Crazy Ball Bounce

Edited by balldance - 11/18/2019 at 1:34am

abdeen wrote: balldance wrote: the black shirt guy could have learned from Lebesson and complained that blue shirt player celebrating (and distracting him) when the point was not over I concur . Definitely black shirt guy's point.

I would love to see full match

Blue shirt kid is Nandan Naresh, sharp as a tack that one.  I think the other one is Jeremy Hazin from Canada.  

OK, what should have happened?

The ITTF Laws of Table Tennis State that

A let shall be called if:

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 (which in this case refers to the older guy).

Going deeper, we have to go into the ITTF Handbook for Match Officials (which clarifies some of the ambiguities in the laws themselves). There it states that:

11.1.1 The primary purpose of a let is to end a rally without awarding a point when something has happened which may affect the result of the rally (in this case the loud yell from the little kid who mistakenly thought he had won the point and then cho-ed like a coyote).

also:

11.3.1 Another common reason for a let is a disturbance that may affect the outcome of the rally, such as a ball from another table coming into the playing area or a sudden noise that is sufficiently loud to startle the players. Here again, it is better to declare a let immediately if there is a risk of an interruption than to wait until the rally has ended and then to decide whether or not the disturbance was significant.

OK, the sound ought to mean that black player should get a let because he certainly didn't make the noise and was probably startled by it. But should he get the point outright? After all, it was little kid who made the noise. One could certainly defend that decision but is it supported by ITTF documents?   I delved deeper and found this:

4.2.1 For each match there is an umpire, whose primary duty is to decide the result of each rally. In principle, the umpire has no discretionary powers, but he or she is required to exercise judgment in applying some laws and regulations, such as deciding whether a rally should be a let because a player’s service or return may have been affected by circumstances outside the player’s control, or whether a player’s behaviour is acceptable.

So the umpire has power, but what guidance is given to the umpire?

17.1.1 Deliberately unfair or offensive behaviour is not common in table tennis and is usually limited to a small minority of players and coaches, but its effects may be very damaging and it is often difficult to control. Because misbehaviour can take many forms, it is impractical to lay down precise rules and setting and applying acceptable standards of conduct is more a matter of judgment and common sense than of factual decision.

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.

And now we get to the crux of the issue:

17.1.4 An example of behaviour, which might justify action by the umpire, 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.

And finally this:

17.1.6 When misbehaviour occurs, the umpire has to decide whether the offence is so serious that he or she must suspend play and report immediately to the referee. Although this option is always available and should be used when appropriate, it should rarely be necessary on the first occasion and in most circumstances the initial action should be to give the offender a warning.

Based on this, it looks to me like the little kid was certain he had won the point, cho-ed, and then was surprised when he found the point was not over. He ended up winning the point but it doesn't look like he was malicious about it.

I think they should have played a let. And the umpire should have warned little kid about noise during points, and his coach should urge him to stop cho-ing.

But what if there is no umpire? Play a let.

Edited by Baal - 11/18/2019 at 4:53pm

Why did the kid suddenly turn around and continue the rally? Did he receive illegal advice from his coach that the ball was still in play?

Not in the middle of the point though

jpenmaster wrote: looks like standard tournament play to me. All the kids cho/yell now ( thanks Harimoto).   Nandan thought the point was over so he yelled. Then realized  it wasn't and finished the point. The kid is the best in the country in his age bracket and I have seen him in a few tournaments and has always been a class act.

piligrim wrote: I would love to see full match

jpenmaster wrote: Actually Nandan took him all the way to game 7... it's only a matter of time before he reaches 2600+. Jeremy is still the better player cause in the end he was able to figure out Nandan.