ITTF WTTTC Finals London 2026, 4/28-5/10

[Matteones]

That one game - slip from Wang Chuqin may become a one match - slip against stronger teams. And then China's ship would finally sink I think. And then I would finally see male China's team lose a world championship, long time waiting. Expectation feels melancholic and exciting at the same time.

 

[mvibritannia]

In legal terms, there are no qualifications for how much of the ball should be seen, so the right question is "Can you see the ball?" the answer is yes, because a part of the ball is the ball.
The question is not "Can you see the entirety of the ball?", in which case it should be stated fully in the rule.

With this logic you could turn it the other way around.

If a part of the ball is the ball as you said, then hiding a part of it is hiding the ball.

"it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server". Then it's an illegal serve.

As of right now the rules clearly need to be either modified or more precise.

 

[Matteones]

With this logic you could turn it the other way around.

If a part of the ball is the ball as you said, then hiding a part of it is hiding the ball.

"it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server". Then it's an illegal serve.

As of right now the rules clearly need to be either modified or more precise.

No, turning it around is not formally correct, I will try to explain in this way then:

If you can see even 1% of the ball, you see the ball.
If you hide 99% of the ball, you can still see the ball. Hiding needs 0% of the ball to be there to be true.

To see the ball, 1% is enough. To hide the ball you need to hide all of it, or you still see it in reality.
When your 2 y.o. kid hides behind the courtain and you see the feet coming out of the bottom, you see him. You can trick yourself into thinking you don't see him if you want, but that's what it is, a trick.

If this doesn't make you see the logic of it, well I give up

 

[NetProphet]

With this logic you could turn it the other way around.

If a part of the ball is the ball as you said, then hiding a part of it is hiding the ball.

"it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server". Then it's an illegal serve.

As of right now the rules clearly need to be either modified or more precise.

In legal terms there are precedents and accepted logics that can often govern.
The "thing" is often taken to mean the entirety of the thing but also there are instances where it would apply just as you've said.
It would be interesting to see official written explanation on this but it seems that you are correct and the Video review conclusion was that, as some of the ball could be seen at all times and because ALL of the ball could be seen at contact, the service is deemed legal. 🤷

The intricacies of all this are quite fascinating

 

[mvibritannia]

No you just assume hiding something means 100% hiding it which is a semantic error.

Something can be partially hidden.

If 50% of the ball is hidden the phrase below in a logical standpoint is not respected.

"it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server".

As or right now the rule is not clearly precise enough to determine this nuanced debate about: if 50% of the ball is not visible is the serve legal or legal.

But I agree if you can't understand the nuances here there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Apparently not everyone as a basic logic education.

 

[NetProphet]

No, turning it around is not formally correct, I will try to explain in this way then:

If you can see even 1% of the ball, you see the ball.
If you hide 99% of the ball, you can still see the ball.

To see the ball, 1% is enough. To hide the ball you need to hide all of it, or you still see it in reality.

If this doesn't make you see the logic of it, well I give up

It's certainly a grey area in all of this.
The rules exist as they are, no question there.
I think the new question becomes, how much of the ball has to be hidden in order for it to be seriously distracting for the opponent.
99% hidden is definitely going to make the service harder to read so the rule makers need to firmly decide what they want the rules to actually do. 🤷

 

[mvibritannia]

In legal terms there are precedents and accepted logics that can often govern.
The "thing" is often taken to mean the entirety of the thing but also there are instances where it would apply just as you've said.
It would be interesting to see official written explanation on this but it seems that you are correct and the Video review conclusion was that, as some of the ball could be seen at all times and because ALL of the ball could be seen at contact, the service is deemed legal. 🤷

The intricacies of all this are quite fascinating

In other WTT tournaments TTR reviews, this exact serve has been called illegal by the referee.

Which is why the rule needs to be written properly.

 

[Walalang]

Is China Team gonna even gonna play Xiang Peng? What's the point of picking him if you're not gonna play him? They're already in the quarterfinals and most likely facing South Korea again. If they were gonna play him, Yesterday against Australia would've been best

 

[Matteones]

No you just assume hiding something means 100% hiding it which is a semantic error.

Something can be partially hidden.

