ITTF World Team Table Tennis Championships Finals Busan 2024

[driversbeat]

In the Zhou/Kallberg match I was confused as well when it happened. The umpire initially calls the point in favor of Zhou, but after Kallberg talked to the 2nd umpire, the call got overturned. I thinked what happened is that Zhou made a loud noise when Kallberg was making contact with the ball. Kallberg says that Zhou was "screaming":

Can't say this without sounding biased but the swedish girls were nasty. Third singles girl was kicking a fit the entire match and I can't believe Kallberg would want to win a match like that. Entire team just walked over to ensure that the questionable call was final similar to how SYS/WMY called a timeout to solidify the no-net let call at WD WTTC 2019 finals.

 

[zeio]

...similar to how SYS/WMY called a timeout to solidify the no-net let call at WD WTTC 2019 finals.

Adding-fuel-to-the-fire fun fact:
The umpire who made that let call is a Swede.

https://www.tabletennisdaily.com/fo...e-tennis-championships-2019.20811/post-272446

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

At best they should have just called a let and replayed the point. Ending the match like that with the teams tied at 2-2 is just an awful way to end it.

 

[zeio]

Personal interest but does anyone have insights involving the controversies between (1) Isaac Quek and Darko Jorgic (seems like some rude comments were made by the latter) and (2) Zhou Jingyi and Christina Kallberg (seems the umpire called a questionable edge)?

Quek refused to shake Jorgic's hand after the net that ended the match and Jorgic said something along the line "even if I won by the net ball, a player who doesn't shake hand is the worst", which is a speculation entirely on the part of Table Tennis Kingdom. However, the two did shake hand and Jorgic said something again and pat Quek on the back at the end of the entire match.

熱い一戦、ヨルジッチ対クエク。一触触発のエンディング!？
https://world-tt.com/blog/news/archives/160975

 

[zeio]

Speaking of losses for current CNT players, WMY, SYS and WYD have all lost in the WTTTC now.

WTTC 2018
Grp WMY 1-3 FTW

WTTC 2024
Grp SYS 1-3 Ayhika Mukherjee
Grp WYD 0-3 Sreeja Akula

 

[turbozed]

Can't say this without sounding biased but the swedish girls were nasty. Third singles girl was kicking a fit the entire match and I can't believe Kallberg would want to win a match like that. Entire team just walked over to ensure that the questionable call was final similar to how SYS/WMY called a timeout to solidify the no-net let call at WD WTTC 2019 finals.

You gotta admit it's a bit sus to make a loud noise specifically in the exact moment someone is about to receive your serve. If it was happening all game and she just randomly grunts even while not even attempting a shot (tourettes syndrome maybe?), then I can understand maybe it could be coincidence.

But if the only time someone she made a distracting noise is at that exact moment down 9-10 serving to stay alive or else lose the match, then you gotta make a determination as a ref whether it's intentional. If it's intentional, then the rules clearly state that it's illegal to do that.

The problem is that nobody can get into a person's head and say conclusively whether something was intentional or not. In law there's a legal principle called res ipsa loquitur, meaning that there's no other explanation for an event occuring aside from negligence. I'd apply that here and say there's no other reason why you would make a distracting noise at the moment someone is about to receive your serve other than hoping it would affect their receive.

Terrible way to end a team match but I have to agree with the ref here.

 

[zeio]

My concern for Hirano is that she has a tendency to lower her standard when playing someone ranked lower than her. She's one of, if not the best, at playing the top Chinese, but you have to make your way through the draw if you want to meet them. Hopefully, she and her coach fixes this before the Olympics.

Ito and Hayata have also had close shaves.

https://youtu.be/HuuhhKb3WRc?t=2052

https://youtu.be/a1s2cn2OjXk?t=546

 

[NextLevel]

Quek refused to shake Jorgic's hand after the net that ended the match and Jorgic said something along the line "even if I won by the net ball, a player who doesn't shake hand is the worst", which is a speculation entirely on the part of Table Tennis Kingdom. However, the two did shake hand and Jorgic said something again and pat Quek on the back at the end of the entire match.

