"Not clear" serve is еxplicitly prohibited by the Rule 2.6

[igorponger]

"NOT CLEAR" SERVE SHOULD BE PENALIZED WITH AN IRON HAND.

Если кто не знает, судья имеет право штрафануть любую сомнительную подачу. Например, подброс 18--20 см практически нельзя отличить от подброса 16 см. Это суть "сомнительная подача" и есть такие смелые и добросоаестные судьи кто сразу банит такую подачу без разговоров.


ITTF RULES 2.6 A GOOD SERVICE
2.6.6 It is the responsibility of the player to serve so that the umpire or the assistant umpire can be satisfied that he or she complies with the requirements of the Laws, and either may decide that a service is incorrect.
2.6.6.1 If either the umpire or the assistant umpire is not sure about the legality of a service he or she may, on the first occasion in a match, interrupt play and warn the server; but any subsequent service by that player or his or her doubles partner which is not clearly legal shall be considered incorrect.

The rule 2.6.6.1 states explicitly
-- Any Serve of doubtful legality shall be penalized without least hesitation.

LOVELY EXPECTATIONS.
Looking forward to see all the cowardish timid umpires dropped out of the sport.

 

[Der_Echte]

Yes, it is clear to serve in a manner that in not... not clear. We all get that. What we do not get is why you said it?

Of course, umpires are not professionally paid or not even paid California minimum wage for a McDonald's worker, so WHY would any reasonable person expect an ITTF umpire to call serves properly?

Igor, I have heard a LOT of talk from you about serve rules not being observed by players, but the issue is umpires too... and as an umpire and referee igor, I would expect you to totally get that.

Why not cry about how the sport cannot generate enough money to pay umpires to officiate a fairly competed match?

If you or anyone thinks I am a Russian hater, any of you join me for weekly Monday Slavic Church TT action here locally gladly and see for urselves who I associate with and who are my buddies. It might open eyes.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

The service rules are fundamentally flawed to begin with.

2.6.4 From the start of service until it is struck, the ball shall be above the level of the playing surface and behind the server's end line, and it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server or his or her doubles partner or by anything they wear or carry.
2.6.6 It is the responsibility of the player to serve so that the umpire or the assistant umpire can be satisfied that he or she complies with the requirements of the Laws, and either may decide that a service is incorrect.

Do you spot the problem? One rule requires that the ball not be hidden from the receiver, but the other rule requires that the server satisfy the umpire that this rule is being met...but how can an umpire properly determine whether or not the ball is hidden from the receiver when the umpire (and assistant umpire) is in a completely different position to the receiver and has a completely different field of view to that of the receiver. What looks legal from the vantage point of the umpire might be illegal from the vantage point of the receiver (and vice versa). The only way to make these two rules properly align would be for the umpire to be in the same position as the receiver, which is obviously not possible. But at the very least there should be an additional umpire that stands behind the receiver to get a better aligned vantage point...or perhaps even some sort of VAR might be the solution?

 

[haggisv]

It's something that could probably be computerized. A pair of cameras on either side of the receiver need to track the ball and detect the time of contact during a serve. At that point in time it can take a snapshot and calculate if the ball was obstructed. It can call a fault and provide the snapshot as evidence to the umpires.
The serve is not really a fast action motion (compared to the shots in a rally), so the cameras would not need to be ultra fast. Sounds like a cool project to me!

 

[ViperTableTennis]

It's something that could probably be computerized. A pair of cameras on either side of the receiver need to track the ball and detect the time of contact during a serve. At that point in time it can take a snapshot and calculate if the ball was obstructed. It can call a fault and provide the snapshot as evidence to the umpires.
The serve is not really a fast action motion (compared to the shots in a rally), so the cameras would not need to be ultra fast. Sounds like a cool project to me!

Yes, I think it would be very do-able with technology, and could be done in a way where it would not be overly intrusive or disruptive to the flow of the game.

 

[igorponger]

THERE IS NO "MINOR" SERVICE ERRORS.

