Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - why did lebesson complain?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

why did lebesson complain?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 6:11pm
Originally posted by amateur amateur wrote:

Originally posted by pingpungpeng pingpungpeng wrote:

It was not a scream/shout, otherwise it would have been caught by the microphones.

Also nobody screams SOOOOOORRRRRRRRYYYYYY!!!!!!
they say sorry in an almosy inaudible voice.
I mean inaudible in this general context of everybody screaming and talking and clapping.

And last, when people scream they move in a certain way, you know they are saying something even if you can't hear them.

It was caught by the microphones, listen to the rally attentively. (A quick "sorry" just after the ball hits the table.)

And the handbook doesn't say "scream" but "shout", so don't move the goalposts here.
where in the handbook said shout is against the rules, I tried to find something like that without success.   Thanks.
Back to Top
deams59 View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 09/11/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deams59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 6:40pm
I will make a list of all of the things relevant to this situation including grunting during points. Also, what would have been the correct action for Lebesson to take if he was distracted by the apology. I will also ask if he is able to find out what action was taken after the match.  Was the umpire advised that his decision was wrong? Was the match referee made aware of the incident? Were the players advised of the correct ruling? It may be too much to ask of Graeme to follow up this particular incident but he may be able to give some insight as to whether the umpires and match referee have any discussions regarding issues during tournaments.  If no further action was taken then the umpire will believe he was correct and make the same mistake again. 

Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 6:50pm
thanks in advance dreams. 
Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 7:16pm
Originally posted by amateur amateur wrote:

Originally posted by pingpungpeng pingpungpeng wrote:

It was not a scream/shout, otherwise it would have been caught by the microphones.

Also nobody screams SOOOOOORRRRRRRRYYYYYY!!!!!!
they say sorry in an almosy inaudible voice.
I mean inaudible in this general context of everybody screaming and talking and clapping.

And last, when people scream they move in a certain way, you know they are saying something even if you can't hear them.

It was caught by the microphones, listen to the rally attentively. (A quick "sorry" just after the ball hits the table.)

And the handbook doesn't say "scream" but "shout", so don't move the goalposts here.

yes I heard it after putting max volume.
if lebesson thinks it bothered him he has the right to complain.
my apologies to MR LEBESSON.

it's still hard for me to understand how that little sound can affect him so much..... being a professional used to having tons of people screaming, grunting, clapping, cheering, choing around him allllll the time every single day.


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/17/2019 at 9:32pm
Back to Top
stiltt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Pongville, WA
Status: Online
Points: 16498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stiltt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 7:22pm
le beso
le besoooo muuuuuchoooo
como se fuera esta noche la ultimaaaaaa veeeeeez



Edited by stiltt - 11/17/2019 at 7:23pm
Back to Top
penholderxxx View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 09/19/2016
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 321
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote penholderxxx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 7:37pm
'The ITTF Handbook for Match Officials mentions "shouting during play" as a type of misbehavior. It seems the options for the umpire are then to stop play or let the rally play out, and to give yellow or just a warning. I agree now that this should have been a let and not a point for France, but still think that EL was right to complain if he felt distracted by HH's vocalization - amateur

as an analogy, when a receiver thought that a service ball had touched the net, the player is to raise his/her hand to indicate so and not to strike the ball although we see players will casually return the ball but with their free hand raised.

If the French player had thought that he was distracted by HH, he would have reacted similarly; either raising his hand or muttered his reaction or objection while making the return. From my observation, and with the benefits of replays, I am sure, for all intent and purpose, the French player thought that he had to make a good return, otherwise the point would be awarded to his opponents.

It was after he had made the return and realised his return was high and that it would be killed off when he decided to raise his complain. I thought the French player was being devious; making a show of the alleged distraction and he managed to sway and convinced the umpire to award him a point.

I think the matter would have ended if the umpire had called a 'let' which would have been the correct decision and we would have moved on. Wink

Thank you, amateur for your referral; it was a positive contribution.




