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
tabletennis11.com

why did lebesson complain?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 619
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/21/2019 at 8:19am
Hi,

And another interesting possibility would have occurred if Lebesson had not played the ball, but stopped in mid-point and argued his case of disruption to the umpire.  What would the umpire have done then?  

The case is interesting in that in this scenario, no team won the point, as the play was stopped mid-point.  In the actual scenario, one team, the Japanese, did win the point, so the umpire was faced with a concluded, scored point.  Something, Lebesson says, must be done!

My guess as to the umpire's decision in the scenario of the play-stoppage point, the umpire would have called a let.  This, given the actualized outcome of the real point, would be ironic, in that Lebesson, by doing the wrong thing of playing the shot and not stopping play due to the disturbance, benefited the most due to the umpire's decision of awarding the point to the French.

The lesson: Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

Thanks.
Advances in a field are best achieved by constructs that fully reflect the phenomena of interest and are rooted in a theory that specifies their determinants, mediating processes, and its effects.
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: 11/21/2019 at 9:05am
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

Another element of perspective on this matter pertains to the definition and meaning of "disturbance."  That is, is a disturbance an objective event independent of the effect on the players, or is it a consequence of a player being "disturbed."

In this case with Lebesson, a behavioral option available to him was to not respond to the shot; to stop and not execute his stroke mechanism on the net ball, then turn to the umpire and argue his "disturbance."  One may argue that by executing his stroke mechanism, he was not disturbed, thus a disturbance did not occur.

From the detailed information provided in the exceptionally fine postings in this thread, had he done so, the umpire should have called a let.

In general, a disturbance is understood to be an objective event that is independent of the effect on the players.  When an invading ball enters the court, a let is automatically called completely irrespective of the effect of the invading ball on the players.

If this chain of logic supporting the consideration of the effect on the player as a determinant of the declaration of a "disturbance," is it then the case that table tennis has two forms, two varieties of disturbances, one disturbance variety an objective event judged independent on the effect on the players, and a second disturbance variety based upon a discernible effect on the players?

Thanks for the great posting! 
This is correct. There are two rules. A rally shall be a let if the  opponent fails to make a good return due to the disturbance . The umpire MAY interrupt play if a disturbance can affect the outcome of a rally. 
Back to Top
kolevtt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/13/2011
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kolevtt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 3:20am
All the situation is SHAMELESS!

The only one who deserves 3 months break is the Umpire, who is probably not involved so much into table tennis rules.

The only one who is responsible to take action during rally is ON is the UMPIRE.

In fact, with his body language Emo gone to step ahead versus the opponents when the rally still was ON, the point should be given to the Hina and Tomu immediately, even if the japan player missed to score.

If the french player was disturbed by some voice of his opponent - he has the right DO NOT GO AFTER the ball, and to explain the reason for his lack of activity to the umpire.
From what I saw on the video - Emo had not any problem with the returning.

Jolan wrote it clear too.

So, why did Lebesson complain?
My honest answer is: Because he has not enough respect to himself.
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: 11/22/2019 at 4:01am
Hi kolevtt,
Quite a number of forummers agree with you.
I have said if the French player had managed to make an unreturnable return, he would have acted differently....that is why I said he was being devious.

The umpire, unfortunately was in awe and overwhelmed by the French player's antics. I would not disagree if any umpire warned him or gave him a yellow card for crass misbehaviour.

( I also believe the missus did not 'speak' to him that night. )
Iloveplayingtabletennis
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2018
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 4:39am
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

And another interesting possibility would have occurred if Lebesson had not played the ball, but stopped in mid-point and argued his case of disruption to the umpire.  What would the umpire have done then?  

The case is interesting in that in this scenario, no team won the point, as the play was stopped mid-point.  In the actual scenario, one team, the Japanese, did win the point, so the umpire was faced with a concluded, scored point.  Something, Lebesson says, must be done!

