Simon Gauzy was right or wrong in that point?

[Gtsnake]

Okay, I misunderstood your suggestion, thanks for explaining.

I see how what you're suggesting might help decide between 'edge' and 'side' contact on some occasions.

IMO, it's not a viable solution as (and others have already said the same) it potentially helps make a decision with respect to a situation that occurs very infrequently (i.e. when an umpire is unsure whether a contact was 'side' or 'edge'), but in doing so it creates a new problem that will happen very frequently (i.e. the second bounce problem).

That second bounce issue would change the game meaningfully. It would prejudice FH dominant players, and reward BH dominant players.

The result could be to move all of team China down the rankings, and we'd have a new Top 3 of Lin Yun-Yu, Darko Jorgic, and Hugo Calderano.

Actually, come to think of it, great idea!

I don't understand the 2nd bounce issue. It's no different than any other ball that is short. We're talking 20mm here which wouldn't make a whole lot of difference for long or short balls. However the improvement would be massive to eliminate edge balls and unearned points. If that is such a concern it could just be modified to include only side edges and not the back edge.

 

[Gtsnake]

Agreed. For me the price of those 20mm will be a broken thumb!

So you'd rather deal with an edge ball that could result in a lost point rather than changing your judgment to loop or push?

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

So you'd rather deal with an edge ball that could result in a lost point rather than changing your judgment to loop or push?

loose a point, or hurt your hand/brake your racket, i will choose loose a point and moan about bad umpiring 🤣

 

[latej]

Certain players (which we all love with utmost intensity) base their whole life on the fact that they make some many "pigs" (nets or edges). This change would put them all out of business. We CAN'T let that happen!!!

 

[Manto76]

I don't understand the 2nd bounce issue. It's no different than any other ball that is short. We're talking 20mm here which wouldn't make a whole lot of difference for long or short balls. However the improvement would be massive to eliminate edge balls and unearned points. If that is such a concern it could just be modified to include only side edges and not the back edge.

The issue with the extra 20mm, and the possibility of a second bounce in what is now 'empty' space, is that it makes it much harder to open the attack—especially on the FH side.

It would incentivise more passive play on the FH, and create an advantage for BH dominant players for whom the fact that the table is larger would make very little difference, as BH attack is much easier to initiate over the table compared to FH openings over the table.

My point is that the extra 20mm would actually change the way the game is played. That is a huge price to pay for the very infrequent situation in which an umpire makes a wrong call on an edge/side contact.

To me the idea of an extra 20mm beyond the line sounds a bit like swapping your Ferrari for a pickup truck because the Ferrari's glove box is too small to fit your lunch box in. It's making a huge change to solve a relatively insignificant problem.

It sounds like you disagree with me as to which is the bigger problem, i.e. the changes to the game that would result from your new table design proposal, vs. the significance of wrong edge/side contact decisions. That's fine, that's part of what makes this forum interesting.

For me, I love the game the way it is ... and I also love my thumb and want to keep it!

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

The issue with the extra 20mm, and the possibility of a second bounce in what is now 'empty' space, is that it makes it much harder to open the attack—especially on the FH side.

It would incentivise more passive play on the FH, and create an advantage for BH dominant players for whom the fact that the table is larger would make very little difference, as BH attack is much easier to initiate over the table compared to FH openings over the table.

My point is that the extra 20mm would actually change the way the game is played. That is a huge price to pay for the very infrequent situation in which an umpire makes a wrong call on an edge/side contact.

To me the idea of an extra 20mm beyond the line sounds a bit like swapping your Ferrari for a pickup truck because the Ferrari's glove box is too small to fit your lunch box in. It's making a huge change to solve a relatively insignificant problem.

It sounds like you disagree with me as to which is the bigger problem, i.e. the changes to the game that would result from your new table design proposal, vs. the significance of wrong edge/side contact decisions. That's fine, that's part of what makes this forum interesting.

For me, I love the game the way it is ... and I also love my thumb and want to keep it!

its cheaper and quicker to
1) send umpires for vision test
2) give them vitamin A to maintain good vision, or eat carrots only for life
3) provide umpires some exercise drills to keep fit and have good reaction (maybe play table tennis?)
4) invest in technology to help umpires.

You can do the above and still have a lot of money left to make the sport cool.
20mm extra length for 10s of millions of tables...
geez, tables are not cheap, this is a lot of tables to transition into a new rule. winner will be table makers, the looser will be players.
and umpires will still continue to make bad calls with these new tables, since we not fixing the root of the problem

 

[Gtsnake]

The issue with the extra 20mm, and the possibility of a second bounce in what is now 'empty' space, is that it makes it much harder to open the attack—especially on the FH side.

