OOAK Table Tennis Forum

RATIONALE

Formally speaking, we do not have legal power to fault those tricky shots that the ball is cought by the racket and then thrown. The guy is acting rightly within the Rule 2.5.7. He "touches the ball with his racket held in the hand" -- just as meant by the Rule.
The current formulation of the Rule is not explicit enough and should be refined.
______________
Proposed refinements to the Rule are enclosed below.

Language revisionist speak, rubbish, hogwash and nonsensical ballsbabble.

The intention of rule 2.5.7 is to define constraints imposed on the action "strike", in order to conform to the rules of the sport. It does not change the meaning of the word "strike" itself. It merely constrains the selection of allowed striking surfaces.

As it is, the English language holds a couple of interpretations of the word "strike". In the context of manipulating a ball's trajectory, the generally accepted interpretation is "to touch it with impact force, briefly, so that it bounces off the striking surface".

If we ignore the accepted meaning of the operative word, that rule (specifically the part "... hand below the wrist.") also permits grabbing the ball. You just need something in your grabbing hand which conforms to the racket rule.

Shall we delve deeper into theoretical linguistics, artificial semantics and such, or can we return to our right minds and just enjoy playing the game again?

I suppose "strike" can also mean hanging around outside a factory with a sign, standing around a barrel with a few burning planks in it..



Of course, if you get one of those old celluloid balls anywhere near that barrel, it'll catch fire..

Iskandar

Indeed, that is one of the "couple of interpretations" I was referring to. Curiously, that version of "strike" also tends to involve an occasional racket.

In that case, however, "touching balls with impact force" is strictly against the rules, though it has been known to happen.

Also, watch out for those flying pickets.