Smartguy wrote:
adham wrote:
...Yes, obviously there is a contradiction between the current practice and the rule of the law. ...
As you know, it would also be impossible to judge that the ball was thrown 16 cm exactly ...
Can we say that a ball that was thrown up 14 cm is an illegal service? Theoretically YES. Practically NO.
If you review ALL the posts in this thread about the subject you will see what I mean.
Adham
Hi Adham.
If someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't see, what you mean.
I find the idea, that something can be legal and illegal at the same time, very interesting. This approach could be very useful for a lot of people! But I'm afraid, being legal and illegal at the same time is impossible.
Now to your 14 cm example. 14 cm is illegal, because it is less, than 16 cm. Also even 15,9999 cm is illegal. Another example: 4,00000001 mm thick rubber is illegal, because more, than 4 mm is illegal.
Of course, there is a practical problem: precision of measurements. The devices available can not show 4,00000001 mm. That's why illegality of that illegal rubber can not be uncovered, and player can play with that rubber. But 4,3 mm can be reliably uncovered by the devices, that ITTF use, and the racket wouldn't pass the test.
And now the next, very important step. If the umpire knows, that the racket is illegal and allows the player to play with it, that doesn't make the racket legal. Then, I'm afraid, the umpire acts illegally. And if an ITTF official allowed 4,3 mm for everybody, although the devices have only 0,02 mm tolerance, he would also act illegally, IMO.
For the same reason, it would be illegal of an ITTF official to announce, the player may throw up the ball only 14 cm, in my opinion. Because even the ITTF president has no right to change the laws of table tennis.
If the umpire can see the ball thrown up less, than 16 cm, he
must call the service fault.
And if the umpire can see the ball thrown otherwise, than "near vertically upwards" he
must call the service fault, too.
The laws of table tennis are very clear about it:
"
2.06.06.03 Whenever there is a clear failure to comply with the requirements for a good service, no warning shall be given and the receiver shall score a point".(
http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html)
The only exception allowed is the following:
"
2.06.07 Exceptionally, the umpire may relax the requirements for a good service where he is satisfied that compliance is prevented by physical disability."
We can clearly see: not if the ITTF president or other officials or players don't like the rule. Exeptions are only for disable players legal.
Adham, can you agree, that the current practice can be seen as illegal if, in your own words, "
there is a contradiction between the current practice and the rule of the law"?
As ITTF President I never interfere with anything to do with implementation of the Rules. I am just describing to you the common practice. You wish to see rules as "Legal" or "Illegal". To you 15.99 cm is illegal. As I said before, theoretically it is illegal, but practically who can measure it. So it comes down to a question of "judgment", referring to the original "intent" of the rule, and of course practicality. This applies to any rule. This is why there is something called "conventional wisdom", which develops in a natural way. There are many elements to the service rule as it is written today. Some elements are more important than others when you refer back to the intent of the rule and the objective of the rule. The most important part of the current service rule is "visibility" for the receiver. On this item there should be no tolerance, if the umpire judges that the ball was hidden at any time, then he should call a fault. On other elements conventional wisdom led the umpires and the players to find certain comfort zones, such as the "nearly vertical". Of course if we apply the rule strictly, then the ball should be as close to the vertical as possible. However, the reality is that the umpires allow the players to throw the ball up between 45% and the vertical (90%). This is the current practice. I neither condone it nor condemn it. It's the current practice, that's all. I do not have any complaints from the rule's makers, nor from the rule's implementers. However, if this does become an issue, due process will be followed through the ITTF's URC. If this particular element of the rule needs to be enforced more strictly because it is felt that it does not meet the original intent of the rule, then a proposition can be made to that effect, or even simpler, the ITTF's URC can instruct the International Umpires accordingly.
A very wise response was made by the ITTF's URC indicating that umpires are asked to request from the players a sample throw and the umpire would then advise the players in advance of the match what is and what is not acceptable. This is a very wise move.
It is never a question of having something that is "legal" and illegal" at the same time. It's a question of what is tolerated and what is not, based on the original intent of the rule. It was me who introduced the notion of "clear space" between the server and receiver (I would gladly send you the original PPT presentations) and the main focus was on creating an "open" serve with the ball visible at all times to the receiver. The written rule was tweaked several times to cover some unexpected variations, but at the end the current text was adopted.
We also had several proposals regarding the throw at the service (over the head, 50 cm, etc.), but none were passed by the AGM. So, it seems that the AGM, the International Umpires and the players are content with the status quo.
I am just stating facts, and the current practical application of the rule. I do not ask you to agree, and I respect your opinion that ALL rules, regardless of importance, should be implemented strictly to the letter. I respect your view.