Iloveplayingtabletennis
Back to Top
pingpungpeng View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 12/14/2017
Location: chaila
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pingpungpeng Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/17/2019 at 7:57pm
Originally posted by penholderxxx penholderxxx wrote:

'The ITTF Handbook for Match Officials mentions "shouting during play" as a type of misbehavior. It seems the options for the umpire are then to stop play or let the rally play out, and to give yellow or just a warning. I agree now that this should have been a let and not a point for France, but still think that EL was right to complain if he felt distracted by HH's vocalization - amateur

as an analogy, when a receiver thought that a service ball had touched the net, the player is to raise his/her hand to indicate so and not to strike the ball although we see players will casually return the ball but with their free hand raised.

If the French player had thought that he was distracted by HH, he would have reacted similarly; either raising his hand or muttered his reaction or objection while making the return. From my observation, and with the benefits of replays, I am sure, for all intent and purpose, the French player thought that he had to make a good return, otherwise the point would be awarded to his opponents.

It was after he had made the return and realised his return was high and that it would be killed off when he decided to raise his complain. I thought the French player was being devious; making a show of the alleged distraction and he managed to sway and convinced the umpire to award him a point.

I think the matter would have ended if the umpire had called a 'let' which would have been the correct decision and we would have moved on. Wink

Thank you, amateur for your referral; it was a positive contribution.





I'm not sure if an apology can be considered "shouting during play".
maybe there simply isn't an established way to deal with this situation in the rule book.


Edited by pingpungpeng - 11/17/2019 at 11:47pm
Back to Top
stiltt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Pongville, WA
Status: Online
Points: 16498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stiltt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 1:09am
Back to Top
Mytoman View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 05/28/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mytoman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 6:28am
This is easy. 

In tt you get a point if your opponent fails to make a good service or return. 
In this case Yuan failed to do a good return, Japan got a point. 
Next step: Is there a rule that would change this?

1. Point-rule
No. 
France failed to make a good return. 
Japan did not obstruct the ball, move the table, no free hand on table, did not toutch the net with anything they wears or carries or cross the line with their wheelchair... 
It is not possible to give France the point from the point rule.

2. Let-rule
Maybe. 
You have 5 possible situations for let. Net-cord (service), not ready (service), disturbance, interrupted by the umpire, and para rules. Her you only have disturbance and interrupted by the umpire. 
Disturbance: If Yuan (not Lebesson! He made a good return!) failed to make a good return due to the disturbance outside of her control, then let is possible. Here is not a right or wrong answer. The secuence is Hayata, disturbance, Lebesson, Tomo, and then Yuan failed the return. Lebesson stopped playing. It is possible that the disturbance affected the outcome of the rally, but this must the umpire decide. 
Interrupted by the umpire: The umpire may interrupt the rally to warn or penalise a player. Then we must go to 3.5.2 and Misbehaviour that may unfairly affect an opponent. It is of course allowed to grunt, talk etc during the rally, but you can not misbehave..., like shout and point "look, it's Santa Claus" to make the opponent miss a shot. Again it is not a right or wrong answer. It is possible to call a let to warn the player, maybe an informal warning. For me it is not misbehaviour, and not a yellow card. And extra material: In this spesific case it is not possible to award a penalty point to France, as there was no yellow card from before.
 
Then you have it! 
Point to Japan, but it is possible for the umpire to give a let in this situation. 

For me the practical and fair option is let for disturbance.

Back to Top
abdeen View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 11/12/2019
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 60
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abdeen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 9:17am
Interestingly rules don't say anything about talking or shouting or disturbiing play as to when a point is scored

2.10 A POINT
2.10.1 Unless the rally is a let, a player shall score a point
2.10.1.1 if an opponent fails to make a correct service;
2.10.1.2 if an opponent fails to make a correct return;
2.10.1.3 if, after he or she has made a service or a return, the ball touches anything
other than the net assembly before being struck by an opponent;
2.10.1.4 if the ball passes over his or her court or beyond his or her end line without
touching his or her court, after being struck by an opponent;
2.10.1.5 if the ball, after being struck by an opponent, passes through the net or
between the net and the net post or between the net and playing surface;
2.10.1.6 if an opponent obstructs the ball;
2.10.1.7 if an opponent deliberately strikes the ball more than once in succession;
2.10.1.8 if an opponent strikes the ball with a side of the racket blade whose surface
does not comply with the requirements of 2.4.3, 2.4.4 and 2.4.5;
2.10.1.9 if an opponent, or anything an opponent wears or carries, moves the playing
surface;
2.10.1.10 if an opponent, or anything an opponent wears or carries, touches the net
assembly;
2.10.1.11 if an opponent's free hand touches the playing surface;
2.10.1.12 if a doubles opponent strikes the ball out of the sequence established by
the first server and first receiver;
2.10.1.13 as provided under the expedite system (2.15.4).
2.10.1.14 if both players or pairs are in a wheelchair due to a physical disability and
2.10.1.14.1 his or her opponent does not maintain a minimum contact with the seat
or cushion(s), with the back of the thigh, when the ball is struck;
2.10.1.14.2 his or her opponent touches the table with either hand before striking the
ball;
2.10.1.14.3 his or her opponent’s footrest or foot touches the floor during play.
2.10.1.15 if, where an opposing doubles pair includes at least one player in a
wheelchair, any part of the wheelchair or a foot of a standing player crosses
an imaginary extension of the centre line of the table
----------------------------------------------

