Back to Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #1

    Let rules

    Isn't a let the receivers call to make, regardless of how obvious it is?

    For instance, if it is not allowed for the server to make the call, can I smack the snot out of the ball and only call it a let after my shot tanks into the net, or goes long. If it hit for a clear winner, it's my point, because it was my call to make. Right?

    I feel ripped off when this happens if it was a barely noticeable let, because it's not the server's call to make!

    I suppose to be fair, I should be required to make the call before striking the ball, but none the less, if I do decide to play a let, aren't I allowed to?

  2. Attitude is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Advanced TTD Member 140 251
    A
    Attitude is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Advanced TTD Member 251 140
    #2
    Quote Originally Posted by jddavid
    Isn't a let the receivers call to make, regardless of how obvious it is?

    For instance, if it is not allowed for the server to make the call, can I smack the snot out of the ball and only call it a let after my shot tanks into the net, or goes long. If it hit for a clear winner, it's my point, because it was my call to make. Right?

    I feel ripped off when this happens if it was a barely noticeable let, because it's not the server's call to make!

    I suppose to be fair, I should be required to make the call before striking the ball, but none the less, if I do decide to play a let, aren't I allowed to?

    According to rule 2.9.1.1 https://documents.ittf.sport/sites/d..._version_1.pdf the let is pretty easy declared. If it is a net on serve and play on with it you cant call on let anymore. Same goes for being not ready. If you are not, then you shall not play the ball at all.

    The only thing that is pretty unusualy outside of pro matches is the fact that let on serve (net) is often declared by the players and acknowledged by the umpires. That is not often the case in lower divisions where the umpire is a player itself. Rough situation sometimes especially without knowledge and sportsmanshit on either side.


  3. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Attitude

    According to rule 2.9.1.1 https://documents.ittf.sport/sites/d..._version_1.pdf the let is pretty easy declared. If it is a net on serve and play on with it you cant call on let anymore. Same goes for being not ready. If you are not, then you shall not play the ball at all.

    The only thing that is pretty unusualy outside of pro matches is the fact that let on serve (net) is often declared by the players and acknowledged by the umpires. That is not often the case in lower divisions where the umpire is a player itself. Rough situation sometimes especially without knowledge and sportsmanshit on either side.

    Yes, I assumed it should be called before striking the ball, but am I correct that as the receiver it is my call to make, and an active and valid play if I decide to play it? I think that should be the case, especially when it barely grazes the net.


  4. SFF_lib is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 944 1,519
    SFF_lib's Avatar
    SFF_lib is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 1,519 944
    #4
    That’s a good question!! I will wait for someone to enlighten me.

    On a side note, if someone serves and my hit went straight to the net because the ball is soaking wet, can I call a let?

  5. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #5
    Quote Originally Posted by SFF_lib
    That’s a good question!! I will wait for someone to enlighten me.

    On a side note, if someone serves and my hit went straight to the net because the ball is soaking wet, can I call a let?

    You mean like if I stick the ball in my sweaty arm pits when you're not looking, and that causes you to tank it into the net?

    I'm pretty sure you can complain, but until you get a third party to examine the evidence and conclude that the ball smells exactly like my arm pit beyond any reasonable doubt, it is just speculation on your part and I win the point.


  6. yoass is offline
    says modestly attempting kōhaiship of Jeul-Tak
     
    Master TTD Member 2,512 2,636
    yoass's Avatar
    yoass is offline
    says modestly attempting kōhaiship of Jeul-Tak
     
    Master TTD Member 2,636 2,512
    #6
    A wet ball leaves a wet spot after contact. And it really happens, no armpits involved; wet hands, sweat drops falling on ball, table…

    Players commonly glance at their bat after an inexplicable miss, where the ball just fell off instead of getting gripped and coaxed into trajectory. Many reasons for that, but checking for a wet stain is one of the more rational ones.

  7. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #7
    That would still fall under the perview of my answer, since a third party like a referee would be needed to decide. My guess is that it would never be an issue at higher levels because how often they obsessively wipe their hands on the table to avoid exactly that, and I suspect it is the server who is more concerned, considering he wants to be able to generate as much spin as possible.

    At the club level I would say it should be a let if the wet evidence is obvious, but then most people let minor rule infractions slide in the spirit of it just being friendly competition with nothing on the line.
    ​​​​
    ​​​​​​Illegal serves are the same thing when they are minor vioations. Nobody corrects them because it would be unnecessary confrontation, so they persist. That's why I suppose it makes no difference if I'm right about it being my call to make as the receiver, since I'm not going to argue it anyway.

