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 7:43pm
Originally posted by Mytoman Mytoman wrote:

2.5.8 A player obstructs the ball if he or she, or anything he or she wears or carries, touches it in play when it is above or travelling towards the playing surface, not having touched his or her court since last being struck by his or her opponent.

If you obstruct a service, it is a let
If you obstruct a receive (any receive in open play), you lose the point


I think your interpretation of the let is a mis-reading of the rules. I'm assuming you are referring to this rule:

2.9.1.1 if in service the ball touches the net assembly, provided the service is otherwise correct or the ball is obstructed by the receiver or his or her partner; 

The "or the ball is obstructed by the receiver or his or her partner" depends on "if in service the ball touches the net assembly". So it only applies if the ball has previously touched the net. If, instead, we interpret this as a let, a player could conceivably stop any match by constantly contacting the ball before it lands. This would be particularly easy to do in doubles. 

While I agree that the wording of 2.9.1.1 is a bit ambiguous, you can hopefully see how interfering with an opponent's ability to make a clean serve would present the same kind of issue as interfering with an opponent's ability to make a clean return.


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by ybok ybok wrote:


2.10.1.4  if the ball passes over his or her court or beyond his or her end line
without touching his or her court, after being struck by an opponent;

It should be my point because both players agree that it was clearly going out, but did I invalidate it by touching it before it crossed the white lines?


In a sanctioned match, the umpire should consider the contact while the ball was above the table as an obstruction and award the point to the other player (or team). 

Your interpretation in a friendly club game makes sense. But it puts you on a slippery slope of how many rules you want to ignore. Also, what if you don't both agree. Are you now going to argue the fine points of whether it was on its way to the table or not?  Best to just play it as a fault if you hit the ball while it is over the table. That's good preparation for matches that might matter more.




Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
vanjr View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 08/19/2004
Location: Corpus Christi
Status: Offline
Points: 1234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vanjr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 8:13pm
Welcome back wtuber, welcome back.
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 9:50pm
Hi,

of whether it was on its way to the table or not?

I observed an actual incidence of this in an umpired match.  The receiving player, during a rally, was leaning significantly over the table (playing a short ball but not recovering).  The opponent struck the ball in a manner that the ball was very clearly going out (by a long way) but it hit the leaning-in player in the head.

The umpire ruled the shot was clearly going out and that the ball would not have hit the table and awarded the point to the receiving player.

Thanks.

"Pierre Curie's greatest discovery was Marie Sklodowski." Frederick Soddy
Back to Top
mjamja View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 05/30/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mjamja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 10:17pm
Don,

Do you think what you observed was a correct interpretation of the rules?

Mark
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/30/2021 at 11:04pm
Originally posted by mjamja mjamja wrote:

Don,

Do you think what you observed was a correct interpretation of the rules?

Mark

I posted this because my reading from the prior knowledgeable sources posting above is that no, the umpire's ruling was incorrect.  Lo all these years I've used that incident as my understanding of the rule.

I'm hoping the more astute than I here clarify.

Thanks.


Edited by DonnOlsen - 08/30/2021 at 11:04pm
"Pierre Curie's greatest discovery was Marie Sklodowski." Frederick Soddy
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/31/2021 at 2:12am
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Originally posted by mjamja mjamja wrote:

Don,

Do you think what you observed was a correct interpretation of the rules?

Mark

I posted this because my reading from the prior knowledgeable sources posting above is that no, the umpire's ruling was incorrect.  Lo all these years I've used that incident as my understanding of the rule.

I'm hoping the more astute than I here clarify.

Thanks.

The rule is clear. However, I assume that the umpire in this case was trying to interpret the intention of the rule. This IMO, is another slippery slope and should be avoided. It introduces the notion now that the umpire should be judging what the ball would have otherwise done if not obstructed.  This is simply not in the rules.

That some umpire (presumably a high level one) made a particular call would be insufficient for me to change my interpretation. I've been watching high level umpires routinely make bad calls on serves for years now. And only recently do they seem to be on a track to actually implementing the rules. So I wouldn't consider their examples to be ample precedents. 

Keep in mind that a ball can hit any part of the net system and still be a legal return if it lands on the other player's side of the table. This is true even if the ball strikes the portion of the net system that is clamped directly over and about 1cm above the table. Such a ball sent nearly six inches lower than net height, not delivered around the net, and clearly landing on the other side through random chance is a legal return? And this is different than a net ball that is some fraction of an inch lower than net height or a ball that hits an edge, being sent right to the margins of the table length or width. This is a ball that absent some crazy random deflection is a clear miss. The same is true of balls that are clearly heading off of the table only to be guided back on by the net or even crazier, the net post.