My guess as to the umpire's decision in the scenario of the play-stoppage point, the umpire would have called a let.  This, given the actualized outcome of the real point, would be ironic, in that Lebesson, by doing the wrong thing of playing the shot and not stopping play due to the disturbance, benefited the most due to the umpire's decision of awarding the point to the French.

The lesson: Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

Thanks.
I wonder if adding a challenge rule would clear up this confusion.  In tennis, the rules are clear when you wish to challenge a call.  But since table tennis does not have one, do you stop play? Do you continue to play the point?  Lebesson has to make a split second decision and without a challenge rule, it's unclear what he must do if he in fact believes a disturbance caused him to mishit the ball.  But even with a challenge system in place, if the umpire does rule in favor of France, the rules would only allow for a let .... not a point for France.  A challenge rule (with video review) would also be useful in the controversy that occurred at the WTTC Women's Doubles event with the ghost let called as well as other situations like faint edges.
Back to Top
kolevtt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/13/2011
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kolevtt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 4:52am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

And another interesting possibility would have occurred if Lebesson had not played the ball, but stopped in mid-point and argued his case of disruption to the umpire.  What would the umpire have done then?  

The case is interesting in that in this scenario, no team won the point, as the play was stopped mid-point.  In the actual scenario, one team, the Japanese, did win the point, so the umpire was faced with a concluded, scored point.  Something, Lebesson says, must be done!

My guess as to the umpire's decision in the scenario of the play-stoppage point, the umpire would have called a let.  This, given the actualized outcome of the real point, would be ironic, in that Lebesson, by doing the wrong thing of playing the shot and not stopping play due to the disturbance, benefited the most due to the umpire's decision of awarding the point to the French.

The lesson: Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

Thanks.
I wonder if adding a challenge rule would clear up this confusion.  In tennis, the rules are clear when you wish to challenge a call.  But since table tennis does not have one, do you stop play? Do you continue to play the point?  Lebesson has to make a split second decision and without a challenge rule, it's unclear what he must do if he in fact believes a disturbance caused him to mishit the ball.  But even with a challenge system in place, if the umpire does rule in favor of France, the rules would only allow for a let .... not a point for France.  A challenge rule (with video review) would also be useful in the controversy that occurred at the WTTC Women's Doubles event with the ghost let called as well as other situations like faint edges.


I think there is no need to rules change.
The case is pretty clear from all sides.

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

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2018
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 5:15am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

And another interesting possibility would have occurred if Lebesson had not played the ball, but stopped in mid-point and argued his case of disruption to the umpire.  What would the umpire have done then?  

The case is interesting in that in this scenario, no team won the point, as the play was stopped mid-point.  In the actual scenario, one team, the Japanese, did win the point, so the umpire was faced with a concluded, scored point.  Something, Lebesson says, must be done!

My guess as to the umpire's decision in the scenario of the play-stoppage point, the umpire would have called a let.  This, given the actualized outcome of the real point, would be ironic, in that Lebesson, by doing the wrong thing of playing the shot and not stopping play due to the disturbance, benefited the most due to the umpire's decision of awarding the point to the French.

The lesson: Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

Thanks.
I wonder if adding a challenge rule would clear up this confusion.  In tennis, the rules are clear when you wish to challenge a call.  But since table tennis does not have one, do you stop play? Do you continue to play the point?  Lebesson has to make a split second decision and without a challenge rule, it's unclear what he must do if he in fact believes a disturbance caused him to mishit the ball.  But even with a challenge system in place, if the umpire does rule in favor of France, the rules would only allow for a let .... not a point for France.  A challenge rule (with video review) would also be useful in the controversy that occurred at the WTTC Women's Doubles event with the ghost let called as well as other situations like faint edges.


I think there is no need to rules change.
The case is pretty clear from all sides.

I don't think it's so clear what the protocol is for challenging (since there is no challenge system in place).  You mentioned earlier "DO NOT GO AFTER THE BALL", well then you've technically lost the point immediately with no challenge system in place assuming the umpire goes strictly by the rule book.  One could argue that you did not have a play on the ball which is why you did not go after the ball.  