    I do have a mind to let my arm linger in the air, hiding the ball contact, or mimic whatever other minor serve violation I see though, because fair is fair.

  8. UpSideDownCarl is offline
    says I like to hit Heavy Topspin
     
    Super Moderator 16,481 15,054
    UpSideDownCarl's Avatar
    UpSideDownCarl is offline
    says I like to hit Heavy Topspin
     
    Super Moderator 15,054 16,481
    #8
    Here:

    2.9 A LET
    2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
    2.9.1.1 if in service the ball touches the net assembly, provided the service is otherwise correct or the ball is obstructed by the receiver or his or her partner;

    This does not say anything about WHO CALLS THE LET OR DECIDES IF IT IS A LET. It says: if the ball touches the net, but lands on the way a good serve would, IT IS A LET. Therefore, either the server, receiver or the umpire could call a let. If the ball touches the net, it should be a let.

    In the rules, other considerations, like, if play is interfered with in some way, having nothing to do with the serve, either player or the umpire could be calling a let as well.

    So, I am not sure your idea that you get to call a let based on the idea of whether you make a good or bad return on a serve. This is silly. Ideally the let is called before you play the ball. And if it is a let but the receiver is trying to play the ball, the server can raise his hand and move away from the table thereby CALLING A LET.

    But if you play the ball as if it is a good serve, even though it is a let, I am not sure you are who gets to call if it is a let after you mess up and lose the point either. That is called bad sportsmanship.

    The Following 3 Users Like UpSideDownCarl's Post:

    dajdosta, DukeGaGa and 1 other


  9. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #9
    Quote Originally Posted by UpSideDownCarl
    Here:

    2.9 A LET
    2.9.1 The rally shall be a let:
    2.9.1.1 if in service the ball touches the net assembly, provided the service is otherwise correct or the ball is obstructed by the receiver or his or her partner;

    This does not say anything about WHO CALLS THE LET OR DECIDES IF IT IS A LET. It says: if the ball touches the net, but lands on the way a good serve would, IT IS A LET. Therefore, either the server, receiver or the umpire could call a let. If the ball touches the net, it should be a let.

    In the rules, other considerations, like, if play is interfered with in some way, having nothing to do with the serve, either player or the umpire could be calling a let as well.

    So, I am not sure your idea that you get to call a let based on the idea of whether you make a good or bad return on a serve. This is silly. Ideally the let is called before you play the ball. And if it is a let but the receiver is trying to play the ball, the server can raise his hand and move away from the table thereby CALLING A LET.

    But if you play the ball as if it is a good serve, even though it is a let, I am not sure you are who gets to call if it is a let after you mess up and lose the point either. That is called bad sportsmanship.

    Yes, as you see above we already established the silly idea of hitting the ball and only calling the let when my shot misses wouldn't work, since the let should be called before hitting it, but sometimes when the ball barely grazes the net, and only the server notices, I feel ripped off if my return was a winner.

    I say we need an electronic device like they have in tennis, and since I just now thought of it I hereby lay claim to the patent rights.


  10. yoass is offline
    says modestly attempting kōhaiship of Jeul-Tak
     
    Master TTD Member 2,512 2,636
    yoass's Avatar
    yoass is offline
    says modestly attempting kōhaiship of Jeul-Tak
     
    Master TTD Member 2,636 2,512
    #10
    I say we just play, have fun and don't bother ourselves all that much with who gets which points. Because it doesn't really matter all that much who wins, but obsessing over it does impede the fun.

    The Following User Likes yoass's Post:

    UpSideDownCarl


  11. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #11
    That's why foot stomping needs to be banned, since it is nonsense to make all that fuss over a mesningless ball slapping contest.

    When I invent my patent pending let dinger, I plan to make it sensitive enough to go off every time one of those scrubs who thinks they're a foot stomping professional stomps on a serve.

    Also we need a way to ban grunting before our sport becomes the laughing stock Mariah Sheripova and all those other loud mouths made tennis into!

  12. UpSideDownCarl is offline
    says I like to hit Heavy Topspin
     
    Super Moderator 16,481 15,054
    UpSideDownCarl's Avatar
    UpSideDownCarl is offline
    says I like to hit Heavy Topspin
     
    Super Moderator 15,054 16,481
    #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jddavid

    Yes, as you see above we already established the silly idea of hitting the ball and only calling the let when my shot misses wouldn't work, since the let should be called before hitting it, but sometimes when the ball barely grazes the net, and only the server notices, I feel ripped off if my return was a winner.