Every result does not have to match our intuition of what we think is fair or appropriate.

All this said, I'll probably dig into the ITTF Handbook for Match Officials and see if they have any guidance that would lead to a different interpretation.
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/31/2021 at 2:45am
Unfortunately, the Handbook for Match Officials does not, IMO add clarity in a direct way on this question. It mostly introduces ambiguity.

9.7 The intention of “obstruction” is that a player will be penalised under this law only if he or she intercepts the ball in a way that is likely to prevent an opponent making a good return. There is no obstruction if the interception occurs when the ball has passed beyond his or her end line, has passed outward over the sideline or is otherwise moving away from the playing surface.

So the first portion makes it clear what the intent of the rule was. Something that seemed pretty clear and obvious to me.  But note that the examples given do not include an obstruction above the table of play. The examples only clarify for those situations where the ball isn't over the table. So in that sense, it seems to reinforce the strict interpretation - even though such a strict interpretation may not serve the intent of the rule.

But if you read more of the Match Handbook, I think it becomes more clear that the more rigid interpretation is the correct one.  It is true that an umpire must exercise some judgement in making calls. But that judgement should be limited to those situations that inherently require such judgement.  So using our case of obstruction, the umpire has to make the judgement of whether the ball was or was not above the table when it was obstructed. This isn't always clear and obvious.  The Handbook says this about umpire judgement.

4.2.1 For each match there is an umpire, whose primary duty is to decide the result of each rally. In principle, the umpire has no discretionary powers, but he or she is required to exercise judgment in applying some laws and regulations, such as deciding whether a rally should be a let because a player’s service or return may have been affected by circumstances outside the player’s control, or whether a player’s behaviour is acceptable.

I take this to mean that the umpire must make discretionary judgements in cases where the objective facts might be open to debate. But it does not give room for discretionary judgements that contradict the rules and regulations.

Another example of a rule that can result in "unfair" results is the free hand touching the table. The intent with that rule is to prevent a player from using his or her free hand as an aid in making a good return - for instance to provide stability before or after striking the ball. But that players loses the point even if she or he merely brushed their hand over the table incidentally while the ball is in play.

12.1.3 Not all points are scored for reasons directly related to play, such as the failure to make a good service or a good return. For example, if while making a potentially winning hit a player accidentally touches the playing surface with his or her free hand or moves the table while the ball is in play, his or her opponent will score a point, whether or not he or she is likely to be able to make a good return.

And finally, there is this [underlined emphasis is mine]:

12.1.4 The umpire must never award points for reasons that are not supported by the laws, perhaps because he or she considers that one player “deserves” a point or that another should be penalised for an unfair action. The umpire should always be able to justify any decision he or she makes by reference to a law and it is for this reason that he or she should study carefully and understand all of the reasons for which a point may be scored.



Edited by wturber - 08/31/2021 at 2:47am
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/31/2021 at 7:58am
Hi,

OK, very good!  I believe I now understand the umpire's position and the strict rule.

Since we are on rules: A friend of mine is a leading International Umpire in the U.S.  I saw an incident occur that, for the first time upon me telling him, seemed to stump him.

The umpire had a clipboard.  In the middle of the rally, the umpire dropped the clipboard (quite loudly).  It occurred in the middle of the rally, with shots both before and after the loud dropping.

The point concluded with no officiating intervention.  Should that have been a let?  My player reaction was that it should have.

Thanks.
"Pierre Curie's greatest discovery was Marie Sklodowski." Frederick Soddy
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/31/2021 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

OK, very good!  I believe I now understand the umpire's position and the strict rule.

Since we are on rules: A friend of mine is a leading International Umpire in the U.S.  I saw an incident occur that, for the first time upon me telling him, seemed to stump him.

The umpire had a clipboard.  In the middle of the rally, the umpire dropped the clipboard (quite loudly).  It occurred in the middle of the rally, with shots both before and after the loud dropping.

The point concluded with no officiating intervention.  Should that have been a let?  My player reaction was that it should have.

Thanks.

This is exactly the situation where an umpire must use judgement. In this case, the issue would be whether or not the umpire believed that the loud noise interfered with either player's ability to win the point. 

A Let if:
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player; 

The Handbook for Match Officials suggests again that it may be best to err on the side of calling a  let. That said, the umpire(s) must make a judgement as to whether the disturbance was likely to be sufficient to startle either player.

