Simon Gauzy and Shibaev Bust Up at Europe Top 16

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
Shibaev was being a prick like he always is and provoked gauzy. He laughs ironically after the handshake and says "sorry" when the crowd boo's to irritate gauzy like he doesnot even care. After that you can hear him say

"after match if you want, we can speak" in a provocative manner walking towards gauzy. And then simon lost it, I feel for Gauzy he shouldnt over react (he said you are "f****ing shit", with a french accent that was hilarious) but Shibaev was clearly intending to irritate Simon, just like he did against Dima
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boogar
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
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?

Shibaev's

in both occasions :p net post is not considered part of the table! I myself had to read the rules over and over, there is clearly a misconception even amongst pro's whether it should count or not.
 
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
Ah the controversial "paddle rule" of my youth.

By the way whatever Retsina TTFrenzy was drinking this afternoon, I want some.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TTFrenzy
says Aging is a killer
OK, I can' resist. One more scenario.
Suppose this happened at the start of rally. That is, Gauzy serves. The ball hits the net, then the post, and bounces upwards towards the table on Shibaev's side. Shibaev hits the ball onto the table on Gauzy's side. Gauzy fails to retrieve. Whose point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TTFrenzy
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
OK, I can' resist. One more scenario.
Suppose this happened at the start of rally. That is, Gauzy serves. The ball hits the net, then the post, and bounces upwards towards the table on Shibaev's side. Shibaev hits the ball onto the table on Gauzy's side. Gauzy fails to retrieve. Whose point?

hahah,well

since you are not indicating a second bounce then its gauzy's point. If it idoes bounce on shibaev's side then its a let because it hit the top of the net. The net post is also part of the net. Give me more !
 
  • Like
Reactions: akoozab
says Aging is a killer
This is one of the most significant but obscure rules in table tennis. I say obscure as the vast majority of TT players are unaware of it.
The answer is that it's a let.
That is, a receiver on trying to return a serve that has hit the net, cannot obstruct (or volley, as in tennis) the ball. It's always a let.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Feb 2012
2,010
1,441
4,714
Read 1 reviews
This is one of the most significant but obscure rules in table tennis. I say obscure as the vast majority of TT players are unaware of it.
The answer is that it's a let.
That is, a receiver on trying to return a serve that has hit the net, cannot obstruct (or volley, as in tennis) the ball. It's always a let.


well
u certainly got me there

2.9 A LET2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:2.9.1.1 if in service the ball touches the net assembly, provided the service isotherwise correct or the ball is obstructed by the receiver or his or herpartner;

But wait a minute,how can the receiver obstruct the ball ? what does the 2nd sentence actually mean? That if the receiver obstructs the ball then its not a let but a point?
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Feb 2017
125
123
290
OK, I can' resist. One more scenario.
Suppose this happened at the start of rally. That is, Gauzy serves. The ball hits the net, then the post, and bounces upwards towards the table on Shibaev's side. Shibaev hits the ball onto the table on Gauzy's side. Gauzy fails to retrieve. Whose point?
Let. Obstruction in service is let. Obstruction in free play is lost point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tinykin
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Jan 2013
53
67
125
In interview in french, he said he thank ball touched edge of the table but was not sure. He got impression of an edge. But he thinks cold, ball is outside the table.

And he said, he was not completely convince himself of it, that why he did not really contest decision.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Aug 2016
869
1,202
2,883
All I know is this was awesome. The video made me chuckle.

I don't know where it started but you have two guys, who don't like each other and it got heated. Happens all the time in professional sports. Little bad blood between competitors makes for more interesting story lines.

No big deal.
 
says Do you guys have streaks where you are just not playing...
says Do you guys have streaks where you are just not playing...
Member
Jun 2011
383
164
1,095
Read 6 reviews
I see everyone calling Shibaev a prick. Maybe he is. BUT SO IS GAUZY. He is in fact a well known prick - I wont elaborate on how I know the details.
I suggest that people be more objective and fair in their observations/name calling - you can tell Gauzy was looking for trouble - he was waiting for shibaev as he was walking back after taking his towel. So no need to go overboard in taking sides - plus, Shibaev beat both Dima, AND Gauzy - fair and square.
 
says Do you guys have streaks where you are just not playing...
says Do you guys have streaks where you are just not playing...
Member
Jun 2011
383
164
1,095
Read 6 reviews
Yes, IF it then hits/lands on the table, is it clearly did in your example. That was not the case in the match today. The ball hit the post, and then flew off.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Oct 2016
19
18
40
Yes, IF it then hits/lands on the table, is it clearly did in your example. That was not the case in the match today. The ball hit the post, and then flew off.

I know. I just put this to show the clamp is considered net, but not table. If they consider the clamp as a table, umpire need to give the point directly to mizutani in my example, because it hit the clamp from the wrong side. But the game went on.

The whole net set, even the screws under clamps considered as net.
 
Top