    But your idea that the only person who calls the let is the receiver of the serve is part of what is silly. Whoever calls let, calls let. Could be the server, the receiver or an umpire.
    Setup 1: Blade by Nate: Vortex Spin Machine, FH Evolution MX-K, BH Evolution FX-P
    Setup 2: OSP Virtuoso Plus, FH Rasanter R 48, BH Rasanter R 48
    Spin is Everything

  13. Dipak1974 is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Established TTD Member 63 183
    Dipak1974's Avatar
    Dipak1974 is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Established TTD Member 183 63
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by UpSideDownCarl
    But your idea that the only person who calls the let is the receiver of the serve is part of what is silly. Whoever calls let, calls let. Could be the server, the receiver or an umpire.

    Totally agree with this, it’s a let regardless of who calls it and specially when it’s faint. From a sportsmanship view if your opponent calls it then u accept as long as they call it quickly enough u don’t really have scope to argue. And if umpire calls it then regardless u don’t argue. There have been many instances when my opponent either serving or receiving has called let but then asked for mine or umpires confirmation and my answer always is you thought it was a let and called it so fair enough it’s a let.

    The Following 4 Users Like Dipak1974's Post:

    dajdosta, lodro and 2 others


  14. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #14
    I disagree, and think it was a perfectly reasonable question. Really the rule about questions is that there is no such thing as a bad question, so I call foul on you. Point, set, match, I win! Period!

    Besides that, I aknowledge that whomever posted the official rule on the subject answered my perfectly reasonable question, and the answer is that you are correct according to the official rules, but if you consider other let types like the wet ball thing, I think you'd have to agree that it'd be odd for the sweaty ball wetter to stop play at some point due to the moisture he put on the ball.

    Or an even better example is if I stop play because a ball rolls or bounces near your feet from the adjacent court. Is that really my call to make?

    Again, I assume I would be allowed to by the rules, but if the ball wasn't really in your way, and you were about to win the point, wouldn't you be tempted to say so, as if it were your call to make?

    If you did, you'd be wrong, because anyone can call a let.

  15. UpSideDownCarl is offline
    says I like to hit Heavy Topspin
     
    Super Moderator 16,481 15,054
    UpSideDownCarl's Avatar
    UpSideDownCarl is offline
    says I like to hit Heavy Topspin
     
    Super Moderator 15,054 16,481
    #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jddavid
    If it hit for a clear winner, it's my point, because it was my call to make. Right?
    Is it really a question or a rhetorical question where you are asserting that it is your call to make and nobody else matters.

    If a ball rolls across your side of the court, it is in my field of vision. Therefore, while it could be a danger to you without you realizing it, it also could distract me.

    But....I don't need to discuss this with you. You seem to want to win even in discussing something simple like this. So, I am good with that. You win. Everything should be decided based on whether you win the point or not. If you win the point, it is not a let. Any point you lose, it should be a let instead.

    The Following User Likes UpSideDownCarl's Post:

    PingBirdPong

    Setup 1: Blade by Nate: Vortex Spin Machine, FH Evolution MX-K, BH Evolution FX-P
    Setup 2: OSP Virtuoso Plus, FH Rasanter R 48, BH Rasanter R 48
    Spin is Everything

  16. Der_Echte is online now
    says Grand Consultant to the Office of the Goon Squad
     
    Master TTD Member 11,425 11,218
    Der_Echte's Avatar
    Der_Echte is online now
    says Grand Consultant to the Office of the Goon Squad
     
    Master TTD Member 11,218 11,425

    User Info Menu

    #16
    Tell 'em to tell it to da Judge... or to da Goon Squad.
    President, Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club. Hit us up on TTD or Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/koreaforeignttc

    Janitor at NexyUSA TT Equipment Shop
    http://www.nexyusa.com

    View our Lame Nexy USA corporate FB page
    http://www.facebook.com/nexyusa

  17. jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 11 59
    J
    jddavid is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    This user has been banned. 59 11

    User Info Menu


    Jan 2022
    United States
    59
    11
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #17
    Quote Originally Posted by UpSideDownCarl
    Is it really a question or a rhetorical question where you are asserting that it is your call to make and nobody else matters.