From the Rules viewpoit , there is nor minor nor serious service errors. That is to say that, for example, tossing the ball from under the table must be always penalized even when the ball only sinked a half diameter below the table surface.
Umpires must speak to player INFORMALLY when his/her service does not look "clearly legal". Thus could you prevent overreaction by player to a penalty point should it happen afterward.
_____________________
LIVE LONG AND LEARN AS LONG

 

[Lazer]

It's something that could probably be computerized. A pair of cameras on either side of the receiver need to track the ball and detect the time of contact during a serve. At that point in time it can take a snapshot and calculate if the ball was obstructed. It can call a fault and provide the snapshot as evidence to the umpires.
The serve is not really a fast action motion (compared to the shots in a rally), so the cameras would not need to be ultra fast. Sounds like a cool project to me!

But... the need for technology kills the beauty of the game.... The rules should be enforceable without technology...

Cheers
L-zr

 

[ViperTableTennis]

But... the need for technology kills the beauty of the game.... The rules should be enforceable without technology...

Cheers
L-zr

I don't think the technology would be overly intrusive, and I think the feedback from the technology could be more or less instantaneous so as to not disrupt the flow of the game. Imagine a scenario where there were two sets of cameras, one set positioned at each end of the court (outside of the court) so that each serve could be analysed from the receivers vantage point (i.e. it's the cameras behind the receiver that is used, so the cameras used alternate with the service) and would then immediately make a light turn red on the umpires desk if the serve was not legal. This sort of feedback would be just a quick as if it were the umpire making the decision as they currently do...but this technology would allow the umpire to make a judgement call based on the receivers vantage point, not based on their own line of sight.

 

[Lazer]

I don't think the technology would be overly intrusive, and I think the feedback from the technology could be more or less instantaneous so as to not disrupt the flow of the game. Imagine a scenario where there were two sets of cameras, one set positioned at each end of the court (outside of the court) so that each serve could be analysed from the receivers vantage point (i.e. it's the cameras behind the receiver that is used, so the cameras used alternate with the service) and would then immediately make a light turn red on the umpires desk if the serve was not legal. This sort of feedback would be just a quick as if it were the umpire making the decision as they currently do...but this technology would allow the umpire to make a judgement call based on the receivers vantage point, not based on their own line of sight.

The problem is that when You train you wont have any technology...

Cheers
L-zr

 

[ViperTableTennis]

The problem is that when You train you wont have any technology...

Cheers
L-zr

The technology is simply doing the job of the umpire: all it's doing is mimicking an umpire standing at the two ends of the court rather than only sitting at the side of the court. You don't have an umpire supervising your training, so I don't see that as an issue.

 

[Lazer]

The technology is simply doing the job of the umpire: all it's doing is mimicking an umpire standing at the two ends of the court rather than only sitting at the side of the court. You don't have an umpire supervising your training, so I don't see that as an issue.

If you while training is getting a habit of hiding the ball without realizing it...

Cheers
L-zr

 

[riemsesy]

If you or anyone thinks I am a Russian hater, any of you join me for weekly Monday Slavic Church TT action here locally gladly and see for urselves who I associate with and who are my buddies. It might open eyes.

Halleglueja!

 

[ViperTableTennis]

If you while training is getting a habit of hiding the ball without realizing it...

Cheers
L-zr

But this technology wouldn't effect that one way or the other. Think of the technology as just being an extra umpire that stands behind the receiver to get a better vantage point on the serve. You're already training without an umpire supervising you, so what's stopping you at the moment from developing a bad habit of hiding the ball without realizing it? This technology doesn't introduce any new dynamic that would lead to the problem you're talking about.

 

[Lazer]

But this technology wouldn't effect that one way or the other. Think of the technology as just being an extra umpire that stands behind the receiver to get a better vantage point on the serve. You're already training without an umpire supervising you, so what's stopping you at the moment from developing a bad habit of hiding the ball without realizing it? This technology doesn't introduce any new dynamic that would lead to the problem you're talking about.