11.3.1 Another common reason for a let is a disturbance that may affect the outcome of the rally, such as a ball from another table coming into the playing area or a sudden noise that is sufficiently loud to startle the players. Here again, it is better to declare a let immediately if there is a risk of an interruption than to wait until the rally has ended and then to decide whether or not the disturbance was significant.

So, in this situation, there is no obviously correct call unless the disturbance was so significant as to have obviously startled either player.


Edited by wturber - 08/31/2021 at 2:45pm
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/31/2021 at 7:18pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

OK, very good!  I believe I now understand the umpire's position and the strict rule.

Since we are on rules: A friend of mine is a leading International Umpire in the U.S.  I saw an incident occur that, for the first time upon me telling him, seemed to stump him.

The umpire had a clipboard.  In the middle of the rally, the umpire dropped the clipboard (quite loudly).  It occurred in the middle of the rally, with shots both before and after the loud dropping.

The point concluded with no officiating intervention.  Should that have been a let?  My player reaction was that it should have.

Thanks.

This is exactly the situation where an umpire must use judgement. In this case, the issue would be whether or not the umpire believed that the loud noise interfered with either player's ability to win the point. 

A Let if:
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player; 

The Handbook for Match Officials suggests again that it may be best to err on the side of calling a  let. That said, the umpire(s) must make a judgement as to whether the disturbance was likely to be sufficient to startle either player.

11.3.1 Another common reason for a let is a disturbance that may affect the outcome of the rally, such as a ball from another table coming into the playing area or a sudden noise that is sufficiently loud to startle the players. Here again, it is better to declare a let immediately if there is a risk of an interruption than to wait until the rally has ended and then to decide whether or not the disturbance was significant.

So, in this situation, there is no obviously correct call unless the disturbance was so significant as to have obviously startled either player.

Very good!

Thanks!
"Pierre Curie's greatest discovery was Marie Sklodowski." Frederick Soddy
Back to Top
allencorn View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 03/16/2020
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 37
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote allencorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/01/2021 at 12:33am
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

OK, very good!  I believe I now understand the umpire's position and the strict rule.

Since we are on rules: A friend of mine is a leading International Umpire in the U.S.  I saw an incident occur that, for the first time upon me telling him, seemed to stump him.

The umpire had a clipboard.  In the middle of the rally, the umpire dropped the clipboard (quite loudly).  It occurred in the middle of the rally, with shots both before and after the loud dropping.

The point concluded with no officiating intervention.  Should that have been a let?  My player reaction was that it should have.

Thanks.

Anyone playing next to Harimoto could ask for a let almost every point.
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/05/2021 at 9:27pm
Hi,

Watching the U.S. Open Tennis Championships in New York.  A ball slipped out of a ball person's pocket and came onto the court during play.  Two shots were played while the stray ball was on the court.  The player on the side of the court of the stray ball lost the rally point.  The position of the stray ball was behind the player and did not participate in the rally.  He argued for a let.

It was ruled that it did not distract the players, so the point was awarded to the player on the other side of the net from the stray ball.

McEnroe said it should have been a let.

Two minutes later, another stray ball in a rally: this time it appeared to hit the player's leg and was called a let.

McEnroe said both should have been lets.

I mention this because in table tennis, with or without an umpire, it is a common practice to determine if an incident is a let by ascertaining, in some way, whether or not a player was distracted, that is, whether play was affected by the incident.  If the player was not bothered by the incident, then it is ruled not a let.

Without an umpire, the honor system is in effect: if the player says he/she was distracted, then it is ruled a let.  With an umpire, the umpire determines whether play was affected by the incident.

By the wiser I have been instructed that the let judgment is more strict and structured than the above description.  There are incidences that are automatic lets, irrespective of the effects on the players.

Thanks.


Edited by DonnOlsen - 09/05/2021 at 9:55pm
"Pierre Curie's greatest discovery was Marie Sklodowski." Frederick Soddy
Back to Top
seguso View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/24/2010
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 1602
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote seguso Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/06/2021 at 4:03am
Hi guys, two questions:

1) what if it's an around the net shot, it is going in, but I stop it before it enters my table?