熱い一戦、ヨルジッチ対クエク。一触触発のエンディング!？
https://world-tt.com/blog/news/archives/160975

A good reminder that perception is not always reality and things happen that you may not be aware of.

 

[driversbeat]

The problem is that nobody can get into a person's head and say conclusively whether something was intentional or not. In law there's a legal principle called res ipsa loquitur, meaning that there's no other explanation for an event occuring aside from negligence. I'd apply that here and say there's no other reason why you would make a distracting noise at the moment someone is about to receive your serve other than hoping it would affect their receive.

You gotta admit it's a bit sus to make a loud noise specifically in the exact moment someone is about to receive your serve. If it was happening all game and she just randomly grunts even while not even attempting a shot (tourettes syndrome maybe?), then I can understand maybe it could be coincidence.

But if the only time someone she made a distracting noise is at that exact moment down 9-10 serving to stay alive or else lose the match, then you gotta make a determination as a ref whether it's intentional. If it's intentional, then the rules clearly state that it's illegal to do that.

The problem is that nobody can get into a person's head and say conclusively whether something was intentional or not. In law there's a legal principle called res ipsa loquitur, meaning that there's no other explanation for an event occuring aside from negligence. I'd apply that here and say there's no other reason why you would make a distracting noise at the moment someone is about to receive your serve other than hoping it would affect their receive.

Terrible way to end a team match but I have to agree with the ref here.

The ref didn't call it. Kallberg made a fuss about it and the ref just meekly went along with it. In such high pressure moments it's normal to make noises as a reflex. If you want to complain about noise making as a distraction there are far worse examples and I don't even have to list them here because they're just that common. If anything Sweden's third singles player should have been yellow-red carded for smashing the ball against the table and throwing it around.

 

[NextLevel]

At best they should have just called a let and replayed the point. Ending the match like that with the teams tied at 2-2 is just an awful way to end it.

There are rules about how to proceed in such situations and unfortunately, umpires don't have the ability to order players to play let points on demands. If the umpire felt that a hindrance was caused by the actions of one of the players, the player doesn't get a let. The player loses the the point. The alternative is to rule there was no hindrance. There is no middle ground.

 

[NextLevel]

The ref didn't call it. Kallberg made a fuss about it and the ref just meekly went along with it. In such high pressure moments it's normal to make noises as a reflex. If you want to complain about noise making as a distraction there are far worse examples and I don't even have to list them here because they're just that common. If anything Sweden's third singles player should have been yellow-red carded for smashing the ball against the table and throwing it around.

The ref should have called it. It is a problem when a player makes a noise either when the opponent is about to hit the ball or makes a noise irregularly that trails into the opponent's contact with the ball. It is unfortunate that it happened at match point but these are similar to the service rule issues we have with table tennis. We need to allow the umpires to get these calls right or change the rules if we are not happy with them. The umpire made the correct call in the end.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

There are rules about how to proceed in such situations and unfortunately, umpires don't have the ability to order players to play let points on demands. If the umpire felt that a hindrance was caused by the actions of one of the players, the player doesn't get a let. The player loses the the point. The alternative is to rule there was no hindrance. There is no middle ground.

If Kallberg can react so fast to that noise, it means that noise did cause her attention very very early on.
It is like a natural reaction when you call an edge or side ball.
So Kallberg's action didn't go through the mind, it was all natural.
So, I believe that is enough evidence of interrupting an opponent during a rally.

I don't say the playing made a fuss, it is just like two players arguing over a side/net, based on natural reaction.
That additional noise making was unnecessary and Zhou should work on preventing it from happening again.

 

[zeio]

Speaking of losses, Ito, Hayata and Hirano have all lost to non-CNT players in team event as well.

WTTC 2016 (for reference)
JPN (ABC) vs GER (XYZ)
Grp M4 Ishikawa 2-3 Petrissa Solja (9, -5, -11, 8, -7)

Rio 2016
JPN (ABC) vs GER (XYZ)
SF M1 Ito 2-3 Petrissa Solja (5, -4, 8, -6, -10)
G5 93, 910, 1012

TWC 2018
JPN (ABC) vs SGP (XYZ)
QF M3 Hayata 1-3 Yu Mengyu (-8, -5, 8, -10)

Asian Games 2022
KOR (ABC) vs JPN (XYZ)
WT SF M2 Jeon Jihee 3-2 Hirano (-3, 12, 9, -4, 6)

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

There are rules about how to proceed in such situations and unfortunately, umpires don't have the ability to order players to play let points on demands. If the umpire felt that a hindrance was caused by the actions of one of the players, the player doesn't get a let. The player loses the the point. The alternative is to rule there was no hindrance. There is no middle ground.

