Opinions wanted on disputed point and lack of officiating

Der_Echte said:

Really? What leads you to believe that? He was usin' LPs when he committed the crime?

Nah, I also would have given the point to the chopper, he was inside the corners by a few inches.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

should the ball hit from top down (being inside the line), and hitting the edge, the ball will go side ways much more, or even upwards

From the angle, it looks like it was the chopper's (Li Jian) point.

One thing about Li Jian is that he is an extremely honorable player. I once saw him serve into the net (in a very spectacular way) on purpose after he broke the ball on the previous shot and the point was declared a let. He hit the ball way away from the table and I guess he thought he deserved to lose the point. So on his next serve he served into the net by serving and making the ball roll from his side of the table into the net. The ball basically didn't bounce and it was a pretty cool thing to see. With that being said, if Li Jian is arguing the point hit the table, odds are it hit the table.

Der_Echte said:

Nah, I also would have given the point to the chopper, he was inside the corners by a few inches.

Click to expand...

I am actually not sure that you can see what you say you are seeing as a result of the angle that the video was filmed from.

If the footage was straight on, you would be able to tell. But look where he was when he served.

An important key in seeing where he actually is is to look at the lines on the table: the side lines and the center line. Look at the angle of them. If he was behind the BH side of the table, with the distance he moved back, he would have to appear nearer to the center line. Again, this is because of the angle of the camera and this is demonstrated by the lines on the table. If, after serving, he went straight back, he would look like he was going back parallel to those lines. Which would mean he would appear to move towards the center of the table. But, him being 2-3 feet back, and looking like he is behind the BH side means he is further to the side than it would appear from this angle. Also, look at the angle of the looper's shot. Then look at the amount of side kick.

He serves from outside the side of the table and moves back to prepare himself for a cross court shot from the looper. Then, when the ball kicks further left, he leans further to the left to make the shot.

The camera angle is creating an optical illusion for the people who think they are seeing his racket behind the back line within the side lines.

I actually slowed down the moment where the ball crosses over the net. I don't think the ball goes over. It looks like it goes around the net. And that would also make sense given the angle of the camera.

And when it hits the side, there is no edge shot that would continue the trajectory the ball goes after touching the side. The trajectory of the ball is very close to not changed at all by grazing the side. Watch the trajectory below the table. Pause one frame at a time.

That ball did not touch the edge. I have watched closely enough now to be pretty darn sure.

So, what Tony said.

I took a straight edge and laid it in line with the chopper's BH side line. By the time he is going into the chopping motion, the only part of his body near that edge is the outside of the chopper's right hip.

Try it yourself. That will show you where he would be if he was behind the table and it will show you where he was when he took the shot. The end line will extend all the way to the barriers at the same angle.

By the time he takes the shot, the chopper's right leg and hip are directly behind the BH side line. The rest of his body is outside the side line. So, he is definitely not taking that shot from over the table and my assessment looking at the ball as it passed the net is correct. That ball never goes over the net. It is to the BH side of the net. That is an around the net shot that catches the side.

langel said:

For me its a side.
If you look it carefully on 0.25 speed and you follow the geometry, its well visible that the chopper takes the ball more than a rocket length aside from the table, the counter clockwise spin doesn't seam so heavy to take the ball inside the table, the ball trajectory doesn't seam to go inside the table, and the ball trajectory doesn't seam to change after its contact with the table at least a little bit vertically.

Click to expand...

My observations were the same as Carl's.

When somthing looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, sounds like a Duck, we call it a Duck.

Everyone is doing this analysis taking minutes or hours. We do not have a proper angle down the sideline to see impact point. We can judge impact point by judging where his hip is and measuring his arm length given the angle.

An umpire has to make a call with what he or she sees from an even worse angle... and call it right away.

There are no multiple umpires in position looking at lines like MLB baseball.

The simple rationale tinykin uses to umpire a point in this situation is practical and will give you the right call nearly every time. Easy to consistently apply with an easy to understand principle.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Der_Echte said:

Everyone is doing this analysis taking minutes or hours. We do not have a proper angle down the sideline to see impact point. We can judge impact point by judging where his hip is and measuring his arm length given the angle.

An umpire has to make a call with what he or she sees from an even worse angle... and call it right away.

There are no multiple umpires in position looking at lines like MLB baseball.

The simple rationale tinykin uses to umpire a point in this situation is practical and will give you the right call nearly every time. Easy to consistently apply with an easy to understand principle.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I can't agree with the @tinykin's principle at all.

If the player takes the ball inside the table and the ball hits the table, it can be an edge with no side spin and /in the case/ with counter clockwise spin, but with clockwise spin it could be a side.
If the player takes the ball aside of the table it can be both side or edge, so flight direction, trajectory and after hit change of trajectory have to be observed.
A good umpire would have good experience to judge propperly, simple narrow solutions are often wrong.

I personally have NEVER seen a point where the ball hits the back side of the table. on the sides yes but it's just genrally unlikely that it will hit the back side. the very fact the ball is moving away from the chopper is why for me it is likely the choppers point.
To hit the back side the ball needs to move towards the chopper after clearing without touching any edges while not impossible its unlikely.

But also bieng there and having a better view means that may have happened, I cannot really say for sure especially as it was a backspin ball.

Well Langel,

Der_Echte is just slap out of any alcohol to toast ya, but I just drank a can of sparkling water if that counts.

I promise I did not consume any mushrooms recently that were grown in California... even if I live in California.

passifid said:

I personally have NEVER seen a point where the ball hits the back side of the table. on the sides yes but it's just genrally unlikely that it will hit the back side. the very fact the ball is moving away from the chopper is why for me it is likely the choppers point.
To hit the back side the ball needs to move towards the chopper after clearing without touching any edges while not impossible its unlikely.

But also bieng there and having a better view means that may have happened, I cannot really say for sure especially as it was a backspin ball.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about. It hits the side side of the table. Nowhere near the back.

If it did hit edge, it caught the edge on the side line. Not the end line.

UpSideDownCarl said:

What on earth are you talking about. It hits the side side of the table. Nowhere near the back.

If it did hit edge, it caught the edge on the side line. Not the end line.

Click to expand...

another reason I am fully unqualified to judge this point

When Der_Echte said it was an edge then it was an edge . I do not see how it can be a side or edge with arguments trying to analyze a 3D with 2D frames. Nevertheless when it is not so clear umpire can let them play again which they did.