2) what if the ball is going out sideways? I stop it while it's off the table sideways, but it didn't cross the baseline:





viscaria - fh h8 40 - bh h8 40 - 2015 video
Back to Top
Tinykin View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/30/2003
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2291
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tinykin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/06/2021 at 10:49am
you are asking about when there is an obstruction
Case 1, Obstruction, obstructing the ball from hitting the table,  point to opponent

Case 2, No obstruction, the ball has already crossed the sideline. Your point

Sorry, guys. I thought that this was the first post in the thread. Seeing that Jay is back on board, I should have left the answer to his much more erudite explanation.


Edited by Tinykin - 09/06/2021 at 2:27pm
>65yo, presently overweight rather than obese.
Darker Speed 90 (x3) with various rubber combinations.
(Present favourite)- Darker 5p-2A, 5ply Hinoki blade with T05H/T05H

Delusion is an asset
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/06/2021 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

Watching the U.S. Open Tennis Championships in New York.  A ball slipped out of a ball person's pocket and came onto the court during play.  Two shots were played while the stray ball was on the court.  The player on the side of the court of the stray ball lost the rally point.  The position of the stray ball was behind the player and did not participate in the rally.  He argued for a let.

It was ruled that it did not distract the players, so the point was awarded to the player on the other side of the net from the stray ball.

McEnroe said it should have been a let.

Two minutes later, another stray ball in a rally: this time it appeared to hit the player's leg and was called a let.

McEnroe said both should have been lets.

I mention this because in table tennis, with or without an umpire, it is a common practice to determine if an incident is a let by ascertaining, in some way, whether or not a player was distracted, that is, whether play was affected by the incident.  If the player was not bothered by the incident, then it is ruled not a let.

Without an umpire, the honor system is in effect: if the player says he/she was distracted, then it is ruled a let.  With an umpire, the umpire determines whether play was affected by the incident.

By the wiser I have been instructed that the let judgment is more strict and structured than the above description.  There are incidences that are automatic lets, irrespective of the effects on the players.

Thanks.

As mentioned previously, the Handbook for Match Officials suggests that any ball in the playing area be immediately called a let. The default assumption is that a stray ball on the court is automatically a distraction. And in a sense, because this is the convention, it makes it a nearly self-fulfilling prophecy.  Any player seeing such a ball is now conditioned to expect a let to be called.  

I'm not sure of the convention in tennis. But if it is the same, then McEnroe's comment makes sense. 

OTOH, there's another convention that one shouldn't be asking for a let after the fact.  If a player continues to play after a "distraction" and doesn't do something to (usually holding one's hand up) to signal that there's a distraction , can we trust that his appeal is genuine? That appears to be the principle applied in the first tennis example. Clearly the player who lost the point couldn't have been distracted by a ball he didn't see. Since the point completed without him noticing the ball, then no distraction and no let - regardless of the appeal.

So, IMO, that still doesn't mean that McEnroe was wrong. The point is that ideally the let should have been called before the point reached completion. Given that it wasn't called, not allowing the let makes sense since the one player who might have been distracted won the point - and apparently wasn't distracted enough to make a difference in the outcome.

And calling a let immediately when a ball comes on court (the convention in table tennis) is not without its own potential problems. I was umpiring a match where one player was dominating the match and the other was struggling to win any points. But he gained an advantage during one point and the better player made a weak, high return. At that moment, a ball came into the court behind him as he preparing to make a smash. I called a let reflexively just as he smashed the ball for a clean winner. He looked at me and literally said something like, "you've got to be kidding me?" Not mad, but deflated. He finally wins a point and the umpire calls a let!?!? His opponent (Derrick Cone - a class guy) indicated that he'd just dump the next point. I told him not to bother and awarded the point to the player who made the smash. That may not have been technically correct.  But both players were happy and considered it fair, so I was fine with changing the call. I now try to be a tiny bit less reflexive about calling lets for balls on the court.

In non-umpired matches, let calling can get tricky. It relies a LOT on how much your trust your opponent. I generally try to be generous and trust my opponents.



Edited by wturber - 09/06/2021 at 8:35pm
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/06/2021 at 8:30pm
Originally posted by Tinykin Tinykin wrote:

you are asking about when there is an obstruction
Case 1, Obstruction, obstructing the ball from hitting the table,  point to opponent

Case 2, No obstruction, the ball has already crossed the sideline. Your point

Sorry, guys. I thought that this was the first post in the thread. Seeing that Jay is back on board, I should have left the answer to his much more erudite explanation.

I think you got it right.  By way of explanation, here's a repeat quote from the Handbook for Match Officials that I posted earlier.

9.7 The intention of “obstruction” is that a player will be penalised under this law only if he or she intercepts the ball in a way that is likely to prevent an opponent making a good return. There is no obstruction if the interception occurs when the ball has passed beyond his or her end line, has passed outward over the sideline or is otherwise moving away from the playing surface.