I think it's possible to call a let depending on the interpretation of:


2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
. . .
2.9.2.4 because the conditions of play are disturbed in a way which could affect the outcome of the rally.

 

[NextLevel]

If Kallberg can react so fast to that noise, it means that noise did cause her attention very very early on.
It is like a natural reaction when you call an edge or side ball.
So Kallberg's action didn't go through the mind, it was all natural.
So, I believe that is enough evidence of interrupting an opponent during a rally.

I don't say the playing made a fuss, it is just like two players arguing over a side/net, based on natural reaction.
That additional noise making was unnecessary and Zhou should work on preventing it from happening again.

I have seen similar calls in tennis. Novak Djokovic once made noise when his opponent was about to hit the ball at Wimbledon and the umpire called it and the commentators complained just as some members here are complaining. Novak still won the match so oh well...

 

[NextLevel]

I think it's possible to call a let depending on the interpretation of:


2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
. . .
2.9.2.4 because the conditions of play are disturbed in a way which could affect the outcome of the rally.

If the disturbance comes from neither of the players, sure.

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

I think there's a bit of a judgement call here. I know I've seen plays in which one player makes a great shot and thinks the point is over and cho's loudly only to see the other player make a play on the ball either to win or nearly win. It's often just a play on situation with an apology by choer if he won. This situation is nearly the opposite where the noise maker is making the noise because they realized they're going to get crushed. Is it purposeful or a natural reaction? Given that the head umpire (who was actually closest to Zhou) initially awarded the point to Zhou you can make the case that the umpire did not think it was on purpose or so disturbing.

 

[zeio]

This is why the Olympics, WTTC and World Cup are the 3 majors. Grand Smash? Champions? 🖕🖕

Table Tennis Kingdom on the incidents for POR vs IRI and SWE vs SGP. Alamiyan keeps getting the short end of the stick. LOL

大会2日目の男女最終戦は23時半まで行われる熱戦に。女子のスウェーデンとシンガポールの戦いはまさかの決着
https://world-tt.com/blog/news/archives/161213

 

[Mytoman]

There are rules about how to proceed in such situations and unfortunately, umpires don't have the ability to order players to play let points on demands. If the umpire felt that a hindrance was caused by the actions of one of the players, the player doesn't get a let. The player loses the the point. The alternative is to rule there was no hindrance. There is no middle ground.

That is wrong (tennis rules/not table tennis). It is impossible to win a point if you don’t hit the table, with just a few exceptions(free hand on surface, moving table, penalty point). Disturbance etc is not included in how you score a point. Shouting or etc is maximum let and yellow. (If there already was a yellow here, it might have been let, yr+1 and game over. But here only let). (So two possible outcomes of the rally, point to Singapore or let).

 

[NextLevel]

I think there's a bit of a judgement call here. I know I've seen plays in which one player makes a great shot and thinks the point is over and cho's loudly only to see the other player make a play on the ball either to win or nearly win. It's often just a play on situation with an apology by choer if he won. This situation is nearly the opposite where the noise maker is making the noise because they realized they're going to get crushed. Is it purposeful or a natural reaction? Given that the head umpire (who was actually closest to Zhou) initially awarded the point to Zhou you can make the case that the umpire did not think it was on purpose or so disturbing.

Yes, and that is the same way that many calls are initially wrong until they are brought to the attention of the umpire. My main point is that the umpire is not allowed to call for a replay. She could have maintained her original position that Zhou won the point. Generally umpires are prohibited from replaying controversial points just because they are controversial. That is my main point here. It might sound like I don't sometimes feel the let should be an option. I used to in thr past, but I have come to appreciate the restrictions placed upon umpires by discouraging lets as well.