But there is something about disturbing play in the let definition. See 2.9.2.4 below

-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.9 A LET
2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
2.9.1.1 if in service the ball touches the net assembly, provided the service is
otherwise correct or the ball is obstructed by the receiver or his or her
partner;
2.9.1.2 if the service is delivered when the receiving player or pair is not ready,
provided that neither the receiver nor his or her partner attempts to strike
the ball;
2.9.1.3 if failure to make a service or a return or otherwise to comply with the Laws
is due to a disturbance outside the control of the player;
2.9.1.4 if play is interrupted by the umpire or assistant umpire;
2.9.1.5 if the receiver is in wheelchair owing to a physical disability and in service
the ball, provided that the service is otherwise correct,
2.9.1.5.1 after touching the receiver’s court returns in the direction of the net;
2.9.1.5.2 comes to rest on the receiver's court;
2.9.1.5.3 in singles leaves the receiver’s court after touching it by either of its
sidelines.
2.9.2 Play may be interrupted
2.9.2.1 to correct an error in the order of serving, receiving or ends;
2.9.2.2 to introduce the expedite system;
2.9.2.3 to warn or penalise a player or adviser;
2.9.2.4 because the conditions of play are disturbed in a way which could affect the outcome of the rally.
---------------------------

I was under the impression that you "lose" the point if  you talk during a point. Was I mistaken then  ?
If so the argument that the French team should NOT have been awarded the point is correct. It is only a let.

Then again, repeated shouting or gesturing or talking) again & again DURING several or each points is a different issue. Maybe that is an yellow card, red card etc 




Edited by abdeen - 11/18/2019 at 9:18am
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 13522
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 4:10pm
Originally posted by pingpungpeng pingpungpeng wrote:

Originally posted by penholderxxx penholderxxx wrote:

'The ITTF Handbook for Match Officials mentions "shouting during play" as a type of misbehavior. It seems the options for the umpire are then to stop play or let the rally play out, and to give yellow or just a warning. I agree now that this should have been a let and not a point for France, but still think that EL was right to complain if he felt distracted by HH's vocalization - amateur

as an analogy, when a receiver thought that a service ball had touched the net, the player is to raise his/her hand to indicate so and not to strike the ball although we see players will casually return the ball but with their free hand raised.

If the French player had thought that he was distracted by HH, he would have reacted similarly; either raising his hand or muttered his reaction or objection while making the return. From my observation, and with the benefits of replays, I am sure, for all intent and purpose, the French player thought that he had to make a good return, otherwise the point would be awarded to his opponents.

It was after he had made the return and realised his return was high and that it would be killed off when he decided to raise his complain. I thought the French player was being devious; making a show of the alleged distraction and he managed to sway and convinced the umpire to award him a point.

I think the matter would have ended if the umpire had called a 'let' which would have been the correct decision and we would have moved on. Wink

Thank you, amateur for your referral; it was a positive contribution.





I'm not sure if an apology can be considered "shouting during play".
maybe there simply isn't an established way to deal with this situation in the rule book.


You have to go into the Handbook for Match Officials, which at the end of the day basically says the Umpire needs to use his/her best judgment because it is impossible to include every possibility in a set of rules.  I quoted at length from the relevant sections on another thread.  Actually they do mention specifically if a player vocalizes loudly during the point but there is some vagueness that relates to the intent.  If I had been umpire I probably would have called a let.