In the first case there's a likelihood of the ball hitting the table - hence its an obstruction.
In the second case the ball has "... passed outward over the sideline ..." and is moving away from the playing surface.
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/06/2021 at 9:10pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

Watching the U.S. Open Tennis Championships in New York.  A ball slipped out of a ball person's pocket and came onto the court during play.  Two shots were played while the stray ball was on the court.  The player on the side of the court of the stray ball lost the rally point.  The position of the stray ball was behind the player and did not participate in the rally.  He argued for a let.

It was ruled that it did not distract the players, so the point was awarded to the player on the other side of the net from the stray ball.

McEnroe said it should have been a let.

Two minutes later, another stray ball in a rally: this time it appeared to hit the player's leg and was called a let.

McEnroe said both should have been lets.

I mention this because in table tennis, with or without an umpire, it is a common practice to determine if an incident is a let by ascertaining, in some way, whether or not a player was distracted, that is, whether play was affected by the incident.  If the player was not bothered by the incident, then it is ruled not a let.

Without an umpire, the honor system is in effect: if the player says he/she was distracted, then it is ruled a let.  With an umpire, the umpire determines whether play was affected by the incident.

By the wiser I have been instructed that the let judgment is more strict and structured than the above description.  There are incidences that are automatic lets, irrespective of the effects on the players.

Thanks.

As mentioned previously, the Handbook for Match Officials suggests that any ball in the playing area be immediately called a let. The default assumption is that a stray ball on the court is automatically a distraction. And in a sense, because this is the convention, it makes it a nearly self-fulfilling prophecy.  Any player seeing such a ball is now conditioned to expect a let to be called.  

I'm not sure of the convention in tennis. But if it is the same, then McEnroe's comment makes sense. 

OTOH, there's another convention that one shouldn't be asking for a let after the fact.  If a player continues to play after a "distraction" and doesn't do something to (usually holding one's hand up) to signal that there's a distraction , can we trust that his appeal is genuine? That appears to be the principle applied in the first tennis example. Clearly the player who lost the point couldn't have been distracted by a ball he didn't see. Since the point completed without him noticing the ball, then no distraction and no let - regardless of the appeal.

So, IMO, that still doesn't mean that McEnroe was wrong. The point is that ideally the let should have been called before the point reached completion. Given that it wasn't called, not allowing the let makes sense since the one player who might have been distracted won the point - and apparently wasn't distracted enough to make a difference in the outcome.

And calling a let immediately when a ball comes on court (the convention in table tennis) is not without its own potential problems. I was umpiring a match where one player was dominating the match and the other was struggling to win any points. But he gained an advantage during one point and the better player made a weak, high return. At that moment, a ball came into the court behind him as he preparing to make a smash. I called a let reflexively just as he smashed the ball for a clean winner. He looked at me and literally said something like, "you've got to be kidding me?" Not mad, but deflated. He finally wins a point and the umpire calls a let!?!? His opponent (Derrick Cone - a class guy) indicated that he'd just dump the next point. I told him not to bother and awarded the point to the player who made the smash. That may not have been technically correct.  But both players were happy and considered it fair, so I was fine with changing the call. I now try to be a tiny bit less reflexive about calling lets for balls on the court.

In non-umpired matches, let calling can get tricky. It relies a LOT on how much your trust your opponent. I generally try to be generous and trust my opponents.


Thanks so much!

My "worst let" story occurred in a match where I ripped a clean winner past my opponent, he turned around to retrieve the ball and noticed a stray ball in the corner of our court (that not I nor he had noticed) and whirled around to me and pointed to the ball and said "Let!"

I granted the let on the basis of the technical ruling.  If the roles were reversed, I would never call a let in that circumstance.

Thanks.
"Pierre Curie's greatest discovery was Marie Sklodowski." Frederick Soddy
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/06/2021 at 9:21pm
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:


My "worst let" story occurred in a match where I ripped a clean winner past my opponent, he turned around to retrieve the ball and noticed a stray ball in the corner of our court (that not I nor he had noticed) and whirled around to me and pointed to the ball and said "Let!"

I granted the let on the basis of the technical ruling.  If the roles were reversed, I would never call a let in that circumstance.

Thanks.

We routinely do that as a joke at our club.

BTW, if that ball had been there when the point started, then no let since it was a pre-existing condition.

Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer

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

Copyright ©2003-2020 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.