    If a ball rolls across your side of the court, it is in my field of vision. Therefore, while it could be a danger to you without you realizing it, it also could distract me.

    Ok, I'll give you one point for noticing that I worded some parts of my question rhetorically, and you are right that it was more of a rant in the assumption that the rules are too vague to have defined it, which they were, but I get two points for actually hoping someone on here would find something in the rules confirming my belief that it should be my call, so I win against you regardless if you already conceeded defeat as if taking the high road.

    To your point about the distraction ball, you can't tie up the score with that pointless argument, because I call a let on the basis of you missing the point.

    The (argument) point had me about to lose the (game) point, when the distracting ball rolled near (and let's say behind) the opponents feet, (without him even seeing it). The ball was far enough behind him so as to not cause him any danger, and it was a clear winner, so what exactly was the ball distracting me (or you) from other than losing the point?

    Nobody would do that in a club setting, so in that narrow example, it shouldn't be my call, regardless that it can be.


  18. dajdosta is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Advanced TTD Member 107 205
    D
    dajdosta is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Advanced TTD Member 205 107

    User Info Menu


    Jun 2019
    Croatia
    205
    107
    100
    Read 0 Reviews
    #18
    And what if your opponent doesn't have a winning shot but you're in the middle of a rally and you see that the ball rolled near his feet and he isn't aware of that? Is that a let and who has the right to call it?

  19. NDH is offline
    says UK Premier Standard Player
     
    Senior TTD Member 1,112 992
    NDH's Avatar
    NDH is offline
    says UK Premier Standard Player
     
    Senior TTD Member 992 1,112
    #19
    Quote Originally Posted by jddavid

    Ok, I'll give you one point for noticing that I worded some parts of my question rhetorically, and you are right that it was more of a rant in the assumption that the rules are too vague to have defined it, which they were, but I get two points for actually hoping someone on here would find something in the rules confirming my belief that it should be my call, so I win against you regardless if you already conceeded defeat as if taking the high road.

    To your point about the distraction ball, you can't tie up the score with that pointless argument, because I call a let on the basis of you missing the point.

    The (argument) point had me about to lose the (game) point, when the distracting ball rolled near (and let's say behind) the opponents feet, (without him even seeing it). The ball was far enough behind him so as to not cause him any danger, and it was a clear winner, so what exactly was the ball distracting me (or you) from other than losing the point?

    Nobody would do that in a club setting, so in that narrow example, it shouldn't be my call, regardless that it can be.

    I smell a troll.... But I'll play!

    This is the foot stomping thread all over again. You are arguing about something that doesn't matter to you.... But seemingly want to try and prove a point? Although quite what point you are trying to prove, is anyone's guess at this point.

    In your example (game point, clear winner..... But you can see a ball behind them)...... You have every right to call a let the minute you see the ball distract you from the point you are playing (even if the umpire or opponent hasn't seen it).

    Now, if this is as your opponent is playing the winning shot that you have no chance of getting..... I think it's fair to say everyone would ignore the let call (including the person who called it), and the game would be over.

    If you call let just after you've hit your previous shot (so before the opponent has a chance to play his shot), then that's a fair let in my book - It's early enough to call, even if you are likely going to lose the point - At that stage of the point, it's not a guarantee.

    At ANY sort of local level match (where you may have an umpire, but it's not a semi pro or pro setting), it really comes down to common sense and sportsmanship.

    In the UK, I reckon more people are TOO nice, and won't call a let, even if something distracted them (another ball, another player etc).

    We don't like to use excuses (at least, most of the people I've seen, don't).

    But we also queue for hours with no sign of being disgruntled..... So there is that as well....

    Anyway, if you feel the need to argue about lets and foot stomping in a hypothetical sense (because neither seem to actually affect you), I would hazard a guess that it's the opposition who are going to have the problems with their opponent..... Not you 😁

    The Following 4 Users Like NDH's Post:

    DukeGaGa, jammmail and 2 others


  20. DukeGaGa is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Advanced TTD Member 174 390
    DukeGaGa's Avatar
    DukeGaGa is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Advanced TTD Member 390 174
    #20
    As a previously registered USATT umpire, I don't see why anyone, who's involved in the game, that is or isn't allowed to call a net serve let. It's just plain and simple, if you are either player, or umpire, or referee of said game, and you observed a net serve, then you can call let.
    Last edited by DukeGaGa; 01-26-2022 at 09:27 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Create a new Topic:
Title is required.