Edited by Baal - 11/18/2019 at 4:12pm
Back to Top
deams59 View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 09/11/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deams59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 6:06pm
Top marks for doing your homework Baal.  However, if you would call a let in this instance doesn't that mean you would have to call a let if someone grunts when they hit a shot? I mean someone who doesn't usually grunt and you are not expecting it.

I spoke to an international umpire and referee and his opinion, which was only based on my description of the events, was that the point should have been awarded Japan. It is for the umpire to decide but in this case Lebesson bullied him into giving his decision.  The Japanese players (not the coach) could have appealed to the referee about the decision to award the point to France but not the decision about the disturbance. 
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 13522
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 6:13pm
O'm not an international umpire so would defer to someone who is.  But my comment was based on the ITTF Guide to Match Officials. There one finds:

17.1.2 The umpire should be ready to respond immediately to any sign that bad behaviour by a player or coach is likely to be unfair to an opponent, to offend spectators or to bring discredit to the sport. If he or she tolerates early lapses in good behaviour, however trivial, without even a disapproving glance he or she will find it much harder to impose proper discipline if these lapses later become more persistent or serious.

17.1.3 The umpire should, however, avoid over-reaction to possibly unintentional instances of unseemly behaviour, for this could lead to resentment and animosity that will undermine his or her authority. When he or she takes action, he or she should always try to do so in a way that does not make the situation worse, either by drawing undue attention to an incident that may not have been generally noticed or by appearing to victimise a player or coach.


But there is also this.

17.1.4 An example of behaviour, which might justify action by the umpire [italics added], is shouting during play, in annoyance or elation, but in deciding how to react the umpire should take account of the environment in which it occurs. If the general noise level is so high that the player’s shouting is hardly noticeable, it is more sensible not to stop play but to wait until the end of the rally before speaking to the offending player.

From the wording it didn't seem like any one course of action was mandated and the handbook basically asks the Umpire to do the best he/she can to be fair.  Grunting would maybe come under the heading "hardly noticeable", so that is why I would not call let for that.

So it really is a judgement call.  I can see how different people might reach a different judgement in this case.

By the way, on the other thread, pingpongpeng makes the point that these days things are just a lot noisier than they used to be, what with all the choing and such, so if you can't deal with that then table tennis is going to be an increasingly tough sport to play.  And it will be that way until such time as ITTF decides that it is obnoxious.  Which may be never.

I may be a dinosaur.


Edited by Baal - 11/18/2019 at 6:17pm
Back to Top
deams59 View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 09/11/2011
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deams59 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 6:22pm
Does anyone believe that Lebesson was distracted? How many times has a player been about to hit the ball when Harimoto screams his head off on the next table. I would find this much more distracting.

Whether or not a let should have been is debatable and the umpire doesn't have the option of seeing a replay. I think we could all live with a let being played even if we don't believe it is warranted. The important issue which is beyond dispute is that the point should not have been awarded to France. 
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 6:37pm
putting dreams and Baal's info together along with those from the handbook already presented: shouting(including Cho) during play is certainly penalizable, althought sometimes not necessarily to do so. Speaking loud enough to affect play should be in a similar situation (my guess).  If the umpire deems it not to have disturbed the opposing party , then the point plays out and he should speak to the offending party after the point is over.

If I am right then either a point to Japan or France but not a let.  I think a let is problematic in that it will be called a let  every time a seemingly accidental (could be intentional) comment occurs.
Back to Top
Tinykin View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/30/2003
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2219
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tinykin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 7:58pm
Is this thread still alive?
Even at my low level of officiating, I see this or a very similar situation at all levels in almost every tournament that I've umpired. That is, where a player says or does something thinking that the rally is dead.
All of you have it correct that there's no specific rule to deal with this. But there's no need for one.
Here, it's a clear point to the Japanese.
I think that Lebesson was asking for a let which is normal for players to test the umpire in this way. But after seeing that the the point was awarded to him, he should have pointed out the error. He was the senior player there by a long way, he knows the rules. But that's how far many pros are prepared to carry it.



Edited by Tinykin - 11/18/2019 at 7:59pm
>65yo, presently overweight rather than obese.

