OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Tonight we had an interesting incident so wondering what the correct call was.

I was the umpire and the server made proper contact with the ball however at the same time hit the table with his bat. The ball correctly went on the opponents side however the servers bat went flying out of his hand and hit me, the umpire, then fell the the floor.

As this was happening the receiver hit the ball into the net. The table did not move at all, nor did the bat bounce across it.

Who wins the point or should a let have been played ?

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

I would say the bat was a legal hit on the umpire.

_________________
Panda Drive / 4H Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0 / BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max / Play right-handed
XVT balsa carbon 10mm / 4H Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0 / BH Globe 979 Long Pips OX / Play Left-handed shakehand
Stiga Def Wood / 4H Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0 / BH GD CC LP OX .. Play Left-handed
Cpen SOS Wood / 4H 729 802-40 2.0 / BH GD Talon use righthanded shakehand grip
HARDBAT / Shakehand Hock 3 ply / Friendship Dr Evil OX .. Play Right-handed

IANAU but I think it would be a let because there was a disturbance, and it was outside the control of the receiver:

"2.09 A let
2.09.01 The rally shall be a let
…
2.09.01.03 if failure to make a good service or a good return or otherwise to comply with the Laws is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player;
2.09.01.04 if play is interrupted by the umpire or assistant umpire.

2.09.02 Play may be interrupted
…
2.09.02.04 because the conditions of play are disturbed in a way which could affect the outcome of the rally."

_________________
"Once you get past a certain threshold, everyone's problems are the same: fortifying your island and hiding the heat signature from your fusion reactor." –Doctor Impossible

I think I would be inclined to agree with this.

_________________
1-ply Hinoki Club
Violin/Acoustic Clan
Recreational/Club Player
Local Press Club (Journalists) Champion

The speed of a Rhino and the power of a Gazelle!!!!
http://xtrariter.blogspot.com

My two bits (also from one not certified umpire):

A let if you deem that the accident was a significant disturbance for the receiver.

If you, being hit by a blunt object, are unable to rule, you can also interrupt play. In this case it is also a let.

If the disturbance to the receiver and yourself do not significantly influence the outcome, nor your ability to rule, the server wins the point. Remember that you would most likely not rule a let but rather score for the receiver if they made a good return.

Split second decision. You are in the clear either way (as long as you don't give the point to the receiver). It is your call.

I agree, a let.

What did you rule on the spot?

(2 responses that are almost never wrong for an umpire ruling are let and refer it to the referee )

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

Good point keme in that was I distracted enough to not be able to rule adequately. Yes, this was the case as I wasn't even aware the receiver dumped the ball into the net. This isn't unusual though that I don't see what happened in a point, I can't help but get distracted by whether my mate is winning on the next table or checking someones improving technique, worrying whether our fill is here yet or not etc etc. I'm possibly the worst umpire out there.

We all get along pretty well out there though so not knowing what the rule was, we just played a let. Later on when playing my mate, a ball or player entered or was close to entering our area (we have no barriers and tables are a bit close), he missed the shot and I could see that his eyes had diverted for a split second. I asked if he wanted a let and because he sort of went err, um, I just gave him one. You know he would have said no if it wasn't genuine. We are often asking 'you right with that?'. Of course there's always one usual suspect you don't quite trust with an honesty system.

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

Just out of curiosity - supposing the other person DIDN'T hit the ball into the net, but had made a good return, disturbance or no disturbance, would that have been a point for him? And could our player have legally hit it back using his bare hand? Or hit it back with his OTHER hand?

Iskandar

Good question.

_________________
1-ply Hinoki Club
Violin/Acoustic Clan
Recreational/Club Player
Local Press Club (Journalists) Champion

The speed of a Rhino and the power of a Gazelle!!!!
http://xtrariter.blogspot.com

I suppose heading it back wouldn't be legal...

I had this somewhat macabre thought - prompted by watching this movie last week:



that if you were a skeleton you could head back the ball with your bare forehead. And the bare forehead would be faster than with flesh on it. Though you wouldn't be able to put as much spin on it.

Iskandar

Interesting point raised by Iskandar. If the opponent had returned the serve correctly, it would prove that he wasn't disturbed (or at least not significantly disturbed) by the incident.

The fact that he played the ball, means that he was still able to play at the ball, despite the incident. I wouldn't assume a let in all cases - if he actively played at the ball, and appeared not to focus on the flying bat or ducking umpire, I would probably let the point stand.

iskandar wrote:


Yes to your first question.

The player who lost his bat could not have legally hit the ball back as it is only the playing hand (hand with the bat in it) down to the wrist that is legal. The moment the bat has left the hand that hand is no longer the playing hand. And of course the OTHER hand was never the playing hand.

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

I'm just revisiting some posts on rules.

I don't quite agree with the point that if the receiver got the ball back then it's no let. The problem is that you are giving the receiver a free bit with no risk.

If they aren't distracted and make an error its a let.
If they are distracted and make an error its a let.
If they arent distracted and get the ball back, they win the point.
If they are distracted but still get the ball back they win the point.

The umpires decision should be based on whether they feel that the dropping off the bat is distracting, not based on the outcome of the point. Obviously in real time this would be nearly impossible to call a let before the ball is hit.

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

A point to the server. He has completed a good serve.