OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Hi Adham.

Thank you for the answer. I think, I should make some comments on some of your points.



Let's take a closer look at the service rule. It contains several conditions. Here we go:

1. Service shall start with the ball resting freely

2. on the open palm of the server's stationary free hand

3. The server shall then project the ball near vertically upwards

4. without imparting spin

5. so that it rises at least 16cm after leaving the palm of the free hand

6. and then falls without touching anything before being struck.

7. As the ball is falling the server shall strike it so that it touches first his court and then, after passing over or around the net assembly, touches directly the receiver's court; in doubles, the ball shall touch successively the right half court of server and receiver.

8. From the start of service until it is struck, the ball shall be above the level of the playing surface and behind the server's end line

9. and it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server or his doubles partneror by anything they wear or carry.

10. As soon as the ball has been projected, the server’s free arm and hand shall be removed from the space between the ball and the net.
Note: The space between the ball and the net is defined by the ball, the net and its indefinite upward extension.


The TT law makers didn't write a word about their "intent". They didn't write a word about "main" or secondary conditions. The service is only legal, if all these conditions are fulfilled.

Of course, I don't mean physically disabled players.

I hope, Adham, you can agree, that illegal service must not be tolerated.

I wish life were so simple. In the ITTF we have 205 different cultures. I will try to explain, although I do agree with you.
When a rule is written it's for a purpose. That is the "intent". If there is no intent then there is no need for a rule. Now once the rule is written, it is written in such a way so that the "intended" objective is reached. In this case the intended objective is to provide the receiver a "clear" view of the service and especially at the point of contact. Also the intended objective is to stop the server from getting any unfair advantage. In fact what does "service" mean? It was a gentlemanly way to start a rally, one player "serves" the ball to the other. This is a common part of many sports (Volleyball, Tennis, etc.). The service was never intended as a technique to win the point. But as sport has evolved that is exactly what happened (overhead service in Tennis, leaping service in Volleyball, etc.), so some sports do not allow a point to be scored by the receiver, you can only score when serving (such a Badminton, Volleyball, Squash, etc.). Now many sports have changed that (matches too long) and try to write a rule describing the service as it was intended. In our case the intention is to give a clear view to the receiver (ball over the height of the table, behind the end line, do not hide with body, strike on way down, throw upwards, etc.). These and all the points you listed is the "text" of the law which reflects the "intent" of the rule. It is impossible to write a rule and say "The service must be clear to the opponent". Although that is correct, it is open to many interpretations. A good rule usually has the minimum number of interpretations. For example: "Do not cross the street on a red light". This is an easy rule to interpret and the "intent" is safety. On the other hand, "Do not swim in the sea when the sea is agitated". This leaves a wide open interpretation as agitated in one swimmer's mind is very different in another swimmer's mind.

So coming back to the Service Rule. Of course the desired outcome is for all Umpires to implement the rule exactly the same way. This is the ideal situation and the one we strive for through our Umpire Training and certification such as the Advance Umpire Training (Blue Badge). But our umpires come from different cultures and different backgrounds. In one culture people follow the "letter" of the rule, while in another culture people follow the "spirit" of the rule. And we have cultures that are somewhere in between. So not easy to just say the service is "illegal" if not exactly as written in the rule. As I said, some umpires will do exactly as you said, while others are more flexible and focus more on the "intent".

Some policeman may stop you if you are going 101 Km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone, and they are right to give you a ticket. But another policeman on the same road will not stop a car going at 108 km/hr. Why? different levels of tolerances. In Germany you can go 200km/hr and no one will stop you (just joking !)

I hope you understand what I mean; but I do agree with you that the objective should be to have a common standard and according to the written rule. In the long run we may achieve that.

Adham

_________________
Adham Sharara

The discussion is getting more interesting.

First, to your "driving" examples. There are drivers in Germany, who come from different cultures, the same different cultures, that ITTF umpires come from. But all of them must follow the same traffic rules. Because there are no exeptions in the law. And it doesn't seem to be difficult at all.

And now let's come back to the service rule.

I criticised, that ITTF umpires practically allow the player to break this part of the rule: "The server shall then project the ball near vertically upwards". As far as I understand, you mean (please, correct me, if I'm wrong), that this "near vertically" does not correspond to the "spirit" of the rule .

Please, Adham, take into consideration: this is not a kind of ancient rule, were the words had slightly other meaning, and we want to apply this rule now and have to guess, what the spirit of the rule was. This rule is just a few years old.

The TT law makers, who adopted the service rule, knew very well about the spirit of their rule.

And they chose words according to the spirit of the rule and to the purpose of the rule.

They could have omitted the words "near vertically" and written only "The server shall then project the ball upwards". But they didn't. In compliance with the spirit of the rule, they wrote "The server shall then project the ball near vertically upwards".

That's why, in my view, your or my or someone else's personal ideas about possible "spirit of the rule" doesn't matter.