There must be free sight with nothing obstructing the view. But… we have a serve receiver… Hi could be standing anywhere….

No it’s a bad idea.

A better idea would be to have a standby lines man. If the receiver complains the linesman’s only task will be to judge the serve. Of course they should be educated for this. And to make the issue getting more attention an illegal serve could be penalized with 2 points for the opponent. 2 points to keep the serving sequence..

Cheers
L-zr

 

[ViperTableTennis]

There must be free sight with nothing obstructing the view. But… we have a serve receiver… Hi could be standing anywhere….

No it’s a bad idea.

A better idea would be to have a standby lines man. If the receiver complains the linesman’s only task will be to judge the serve. Of course they should be educated for this. And to make the issue getting more attention an illegal serve could be penalized with 2 points for the opponent. 2 points to keep the serving sequence..

Cheers
L-zr

If you think it will be a problem that the serve receiver will obstruct the view of the cameras, then it is also true that the serve receiver would obstruct the view of the linesman. The only way I can think of to eliminate the issue of the serve receiver getting in the way would be for players to actually wear the technology (i.e. some sort of body cam).

 

[Lazer]

If you think it will be a problem that the serve receiver will obstruct the view of the cameras, then it is also true that the serve receiver would obstruct the view of the linesman. The only way to eliminate the issue of the serve receiver getting in the way would be for players to actually wear the technology (i.e. some sort of body cam).

Yep, but there are so many parameters involved here so I don’t think technology can handle it fairly.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[rpb23]

The service rules are fundamentally flawed to begin with.

2.6.4 From the start of service until it is struck, the ball shall be above the level of the playing surface and behind the server's end line, and it shall not be hidden from the receiver by the server or his or her doubles partner or by anything they wear or carry.
2.6.6 It is the responsibility of the player to serve so that the umpire or the assistant umpire can be satisfied that he or she complies with the requirements of the Laws, and either may decide that a service is incorrect.

Do you spot the problem? One rule requires that the ball not be hidden from the receiver, but the other rule requires that the server satisfy the umpire that this rule is being met...but how can an umpire properly determine whether or not the ball is hidden from the receiver when the umpire (and assistant umpire) is in a completely different position to the receiver and has a completely different field of view to that of the receiver. What looks legal from the vantage point of the umpire might be illegal from the vantage point of the receiver (and vice versa). The only way to make these two rules properly align would be for the umpire to be in the same position as the receiver, which is obviously not possible. But at the very least there should be an additional umpire that stands behind the receiver to get a better aligned vantage point...or perhaps even some sort of VAR might be the solution?

Exact point I am holding. The rule is hard to enforce. I don't blame players taking advantage of this loophole in the service rule. For similar reason I don't blame refs even as inconsistent as they are.

 

[lodro]

Many refs can't even do a proper coin toss.
I expect nothing from them. 😂

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Yep, but there are so many parameters involved here so I don’t think technology can handle it fairly.

Cheers
L-zr

If we accept that the rule requires that the receiver have clear sight of the ball at all times, then I think technology can be the only possible way of getting close to an objective view on whether or not the ball was hidden from their view. An additional umpire or linesman can never see the ball through the eyes of the receiver...the closest we can get to 'seeing what the receiver sees' would have to be a technology-based solution; some form of wearable body-cam that each player wears, thereby giving the umpire the first-person perspective of the receiver.

 

[lodro]

If we accept that the rule requires that the receiver have clear sight of the ball at all times, then I think technology can be the only possible way of getting close to an objective view on whether or not the ball was hidden from their view. An additional umpire or linesman can never see the ball through the eyes of the receiver...the closest we can get to 'seeing what the receiver sees' would have to be a technology-based solution; some form of wearable body-cam that each player wears, thereby giving the umpire the first-person perspective of the receiver.

There is of course quite a bit of "power "involved being a ref. They might never admit to it and might always declare that they are doing their work strictly for the benefit of the sport.
Be that as it may , when the chips will all be on the table and it comes down to the question : ""Ref-decides or technology""" it will be the refs that will fight against the technology.