Even though I personally would have given the point to Japan, I'm not ready to throw Lebesson under the bus for complaining.  I know you've already made your opinion on him, but for others, consider his respectful handshake after the match.  I think all the players think it was just an unfortunate incident and wish the incident never happened:

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

Joined: 06/13/2011
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kolevtt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 8:02am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Hi,

And another interesting possibility would have occurred if Lebesson had not played the ball, but stopped in mid-point and argued his case of disruption to the umpire.  What would the umpire have done then?  

The case is interesting in that in this scenario, no team won the point, as the play was stopped mid-point.  In the actual scenario, one team, the Japanese, did win the point, so the umpire was faced with a concluded, scored point.  Something, Lebesson says, must be done!

My guess as to the umpire's decision in the scenario of the play-stoppage point, the umpire would have called a let.  This, given the actualized outcome of the real point, would be ironic, in that Lebesson, by doing the wrong thing of playing the shot and not stopping play due to the disturbance, benefited the most due to the umpire's decision of awarding the point to the French.

The lesson: Sometimes, two wrongs do make a right.

Thanks.
I wonder if adding a challenge rule would clear up this confusion.  In tennis, the rules are clear when you wish to challenge a call.  But since table tennis does not have one, do you stop play? Do you continue to play the point?  Lebesson has to make a split second decision and without a challenge rule, it's unclear what he must do if he in fact believes a disturbance caused him to mishit the ball.  But even with a challenge system in place, if the umpire does rule in favor of France, the rules would only allow for a let .... not a point for France.  A challenge rule (with video review) would also be useful in the controversy that occurred at the WTTC Women's Doubles event with the ghost let called as well as other situations like faint edges.


I think there is no need to rules change.
The case is pretty clear from all sides.

I don't think it's so clear what the protocol is for challenging (since there is no challenge system in place).  You mentioned earlier "DO NOT GO AFTER THE BALL", well then you've technically lost the point immediately with no challenge system in place assuming the umpire goes strictly by the rule book.  One could argue that you did not have a play on the ball which is why you did not go after the ball.  

Even though I personally would have given the point to Japan, I'm not ready to throw Lebesson under the bus for complaining.  I know you've already made your opinion on him, but for others, consider his respectful handshake after the match.  I think all the players think it was just an unfortunate incident and wish the incident never happened:



I really don't understand why you are trying to make it complicated.
Situation and rules are pretty simple. 
"If" ...has too many meanings.
If everyone starts to break a rally because he/she heard something, where we will go all?
Tomorrow everyone can start complaining that he/she heard his opponent is talking to him.

I have seen too many of the same situations in table tennis, sometimes is hard to understand what exactly is in the head of the players and why they are dealing in that dishonest way.
Money and win are not everything that a player must be looking for. Some players have dignity too.

With your explanation for possibilities and so on - you are making the role of the Umpire more smaller than it is actually. As I wrote early - the main problem here was the non adequate reaction of the Umpire or he was just not focused enough to remember that :
Nobody has the right to complain for something during the rally.
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2018
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 9:22am
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

...
I really don't understand why you are trying to make it complicated.
Situation and rules are pretty simple. 
"If" ...has too many meanings.
If everyone starts to break a rally because he/she heard something, where we will go all?
Tomorrow everyone can start complaining that he/she heard his opponent is talking to him.

I have seen too many of the same situations in table tennis, sometimes is hard to understand what exactly is in the head of the players and why they are dealing in that dishonest way.
Money and win are not everything that a player must be looking for. Some players have dignity too.

With your explanation for possibilities and so on - you are making the role of the Umpire more smaller than it is actually. As I wrote early - the main problem here was the non adequate reaction of the Umpire or he was just not focused enough to remember that :
Nobody has the right to complain for something during the rally.
I would expect that if a challenge system to be in place there would be a very limited number of challenges.  And also, this is not something that happens often (someone saying sorry while the ball is in play).  But for situations like this and consider that it's for a chance to go to the Doubles Finals at a Platinum event, I think it would be useful to have a system in place.  Reasonable people can interpret things differently.  For example, even though I would not give a let for the disturbance, Baal would (and I fully respect that).  And merely challenging does not guarantee you'll win the challenge.  