Currently testing; Darker Speed90 with T05H/Dignics05. Update; T05 on BH is impressive when all is right,but D05 wins more points

Delusion is an asset
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 9:08pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

putting dreams and Baal's info together along with those from the handbook already presented: shouting(including Cho) during play is certainly penalizable, althought sometimes not necessarily to do so. Speaking loud enough to affect play should be in a similar situation (my guess).  If the umpire deems it not to have disturbed the opposing party , then the point plays out and he should speak to the offending party after the point is over.

If I am right then either a point to Japan or France but not a let.  I think a let is problematic in that it will be called a let  every time a seemingly accidental (could be intentional) comment occurs.
No, that is not correct.  It's either a let or a point to Japan.  I suggest you re-read what constitutes a point in section 2.10 of the ITTF handbook.  Edit: If you think it could be a point for France, can please explain why you think this.


Edited by pongfugrasshopper - 11/18/2019 at 9:10pm
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

putting dreams and Baal's info together along with those from the handbook already presented: shouting(including Cho) during play is certainly penalizable, althought sometimes not necessarily to do so. Speaking loud enough to affect play should be in a similar situation (my guess).  If the umpire deems it not to have disturbed the opposing party , then the point plays out and he should speak to the offending party after the point is over.

If I am right then either a point to Japan or France but not a let.  I think a let is problematic in that it will be called a let  every time a seemingly accidental (could be intentional) comment occurs.
No, that is not correct.  It's either a let or a point to Japan.  I suggest you re-read what constitutes a point in section 2.10 of the ITTF handbook.  Edit: If you think it could be a point for France, can please explain why you think this.
I stated above my logic based on what was written including all the relevant points from the handbook - I repeat,  I could be wrong .  On the other hand you did not expand on any point except I am wrong. 
Back to Top
penholderxxx View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 09/19/2016
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 321
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote penholderxxx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 10:32pm
' I stated above my logic based on what was written including all the relevant points from the handbook - I repeat,  I could be wrong .  On the other hand you did not expand on any point except I am wrong.' - tom

Some rules defy logic, tom.

as an example, clause 2.10.1.10 which has it that a player wins a point if his/her opponent's free hand touches the playing surface. What then if a player in making a return had the body lying on the table with both legs hanging in the air ? This seems to be okay with some umpires.

Logically, rationally, would you not award a point to the opponent ?

I feel there are enough citations of the rules to allow for a 'let'.
After all, despite their imperfections and incompleteness, we are aware of the fundamental principle in the preamble of the ITTF in governing TT is the notion of ' fair play '.
We should also recognise that fact that in grey situations, umpires will need to make decisions which are judgemental; think 'fair play'.
Iloveplayingtabletennis
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 10:35pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

putting dreams and Baal's info together along with those from the handbook already presented: shouting(including Cho) during play is certainly penalizable, althought sometimes not necessarily to do so. Speaking loud enough to affect play should be in a similar situation (my guess).  If the umpire deems it not to have disturbed the opposing party , then the point plays out and he should speak to the offending party after the point is over.

If I am right then either a point to Japan or France but not a let.  I think a let is problematic in that it will be called a let  every time a seemingly accidental (could be intentional) comment occurs.
No, that is not correct.  It's either a let or a point to Japan.  I suggest you re-read what constitutes a point in section 2.10 of the ITTF handbook.  Edit: If you think it could be a point for France, can please explain why you think this.
I stated above my logic based on what was written including all the relevant points from the handbook - I repeat,  I could be wrong .  On the other hand you did not expand on any point except I am wrong. 
I've already stated throughout this thread why it's either a point for Japan (what I would do if I were the umpire) or possibly a let.  Basically, HT  smashed the ball and Yuan did not return it. The whole discussion of the disturbance is for a possible *let*, not a *point* for France for which there is no rule that would allow for a point for France.

You've somehow combined deams59 (not d'r'eams) and Baal's info and came up with your conclusion. Deams59 and I have both stated the same thing ... point for Japan or possibly a let. Baal has even stated "If I had been umpire I probably would have called a let." So it's baffling to me how you came up with your conclusion.
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 11:03pm
tom, the key point of contention is why do you think it could be a point for France? 
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 11:20pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

putting dreams and Baal's info together along with those from the handbook already presented: shouting(including Cho) during play is certainly penalizable, althought sometimes not necessarily to do so. Speaking loud enough to affect play should be in a similar situation (my guess).  If the umpire deems it not to have disturbed the opposing party , then the point plays out and he should speak to the offending party after the point is over.

