Simon Gauzy and Shibaev Bust Up at Europe Top 16

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Mar 2013
910
1,174
2,593
Read 3 reviews
Here is the rule:

2.02.01 The net assembly shall consist of the net, its suspension and the supporting posts, including the clamps attaching them to the table.

This is an unusual case - this one crops up mostly when people hit into the net support and the ball bounces off and lands on the opponent's side of the table. Which is still a legal ball of course.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Jan 2017
815
645
1,666
Read 2 reviews
and I think you could consider Gauzy's behaviour unfair in this case IF he knew that it hit the net post and still wanted the point... But I can't tell what he saw but I can understand that Shibaev was angry if he thought that way.
 
This user has no status.
gauzy saw the ball cross the net and hit something solid, so naturally he thought it hit the table. but again, that is beside the point. shibaev gave him a lousy handshake because the two have a history, so being frustrated with shibaev in general, his serves during the match and also what he thought was an unfair call - gauzy lost his cool.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NextLevel
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Feb 2017
125
123
290
Suppose A plays to B a ball that hits the net, falls and bounces from that part of the clamp that's over the table onto the floor. Whose point?
Easy: A has not done a good return (did not hit the table). B gets the point. (Even if it was a service it would not be a let, because A served net and out).
 
says ok, I will go back and make sure you have access. Be...
says ok, I will go back and make sure you have access. Be...
Well-Known Member
Nov 2010
3,568
5,931
10,356
Read 8 reviews
It's one of the most misinterpreted rules in TT. The posts and assembly are considered part of the net, so it was NOT Gauzy's point. I was surprised at his reaction - I expect pros to know this - so all I can think is that he couldn't see the ball impact and went from the noise alone. The replay shows that the ump was right.

Yep. I was wrong about this. Just went to check Handbook for Match Officials among other things.

No more sarcastic remarks from me about people not knowing the rules.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Boogar and izra
says ok, I will go back and make sure you have access. Be...
says ok, I will go back and make sure you have access. Be...
Well-Known Member
Nov 2010
3,568
5,931
10,356
Read 8 reviews
Here is the rule:

2.02.01The net assembly shall consist of the net, its suspension and the supporting posts, including the clamps attaching them to the table.

This is an unusual case - this one crops up mostly when people hit into the net support and the ball bounces off and lands on the opponent's side of the table. Which is still a legal ball of course.

yes that is it.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Feb 2017
125
123
290
Let's stretch this one some more.
Suppose the ball on hitting the net post had bounced upwards. Shibaev hit the ball onto Gauzy's side of the table. Gauzy fails to retrieve. Whose point?
Haha! Fun! Then AS is hitting a "volley" (a ball that has not hit the table yet...). That is tennis, not table tennis. AS is obstructing the ball, and it is SG's point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baal
This user has no status.
The ball has gone in the air. AS hit the ball whilst it was not over the table. How can you say it's an obstruction?

if he hit it while it wasn't over the table then it is clearly shibaev's point before he even hit it. it's the same as if the ball that gauzy hit flew over the table without ever touching anything.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Feb 2017
125
123
290
The ball has gone in the air. AS hit the ball whilst it was not over the table. How can you say it's an obstruction?
If it was not over the table/travelling to the table - it is of course different. Agree.
 
Top