Things are not always black and white.  For example, I consider the times that Dima has his extended grunts (which sometimes last through the opponents stroke) to be quite disturbing, but apparently I suppose it's not disturbing enough for the umpire to warn him?  It's never been called, but could it if someone complains? .... I don't know.  And I seem to vaguely recall one time I think Lily Zhang was playing Wang Chen (maybe?) when the lights went out and Lily stopped play for what appeared to me to be an obvious let, but it wasn't given and Lily lost the point to her disbelief (and mine).
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 619
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 11:02am
Hi,

 And I seem to vaguely recall one time I think Lily Zhang was playing Wang Chen (maybe?) when the lights went out and Lily stopped play for what appeared to me to be an obvious let, but it wasn't given and Lily lost the point to her disbelief (and mine).

I was there for that too, a key match in Women's Singles.  It was as bad as you expressed it.  It stands for me in the Top 10 worst umpire decisions.  

Also, it was an example of a valid usage of a player stoppage for a distraction.  In this situation, the umpire had the option of honoring the player's request or not.  I told Lily after the match that she selected the correct action by stopping play to make her appeal one of substance as the ball was still in play, thus reinforcing to the umpire the severity of the distraction from her perspective.

Thanks.
Advances in a field are best achieved by constructs that fully reflect the phenomena of interest and are rooted in a theory that specifies their determinants, mediating processes, and its effects.
Back to Top
kolevtt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/13/2011
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kolevtt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 6:27pm
I have also noticed unlimited situations where the players ask for a LET via their hand up, which is not regulated fully by rule because the border for CORRECT and NON CORRECT using this rule by the players is very very slim and thin. Actually only the umpire has right to do this. Sometimes is hard even for 2 umpires to get decision. Mostly if nobody complain, umpires didn't mess in situations too.

I can give you one situation that is very hard to decide who is correct.
Player A plays VS Player B, result is 2:2 and 10:10.
The hall is with high humidity, no clima system working. Hall is full with people.
Both players are looking they have played pool tennis, not table tennis.
Water dropped down on the floor from their clothes.
Player A serves long (slightly chopped) by diagonal, player B attack with sharp topspin.
Ball is going UNDER the table. Umpire count a point for Player A.
Player A is celebrating with powerful CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO............
Player B shows the Umpire his forehand rubber with the water spot where the ball met his rubber.
Umpire did nothing. Point is still counted for Player A.

Let me know if the umpire did correct his job. Later I will tell you my opinion on the situation.
Smile



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

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 2018
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 7:05pm
Originally posted by kolevtt kolevtt wrote:

I have also noticed unlimited situations where the players ask for a LET via their hand up, which is not regulated fully by rule because the border for CORRECT and NON CORRECT using this rule by the players is very very slim and thin. Actually only the umpire has right to do this. Sometimes is hard even for 2 umpires to get decision. Mostly if nobody complain, umpires didn't mess in situations too.

I can give you one situation that is very hard to decide who is correct.
Player A plays VS Player B, result is 2:2 and 10:10.
The hall is with high humidity, no clima system working. Hall is full with people.
Both players are looking they have played pool tennis, not table tennis.
Water dropped down on the floor from their clothes.
Player A serves long (slightly chopped) by diagonal, player B attack with sharp topspin.
Ball is going UNDER the table. Umpire count a point for Player A.
Player A is celebrating with powerful CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO............
Player B shows the Umpire his forehand rubber with the water spot where the ball met his rubber.
Umpire did nothing. Point is still counted for Player A.