If I am right then either a point to Japan or France but not a let.  I think a let is problematic in that it will be called a let  every time a seemingly accidental (could be intentional) comment occurs.
No, that is not correct.  It's either a let or a point to Japan.  I suggest you re-read what constitutes a point in section 2.10 of the ITTF handbook.  Edit: If you think it could be a point for France, can please explain why you think this.
I stated above my logic based on what was written including all the relevant points from the handbook - I repeat,  I could be wrong .  On the other hand you did not expand on any point except I am wrong. 
I've already stated throughout this thread why it's either a point for Japan (what I would do if I were the umpire) or possibly a let.  Basically, HT  smashed the ball and Yuan did not return it. The whole discussion of the disturbance is for a possible *let*, not a *point* for France for which there is no rule that would allow for a point for France.

You've somehow combined deams59 (not d'r'eams) and Baal's info and came up with your conclusion. Deams59 and I have both stated the same thing ... point for Japan or possibly a let. Baal has even stated "If I had been umpire I probably would have called a let." So it's baffling to me how you came up with your conclusion.
ok, I am back home so: from dreams - "I spoke to an international umpire and referee and his opinion, which was only based on my description of the events, was that the point should have been awarded Japan"   I  took this to mean there was no meaningful disturbance so the point plays on - I have stated that it is either a point for Japan or France depending on whether there was a disturbance but not a let, so this not contrary to what I said.  It is for the umpire to decide but in this case Lebesson bullied him into giving his decision.  The Japanese players (not the coach) could have appealed to the referee about the decision to award the point to France but not the decision about the disturbance. 

From Baal-You have to go into the Handbook for Match Officials, which at the end of the day basically says the Umpire needs to use his/her best judgment because it is impossible to include every possibility in a set of rules.  I quoted at length from the relevant sections on another thread.  Actually they do mention specifically if a player vocalizes loudly during the point but there is some vagueness that relates to the intent. this is the first time someone states from the handbook that it is an offence to volcalize loudly- which is contrary to people stating it is not an offence to speak or cho during the rally  If I had been umpire I probably would have called a let.

So Pongfu, I didn't say I relied on Dreams or Baal's opinions, I was relying on what seems to be credible reference of the rules.  I never said whether Japan or France should get the point, but rather if saying sorry as in this case is an offence then France gets the point, else it would be Japan.  Hope I clarify my logic - again not saying I am right with it, just inviting people to comment on it based on reference to the handbooks

Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 11:38pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

tom, the key point of contention is why do you think it could be a point for France? 
are you saying that regardless of what constitutes a voluntary disturbance (as interpreted by the ump)  it is not possible for France to get the point?  They were awarded the point, so it should be possible under certain interpretation unless the ref is wrong regarding his options.   
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/18/2019 at 11:58pm
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

...
ok, I am back home so: from dreams - "I spoke to an international umpire and referee and his opinion, which was only based on my description of the events, was that the point should have been awarded Japan"   I  took this to mean there was no meaningful disturbance so the point plays on - I have stated that it is either a point for Japan or France depending on whether there was a disturbance but not a let, so this not contrary to what I said.  It is for the umpire to decide but in this case Lebesson bullied him into giving his decision.  The Japanese players (not the coach) could have appealed to the referee about the decision to award the point to France but not the decision about the disturbance. 
I agree with the "Japan" part, but once you added "or France", that *is* contrary to what you've cited.  In fact deams59 has been pretty adamant throughout the thread that it cannot be a point for France (and I agree).

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

From Baal-You have to go into the Handbook for Match Officials, which at the end of the day basically says the Umpire needs to use his/her best judgment because it is impossible to include every possibility in a set of rules.  I quoted at length from the relevant sections on another thread.  Actually they do mention specifically if a player vocalizes loudly during the point but there is some vagueness that relates to the intent. this is the first time someone states from the handbook that it is an offence to volcalize loudly- which is contrary to people stating it is not an offence to speak or cho during the rally  If I had been umpire I probably would have called a let.

