Timo Boll Insane Dive! In or Out?

Was this Timo Boll's point?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • Total voters
    24
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,274
17,739
44,286
Read 17 reviews
comparing this with hawkeye is pointless since the technologies have nothing in common. That's like saying "sandwich you're eating can misfire because rifles do all the time", makes no sense. Sounds that travel within a solid medium have orders of magnitude higher ampltiude than those traveling through air, if you pick them up with a microphone directly in contact with the said solid. If you hit the stand holding a mic it will peak like crazy, never in a million years would it produce a false positive. Every bounce of the ball will produce a spike and that's about it, you simply observe if there's a spike at the moment when the ball passes the edge, that simple. Hawkeye's error is due to the camera resolution being limited and visual recognition techniques having statistical nature, none of that is present when you're dealing with sound.

If the ball hits the side vs the top of the table, is there a distinction in the sound values as well?
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Nov 2017
1,012
1,224
5,119
If the ball hits the side vs the top of the table, is there a distinction in the sound values as well?
no, that case can not be dealt with using that technique. However, the "does it bounce upwards or sideways?" technique does the job just fine. Most of the controversial incidents, like a couple from the recent women's World Cup final, are regular edge balls where no one can tell if it touched the table at all.
 
This user has no status.
No no no;) after the last net in your sequence there was one more bounce on table construction, see the slow motion once again. That's the reason why ball went so far from the table (from the net construction only it would go straight down or towards Timo) and that's why the ball went to LGY's score.

oh i see, that makes sense.
 
says Fair Play first
says Fair Play first
Well-Known Member
Jan 2012
1,285
406
1,760
Yes, yes, the common consensus is the ball did touched Boll's table surface only once, and the umpire made a misjudge.

Assistant umpire was in a better position and he ought to say a word on this case. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suga D
says Any body knows when will be the next Asia Pacific...
says Any body knows when will be the next Asia Pacific...
Member
Sep 2016
336
162
503
it was so clear the ball hit the net first then the table and last the metal part of the net clip. It means it touch Tim side twice before Tim return the ball
 
  • Like
Reactions: JST and NextLevel
says Aging is a killer
it was so clear the ball hit the net first then the table and last the metal part of the net clip. It means it touch Tim side twice before Tim return the ball

If the circumstances were as you described, then it is Timo's point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suga D
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,274
17,739
44,286
Read 17 reviews
You are wrong. Ask another umpire if you wish to challenge me on the issue.

Not really in the mood to challenge. I have never checked the precise rule on hitting the net twice so you may very well be right. It all depend on whether what the ball contacted was considered part of the net. And the umpires during the match made their judgment, so they are not infallible either, but they disagree with you.
 
This user has no status.
The crucial question is whether the ball touched the metal base of the table with the second contact or part of the net mounting. For me it looks like it was the metal base, considering how the ball changed its trajectory. Therefore point for LGY. If it had touched part of the net it was Timo's point. There can be as much contacts with the net as you want, the point goes on. There is only one contact with the table allowed though.

With a regular table without that metal base the case would be clear :p
 

JST

This user has no status.

JST

This user has no status.
Member
Nov 2017
280
191
1,259
Btw. if there was second contact of the net and if that is allowed is irrelevant. There was contact of the table construction afterwards (check the video in slow-mo or check the earlier analysis in this thread) hence point was over before Timo hit the ball. Anyway it was incredible effort and great point to watch, many times;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NextLevel

JST

This user has no status.

JST

This user has no status.
Member
Nov 2017
280
191
1,259
The crucial question is whether the ball touched the metal base of the table with the second contact or part of the net mounting. For me it looks like it was the metal base, considering how the ball changed its trajectory. Therefore point for LGY. If it had touched part of the net it was Timo's point. There can be as much contacts with the net as you want, the point goes on. There is only one contact with the table allowed though.

With a regular table without that metal base the case would be clear :p

I 100% agree with all you wrote and I would like to blame DONIC for their unusual table construction. We could have ball of the year!;)
 
says Aging is a killer
Not really in the mood to challenge. I have never checked the precise rule on hitting the net twice so you may very well be right. It all depend on whether what the ball contacted was considered part of the net. And the umpires during the match made their judgment, so they are not infallible either, but they disagree with you.

I was replying to Jamessmith description above. That sequence is one of those more obscure circumstances. I only picked up on it when someone asked this question a couple of years ago here on TTD.
Basically, ball hits A's side of the table then somehow reverses direction to bounce on the net (clamp forms part of the net assembly). The rally in this circumstance is still alive. If A then hits ball for a winner, it's A's point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Suga D
says Aging is a killer
The net assembly

The crucial question is whether the ball touched the metal base of the table with the second contact or part of the net mounting. For me it looks like it was the metal base, considering how the ball changed its trajectory. Therefore point for LGY. If it had touched part of the net it was Timo's point. There can be as much contacts with the net as you want, the point goes on. There is only one contact with the table allowed though.
With a regular table without that metal base the case would be clear :p

It does not matter, The metal base and net mounting are all part of the net assembly.

2.2.1
The net assembly shall consist of the net, its suspension and the supporting
posts, including the clamps attaching them to the table.
 
Top