Let me know if the umpire did correct his job. Later I will tell you my opinion on the situation.
Smile



That actually occurred at the Westchester Open when Juan Liu played Adar Alguetti. It was strange that in the video it says the umpire called a let, but as the video continues it doesn't appear that they replayed the let. In the case where there's a water spot where rubber meets the ball, I think there should be a let.  The condition of play has been disturbed and is beyond the control of the receiver.  Ultimately, it's for the umpire to decide, but they should be fully aware of the rules handbook and handbook for match officials.
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: 11/22/2019 at 8:59pm
If I was the umpire I would play a let in this particular incident if it could be determined that the wet spot on the racket of player B was made by the ball.  If the serve hit a wet spot on the racket of B then it would be a point to the server, player A.  I think it may be covered under 2.9.2.4.  Conditions of play were disturbed in a way which could affect the outcome of the rally.

This is the sort of thing that should be in the Frequently Asked Question section on the ITTF website but unfortunately it isn't. 
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 619
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/22/2019 at 9:30pm
Not to belabor (or digress), but..........

And I seem to vaguely recall one time I think Lily Zhang was playing Wang Chen (maybe?) when the lights went out and Lily stopped play for what appeared to me to be an obvious let, but it wasn't given and Lily lost the point to her disbelief (and mine).

This match started with a controversy.  Prior to the match, Lily's racket failed the racket test.  Instead of requiring Lily to use another racket, the decision was made to test her original racket using "another method."  It passed the second test, so all was good............until Wang Chen found out about it and refused to play.  She refused to play for 20 minutes; out pops the tournament referee to inform her that Lily is in possession of an approved racket.  Because of this, the staunch referee (who will remain nameless but is very well known among major tournament attendees) informed Wang Chen that her options are to play NOW or be disqualified.

Play began.

Another episode involving our governing officials.
Advances in a field are best achieved by constructs that fully reflect the phenomena of interest and are rooted in a theory that specifies their determinants, mediating processes, and its effects.
Back to Top
man_iii View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/21/2017
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote man_iii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/27/2019 at 1:25am
This is the reason why REMOVE the racket covering modification rule completely. Allow boosting using non-VOC based solutions just like Manufacturers who use them in the rubber production process ! 

Else ban ALL manufacturers and rubbers due to the fact that rubber manufacturing REQUIRES boosters ... let TT be played with Sandpaper bats only. 

There is no middle ground here. Allow rubbers + boosters or GET THE HELL OUT OF TableTennis!
Back to Top
DonnOlsen View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/15/2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 619
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DonnOlsen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/27/2019 at 6:32am
Originally posted by DonnOlsen DonnOlsen wrote:

Not to belabor (or digress), but..........

And I seem to vaguely recall one time I think Lily Zhang was playing Wang Chen (maybe?) when the lights went out and Lily stopped play for what appeared to me to be an obvious let, but it wasn't given and Lily lost the point to her disbelief (and mine).

This match started with a controversy.  Prior to the match, Lily's racket failed the racket test.  Instead of requiring Lily to use another racket, the decision was made to test her original racket using "another method."  It passed the second test, so all was good............until Wang Chen found out about it and refused to play.  She refused to play for 20 minutes; out pops the tournament referee to inform her that Lily is in possession of an approved racket.  Because of this, the staunch referee (who will remain nameless but is very well known among major tournament attendees) informed Wang Chen that her options are to play NOW or be disqualified.

Play began.

Another episode involving our governing officials.

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

The third (and last, I promise) intriguing incident in this match occurred on Wang Chen's serving.  Our USATT National umpires are aware of Wang Chen's use of the "spin toss" serving technique occasionally used, wherein she tosses the ball with spin, an illegal act.  With a very experienced umpire in the chair, sometime in the middle of the match, Wang Chen was called by the umpire for using this serve.  Wang Chen did not protest.

All proceeded smoothly until Wang Chen, serving, was facing match point down.  She apparently was confident the umpire would not call an infraction on her serve at this most critical juncture of the match.  She selected the "spin toss" serve; FAULT! and the match was over.

This was the only time I ever observed a match concluded on a service infraction.

Thanks.
Advances in a field are best achieved by constructs that fully reflect the phenomena of interest and are rooted in a theory that specifies their determinants, mediating processes, and its effects.
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 13519
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/28/2019 at 11:20am
Deleted my comment.

Edited by Baal - 11/28/2019 at 11:26am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
  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.