So Pongfu, I didn't say I relied on Dreams or Baal's opinions, I was relying on what seems to be credible reference of the rules.  I never said whether Japan or France should get the point, but rather if saying sorry as in this case is an offence then France gets the point, else it would be Japan.  Hope I clarify my logic - again not saying I am right with it, just inviting people to comment on it based on reference to the handbooks

Even if you have an active imagination and consider HH's "sorry" as a shouting offense (as ridiculous as that sounds), the "offense" could only be given a yellow card .... none was given by the umpire.  And Japan would have needed to already have an existing yellow card (they didn't) for a point to be awarded to France.  

In any case, I'm glad that this incident did not affect the outcome of the match.  My only hope is that ITTF reviews/learns from this incident so that we don't run into a situation in the future where it erroneously *does* affect the outcome of the match.
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/19/2019 at 12:18am
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

tom, the key point of contention is why do you think it could be a point for France? 
are you saying that regardless of what constitutes a voluntary disturbance (as interpreted by the ump)  it is not possible for France to get the point?  They were awarded the point, so it should be possible under certain interpretation unless the ref is wrong regarding his options.   
The umpire made a mistake.  He's human.  I'm just glad it didn't affect the outcome of the match.
Back to Top
Tinykin View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/30/2003
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2219
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tinykin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/19/2019 at 4:35am
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

putting dreams and Baal's info together along with those from the handbook already presented: shouting(including Cho) during play is certainly penalizable, althought sometimes not necessarily to do so. Speaking loud enough to affect play should be in a similar situation (my guess).  If the umpire deems it not to have disturbed the opposing party , then the point plays out and he should speak to the offending party after the point is over.

If I am right then either a point to Japan or France but not a let.  I think a let is problematic in that it will be called a let  every time a seemingly accidental (could be intentional) comment occurs.
No, that is not correct.  It's either a let or a point to Japan.  I suggest you re-read what constitutes a point in section 2.10 of the ITTF handbook.  Edit: If you think it could be a point for France, can please explain why you think this.
I stated above my logic based on what was written including all the relevant points from the handbook - I repeat,  I could be wrong .  On the other hand you did not expand on any point except I am wrong. 

Sorry, but you are wrong. No rule that could be used to award the French pair the point.

>65yo, presently overweight rather than obese.

Currently testing; Darker Speed90 with T05H/Dignics05. Update; T05 on BH is impressive when all is right,but D05 wins more points

Delusion is an asset
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/19/2019 at 10:31am
from Pongfu:I agree with the "Japan" part, but once you added "or France", that *is* contrary to what you've cited.  In fact deams59 has been pretty adamant throughout the thread that it cannot be a point for France (and I agree).

to Pongfu, please be specific on what I have cited that is contrary to "or France".  

With that being said I now think in high probability the way the handbook is written, a vocal disturbance requires a warning before a point penalty.  Additional referrals to the handbook that could shed any light on speaking during rallies will be welcomed. 

Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/19/2019 at 10:36am
Originally posted by tom tom wrote:

from Pongfu:I agree with the "Japan" part, but once you added "or France", that *is* contrary to what you've cited.  In fact deams59 has been pretty adamant throughout the thread that it cannot be a point for France (and I agree).

to Pongfu, please be specific on what I have cited that is contrary to "or France".  

With that being said I now think in high probability the way the handbook is written, a vocal disturbance requires a warning before a point penalty.  Additional referrals to the handbook that could shed any light on speaking during rallies will be welcomed. 

Here's what you cited from deams59:
"I spoke to an international umpire and referee and his opinion, which was only based on my description of the events, was that the point should have been awarded Japan"
*You* added "or France" which is contrary to his point (that it cannot be France's point according to the rules).
Back to Top
tom View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/19/2019 at 10:48am
Quote from what I said: I  took this to mean there was no meaningful disturbance so the point plays on - I have stated that it is either a point for Japan or France depending on whether there was a disturbance but not a let, so this not contrary to what I said. 

Pongfu, I suspect you might have been referring to what Deams statement of what his ref friend said but if you follow the logic of what I said above, then the info given is  not necessary contrary to "or France" just not clear if it could be the case.  
Back to Top
osmar92 View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 02/14/2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 366
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote osmar92 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/19/2019 at 11:30am
Lebehson does not get it that his serve is illegal and done from moving hand as opposed to stationary one
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
About MyTableTennis.NET | Forum Help | Disclaimer

MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd.

Copyright ©2003-2019 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.