OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Here's an interesting one to chew the fat on. In the ITTF rules 2.10 lists how a point is scored. 2.10.1.2 states a point is given if the opponent fails to make a correct return. 2.10.10.9 gives a point if the playing surface is moved by the opponent.

Now, if a player smashes a ball and it goes past the opponent (thereby them not making a correct return) and in the follow through of the smash the player moves the table (ie. the playing surface), which rule takes precedence? And does it matter whether the ball is already past the opponent when the table is moved? It has always been my understanding that moving the table is the bigger no-no and the opponent gets the point. My teammate did this last night at 11-10 in the 5th set and neither the opponent or umpire questioned that it was his point and the end of the match.

I said to him after the match the opponent could have insisted it was his point and the set gone to deuce again. He refuted me saying the point was over before he moved the table. I would contend this can almost always be argued unless the opponent returns the ball.

What's your opinion and does anyone know for certain a black and white answer to this question? As far as I read in the rules, either solution can be arrived at.

There are other items of similar contention in the rules like placing your free hand on the table after hitting a winner...allowed or not? The rules define a rally being over when a point is scored or it is a let. So if the rally is over due to a clean winner and the player then transgresses, is that done when the ball is dead...or is it part of an action while still alive?

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Hi Reb,

The answer to both questions depends on whether the ball is dead before the infringing actions take place. Strictly speaking, the ball is dead if it hits something after being otherwise returned or served correctly, eg a wall or floor or barrier or person or ..., or when it goes out of the playing area, ie outside the barriers if there are barriers.

This is a little bit similar to where the Australian women's relay swimmers being disqualified when one or more jumped back in the pool after their last team member had finished swimming but before the last of the other teams in the race had finished.

I have heard of where someone smashed the ball into the table so that it went metres in the air and was unreturnable. Thinking the point over, they wiped their hand on the table near the net before the ball hit anything else and thereby lost the point. Not sure whether this is an urban legend, though.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74

I'm with retriever.
The point isn't over until the ball has gone dead - just because the ball has gone past the player and assumed over, doesn't mean it's over.

_________________
Chasse Patate

Thanks guys. I'm in agreeance with you too, but try convincing someone who says the ball is dead once its past the end line and the opponent hasn't hit it! The wording of the rules simply does not seem to cover it.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

What if a ball from an opposing table landed on this table after the ball went past the player but before the ball hit the ground or the table was moved, is it a let?

Sent from my SM-T210 using Tapatalk

_________________
Donic Waldner Senso V1,FH Baracuda Big Slam 2.0mm ,BH Victas Triple Regular 2.0mm

To that I'd say no Cobalt, unless the ball coming in distracted the opponent in their attempt to play the ball passing them.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Then if it's not a let, the point must be deemed as over so no loss of point for moving table. However technically I think it probably is loss of point.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Tapatalk

_________________
Donic Waldner Senso V1,FH Baracuda Big Slam 2.0mm ,BH Victas Triple Regular 2.0mm

Cobalt, I think your last scenario is if something happens from outside of the match itself that would distract players. If a player has played their shot and the ball is unreturnable but not dead yet and a ball from another table enters the playing area, the distraction has occurred after any player can affect the outcome of the point.

The other 2 issues (hand on table and moving the table) are actions specifically denied to the players of the match while the ball is in play.

So outside ball entering playing area is more of a judgement call that is made while the match ball is in play, along with other distraction type events.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74

In thinking more about the opening scenario, I think it would be loss of point. Although the point was realistically over before the infringement took place, for the player who did the smash, could they execute the same shot without moving the table? Whether it be during the shot of the follow through, maybe if they didn't move the table, it meant they couldn't have hit it as hard and won. Perhaps moving the table did give them an advantage, that not moving the table wouldn't have, regardless of when it happened.

I'm saying he moved the table in the process of hitting his shot regardless of outcome. Advantage gained. Loss of point.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Tapatalk

_________________
Donic Waldner Senso V1,FH Baracuda Big Slam 2.0mm ,BH Victas Triple Regular 2.0mm

But when is the ball dead Retriever? Under the old rules if you hit the ball with your bat beyond the table limits, it was loss of point even if th ball was sailing long. Now the ball is dead once its outside the playing surface lines, is it not?

I agree with Cobalt that the smash action that moved the table is part of the point while the ball was live even if it took place when the ball was past the opponent. Even though it was my teammate I felt was in the wrong I was only a spectator and there was no issue raised by anyone...so I didn't want my teammates disrespect by interfering. But if I was on the receiving end of the table move I'd demand the point or at least a let (but I think the point is more appropriate). If I caused the table to move myself, and I knew it had, I'd offer the point. However, often when you are in the action of a smash, you may not realise you moved the table...so its up to the ref or opponent to let you know.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

have a look at this point, for an interesting view of what is a let/ when the ball is dead....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjdfzqcx33M?t=42m35s[/youtube]
https://youtu.be/cjdfzqcx33M?t=42m35s

PRW,

In that situation, the guy that lost the point should have admitted that there was no distraction until after he hit the ball.

I think the umpire and assistant umpire were too zealous in interpreting that a ball on the court that only they became aware of after the ball had passed the end line had any effect on the match.

I also think that Alguetti (sp?) had every right to feel aggrieved with the umpire's decision of let.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74

Yep, that was dodgy. Glad the young fella won.

A couple of weeks ago a let was called as I was doing a push which I pushed into the net. I thought that the call was just after I'd hit it. I was 9-8 up in the 5th and deep down knew that the call in no way affected me and if I had of won would have felt I'd cheated and not had the satisfaction (of beating my mate Rob who's ranked higher).

I needed to have a small argument with the umpire who is as stubborn as me but in the end I won out and gave the point. Was then 9-9 so I felt the match was still there for me to win and it was the right outcome. Rob didn't argue with me giving him the point as we have similar views on lets so it was all fair and all to play for. In the end I won 11-9 with the help from the net on match point karma?

In a different case a week or so later, when I receiving a serve I got a let call just as I was about to impact the ball for a strong loop. There was a split second in it but it was before I made contact. In fact I didn't make contact and missed the ball completely. I knew the call had no impact on my shot but it was before my shot so was happy to take the let. It might seem similar to above but the reason I was happy to take a let knowing it didn't affect me is that at the point the let was called the outcome of the point was uncertain as I hadn't hit the ball. From that point if I hit a winner it would have been a let, if I missed the ball it was point lost. On this basis it wouldn't have been fair for the point to have continued beyond the let call as the possible outcomes could only have favoured one player.

In the case above, I'd already hit the ball.

_________________
Donic Waldner Senso V1,FH Baracuda Big Slam 2.0mm ,BH Victas Triple Regular 2.0mm