If 50% of the ball is hidden the phrase below in a logical standpoint is not respected.

"it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server".

As or right now the rule is not clearly precise enough to determine this nuanced debate about: if 50% of the ball is not visible is the serve legal or legal.
But I agree if you can't understand the nuances here there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Apparently not everyone as a basic logic education.

Hiding without any qualification (partially is a qualification) means, in our common language, that you cannot see any part of it.

Seeing without any qualification (entirely is a qualification) means, in our common language, that you can see any part of it.

But if you want to think, when your kid tries to hide behind the curtain and you see his feet coming out, that you don't see your kid, well you are welcome to think it. The kid certainly wants you to think it and eventually will understand his mistake, that to hide something, you need to hide all of it.

 

[NetProphet]

In other WTT tournaments TTR reviews, this exact serve has been called illegal by the referee.

Which is why the rule needs to be written properly.

Yeah, I'm not disputing that the rules are insufficient.
You can't have differing interpretation for partially hidden balls during service, that's farce.

But in THIS instance it was deemed to be ok.
So where is the written explanation from ITTF for this?

We can have opinions on what would make more sense or what would be preferred but without the written explanation for whats actually what you can't definitively say that you are correct and someone else is wrong.
As long as different outcomes are being produced from the same happening we have a real grey area 🤷

 

[Matteones]

I absolutely agree and advocated indeed from the start that the rule should be changed.

 

[NetProphet]

Is China Team gonna even gonna play Xiang Peng? What's the point of picking him if you're not gonna play him? They're already in the quarterfinals and most likely facing South Korea again. If they were gonna play him, Yesterday against Australia would've been best

After today I won't be surprised if he plays instead of LJK

 

[dewnyc]

Going to a deciding game between Doo and Yeh, and there could be another match after that

 

[Matteones]

After today I won't be surprised if he plays instead of LJK

Yes, I would not put him in anymore, but who knows. Wang Hao's job is the second toughest now in the Chinese team, right after Wang Chuqin's.

 

[dewnyc]

Has Cheng i-Ching not played at all solely because of that incident with security?

 

[mvibritannia]

But if you want to think, when your kid hides behind the curtain and you see his feet coming out, that you don't see your kid, well you are welcome to think it.

You've just literally used the term "hides" to describe something that is partially visible,

By your own logic and your own phrase, a ball that is 50% visible would be hidden.

Which would be against this rule "it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server".

I've never said that you could not see the kid is he was hiding behind the curtain, but still he is hiding.

That's my whole argument from the beginning.
The rule is not properly written and makes it subject to subjective interpretation, which is not good for this sport

 

[mvibritannia]

Yeah, I'm not disputing that the rules are insufficient.
You can't have differing interpretation for partially hidden balls during service, that's farce.

But in THIS instance it was deemed to be ok.
So where is the written explanation from ITTF for this?

We can have opinions on what would make more sense or what would be preferred but without the written explanation for whats actually what you can't definitively say that you are correct and someone else is wrong.
As long as different outcomes are being produced from the same happening we have a real grey area 🤷

I think you don't understand my take.

I'm saying as of right now, the way the rule is written

It's impossible to tell if the serve was legal or illegal, which is problematic.

I'm saying he is wrong in the logic used to say the serve was indeed "legal"

 

[dewnyc]

HKG-TPE going to a decider, further delaying FRA-POR men

 

[Matteones]

But if you want to think, when your kid hides behind the curtain and you see his feet coming out, that you don't see your kid, well you are welcome to think it.

You've just literally used the term "hides" to describe something that is partially visible,

By your own logic and your own phrase, a ball that is 50% visible would be hidden.

Which would be against this rule "it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server".

I've never said that you could not see the kid is he was hiding behind the curtain, but still he is hiding.

That's my whole argument from the beginning.
The rule is not properly written and makes it subject to subjective interpretation, which is not good for this sport

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, I have corrected it "when your kid tries to hide" is the correct form.
Anyway I see that we won't reach an agreement, so indeed, as you and I both suggested, the rule should be changed so that this confusion doesn't happen.

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

Wow... YYT beats DHK 3-2 to take the team match to a decider. It will be the youngsters Su Tsz Tung (HKG) vs Peng Yu Han (Taiwan)