OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Does a rule that states that once a player has thrown the ball when serving they cannot catch it exist? I.e., that they must serve or they lose the point otherwise.

I've been accused of throwing and catching the ball in match (when I thought that my opponent wasn't ready or got distracted by something so I didn't want to serve). However, I've also seen pros throwing and catching the ball, and they weren't penalized for that.

The serve starts from the moment before you throw the ball up from your hand. Once the ball is actually thrown, you must go through with your serve or lose the point. It is then up to the umpire to decide if the receiver wasn't ready or there was a distraction to call a let.

That said, the receiver should acknowledge that they weren't ready or were distracted and put their hand up for the let.

You catching the ball "forces the issue", taking control from the umpire who is left to either agree with your assessment or penalise you.

If there is no umpire, if the receiver is in any way a fair person they would acknowledge that you have stopped because they weren't ready or were distracted. Otherwise you are into "he said, she said" territory, so it is better to go through with the serve, then let the receiver signal a request for a let, which you, as a fair player yourself , would agree with.

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

That's what I understood from what I was told.

But what do you think happened in this Pan America Cup match? Aguirre threw the ball and then caught it, and that seemed to cause no reaction from the umpire.
https://youtu.be/ml2nyGRHCms?t=13740
at 3:49

Couldn't see what the umpire signalled. I would assume that the umpire may have signalled let as the server was throwing the ball up, so the server could catch the ball as the rally was already stopped. The receiver seemed to "half acknowledge" something in there as well.

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

Something was definitely called either by the umpire of the receiver (judging by the server's reaction).

In other cases, you may see the server sometimes do a practice throw, when they are looking to check the effect of the lighting on a high toss. This is a little dodgy, but is never a problem in practice as it seems to be clear to everyone that that was not an aborted serve.

_________________
Other setups:
DHS H301 Blade/DHS Hurricane 3 Nat/Loki GTX Pro
BTY MPM Blade/DHS H3 Neo/Dawei 388D-1

You sick sick man! You almost made me watch 3 HOURS of video ! I realised u dint embed the timestamp in the url, but mentioned 3:49 ... I started watching from the beginning

_________________
__________________________________________________________
Backup C-pen blades:

• TSP Black Balsa 7.0 :
  1. FH/BH-YRakza9/XOmegaVT
  2. FH/BH-TSP Spectol/Yinhe Qing OX
• 729 Bomb C-P : FH/BH-DHS H2 Orig/DHS H3 Orig
• TSP Versal :
  1. FH/BH-XOmegaVA/YJupiter-II
  2. FH/BH-*blank*

Fun blades:

• Yasaka Battle Balsa(ST) : FH/BH- DHS TG2Neo/Gewo HypeXT 47
• Dr. Neubauer
  High Technology
  Cypress-Carbon(ST)
  ***************************** : FH/BH-YRakza7/YRakza7

==========================================================

I'm sorry!

However, my link does contain the timestamp. And I didn't embed the video or write "at 3:49" - so I assume it's one of the moderators you should blame thank.

I still cant see no good reason for catching the ball being on fly. Likewise, cant I see any good reason for the umpire to call let. The case still remains unexplained.

Might've been a ball from an adjacent court. Or something like a spectator knocking into a barrier. Any number of things. The receiver seems to be a nervous sort of guy, too - watch when it's his turn to serve...

Iskandar

This is a situation where the umpire needs some feeling of the game.
Marcelo stopped the service, due to some disturbance. It was not because he was not satisfied with the height/angle or similar.
He intentionally projected the ball in a service, so the ball was in play.
I would have called a let, and maybe (only maybe) reminded the player that:
-it is up to the umpire to call a let,
-that he was in risk of losing the point,
-that he should play on until let is called in the future

When it comes to the "test throw" (typically for high toss/bright lamps), the player will normally nod (or make eye contact) to the umpire first. They know that some of us could count it as a service... When it is obvious that it is a "test", the ball is not in play. No let needed.