I hope, Adham, the umpires will be as soon as possible instructed properly, so that the rule could be fully implemented.

What is it that you want the rule to say???

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

He wants them to enforce the "vertical" part more I think.
However, I don't see much advantage if it goes up at a 45 as long as it is not hidden at contact.
If some number was applied like 15 degrees, there would be no end of arguements.

_________________
Shakehand, left handed.
Blade, Yinhe, W-1
Forhand, H-3 National
Backhand, Sriver FX Max

Yes that's what i was thinking... no matter what number you put on it, it will be a judgement call by the umpire...

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

At the same time, if a player throws the ball vertically, he can hardly hide the contact point. He would have to move then in such a way, that would make his intention obvious for umpires.

I believe, the guys (and it was a lot of guys ), who wrote the service rule, were smart guys.

If the ball is projected 'near vertical' most modern servers would have to change their contact points considerably. Look at this clip, I am not really targeting these players at all, I chose this because it is from a side view, which is unusual when watching clips of top players.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TWCtrWQSRRw

Both players here serve the way that you see in most tournaments and competitive play, from international downwards. To me, they are throwing the ball nearer to 45% backwards than vertical. I serve the same way. They are actually throwing the ball from their starting stance, back to their 'marginally legal'
Contact point, by marginally legal, I mean that its so far back that it nearly is out of sight of the receiver, the advantage being, they can hide (quite legally) the action of their bat. The rule has become so embroidered with the specifics of the contact point, we have lost track of the fact that if the ball was projected 'near vertical' it would be difficult to serve this way......... Unless the server throws the ball higher, then the throw angle will look more vertical, but the serve starting position and contact point can remain the same. IMO, to sort this problem out once and for all, the answer lies in the contact point only being legal, if the ball is struck between the furthest point of the body forward, and the table. That is clean, the only problem then, is the serve could be weakened to such an extent, that it is virtually taken out of the game (like serving under arm at tennis)

_________________
the covers blown, mission over

Is it my perception, or are these serves illegal anyway because the servers hands are not stationary as the rules prescribe when the ball is projected into service? It sure looks to me like their hads are moving backwards during the serving action in order to project the ball at an angle anyway.

_________________
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.

The player in Black is throwing the ball back considerably, the player in red, starts his serve about 1 foot (30cm) inside the base line of the table, both illegal.

_________________
the covers blown, mission over

Then you mustn't have done very well in physics class.

A ball tossed backwards at a 45° angle has a substantial backwards velocity component that, when struck by a forward moving racket, produces significantly more spin on the ball than a service that is tossed "nearly vertically".

And I guess I'm just not living in a culture where the "spirit" of the law is allowed to completely override the letter of the law as Adham has indicated, because I simply don't understand how the spirit of the law can be allowed to wipe out the letter of the law. A ball that is being tossed backwards at the angles that I see most of the professional world class players tossing them, does not even approximate "nearly vertical". I don't see how the spirit of the law is being adhered to -- much less the letter.

I guess the real test for me of how effective legislation is, is how comfortable I would feel in interpreting it correctly. In the case of table tennis the situation would come up if I was tapped to officiate a match in a tournament. If this ever happened, I would feel tremendously uncomfortable in officiating certain aspects of the match: In particular the service. I would feel uncomfortable with this because, no matter what call I made, a valid argument could be made either way that my call was wrong. When there is a great disparity between the legislation and its interpretation/enforcement there is a significant problem. That is the case with a number of areas of table tennis regulation at current.

_________________
Currently playing classic defensive style (a la Chtchetinine)
American Hinoki Single Ply 9mm Bald Cypress
Palio CJ8000/1.2mm Dawei Butter
Saviga V 0.6

Mike I agree with you that your call could be argued as wrong, but as an Umpire, it is YOUR call. As such it stands no matter who says what. I do agree though that tossing the ball at 45 degrees gives an advantage that the rules do not seem to be availing. If the ball was served from the palm would this be called foul? Of course it would. Just because the ball makes it over 6 inches from the palm doesn't mean its a legal serve. However, its a harder call to make because as an umpire unless you have a video review its really hard to tell a player they tossed it at too much angle because you can't show them that they did. Its a little tricky. Like other sports, I think its time for a video referee! LOL.

Actually, at top level, this would not be such a bad idea. What do you think Adham?

_________________
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.

I believe, a player knows very well, in what direction he moves his hand when tossing the ball.

If you move your hand at an angle, you can't expect the ball fly "near vertically upwards".

Also often the whole body moves backwards/sidewards.

I agree.

Getting some players to agree is often a different case. They often believe they do nothing wrong. Or at least they say they believe this!

_________________
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 Adham.

I would not like to speculate, whether "in the long run" means days, weeks, or months, perhaps even years.

That's why my question.

Are ITTF (umpires, referees, officials etc) going to fully implement the valid, 6 years old service rule at the next ITTF event?