It would incentivise more passive play on the FH, and create an advantage for BH dominant players for whom the fact that the table is larger would make very little difference, as BH attack is much easier to initiate over the table compared to FH openings over the table.

My point is that the extra 20mm would actually change the way the game is played. That is a huge price to pay for the very infrequent situation in which an umpire makes a wrong call on an edge/side contact.

To me the idea of an extra 20mm beyond the line sounds a bit like swapping your Ferrari for a pickup truck because the Ferrari's glove box is too small to fit your lunch box in. It's making a huge change to solve a relatively insignificant problem.

It sounds like you disagree with me as to which is the bigger problem, i.e. the changes to the game that would result from your new table design proposal, vs. the significance of wrong edge/side contact decisions. That's fine, that's part of what makes this forum interesting.

For me, I love the game the way it is ... and I also love my thumb and want to keep it!

I still don't see the issue. You would eliminate the unfair, unearned edge ball by giving up 20mm of a small possibility of changing your decision to loop or push. For me it's a no brainer.

Like I mentioned before if people don't think the back edge should be tampered with you could only apply it to the side edges.

 

[Manto76]

I still don't see the issue. You would eliminate the unfair, unearned edge ball by giving up 20mm of a small possibility of changing your decision to loop or push. For me it's a no brainer.

Like I mentioned before if people don't think the back edge should be tampered with you could only apply it to the side edges.

Applying the extra 20mm only to the sides wouldn't alleviate my concern, as the extra 20mm would make opening the attack from half-long balls played off the side of the table just as tricky/risky as off the back of the table.

Additionally, 20mm on each side equals total extra table width of 40mm. That's a lot of extra real estate that can be used for:

(1) Fast, wide serves off the edge.
(2) Wide attacks which would be impossible for all mortals other than Jang Woojin to cover.

Both of the above would change, and I think spoil, the game.

Fundamentally, in my opinion, the proposal simply doesn't work. And that's without even considering the financial issues involved, as Tony has already mentioned.

No worries, though, mate, we just agree to disagree on this one

 

[latej]

No worries, though, mate, we just agree to disagree on this one

Exactly, no hard feelings... But @Gtsnake, as I said, and others expressed, I would feel really bad because I'd knew that some balls, which I can and really like to attack, now I can't, because they are "protected" by an extra dead 20mm piece of wood. It would be very very disappointing.

And if your goal is to eliminate edges (to avoid "unearned" points), you could just as well say if there is and edge we replay or it is invalid, and you don't need the 20mm piece. That would be better, I'd feel better. But I would still disagree anyway, because I like the game as it is, with edges and nets... Cheers.

 

[Yuomay]

It is not allowed. You are playing ping pong? No table tennis?

There is no reason to be petty, also ping, pong or table tennis is just a term I mean whatever dont take yourself too serious it’s ugly. In France someone who play table tennis is called a « pongiste »…

And on the subject Just because something is not allowed doesn’t mean that I understand why that is..

 

[Gtsnake]

Applying the extra 20mm only to the sides wouldn't alleviate my concern, as the extra 20mm would make opening the attack from half-long balls played off the side of the table just as tricky/risky as off the back of the table.

Additionally, 20mm on each side equals total extra table width of 40mm. That's a lot of extra real estate that can be used for:

(1) Fast, wide serves off the edge.
(2) Wide attacks which would be impossible for all mortals other than Jang Woojin to cover.

Both of the above would change, and I think spoil, the game.

Fundamentally, in my opinion, the proposal simply doesn't work. And that's without even considering the financial issues involved, as Tony has already mentioned.

No worries, though, mate, we just agree to disagree on this one

Well I guess you place game play over eliminating cheap points. I don't think it's a big sacrifice to eliminate something that isn't part of most other types of racquet sports. I can't think of many other sports where there are as many instances of points that are out of your control. I just think it can be made much more merit based by making a small change.

It's just something I've been thinking of for a long time and probably will never be implemented. I'm not an ITTF board member nor do I have the ear of someone that is. So it most likely will never happen anyway. But it would sure be nice if we could get rid of those edge balls.

 

[Metaxa]

There is no reason to be petty, also ping, pong or table tennis is just a term I mean whatever dont take yourself too serious it’s ugly. In France someone who play table tennis is called a « pongiste »…

And on the subject Just because something is not allowed doesn’t mean that I understand why that is..

For the simple reason that a point must be allocated to either player. What you suggest you do in a garage or at a campsite but is not allowed in official competitions.

 

[Manto76]

... it would sure be nice if we could get rid of those edge balls.

What about a set of rules that read something like this:

(1) If a ball that is struck from within the parallels of the sides of the table makes edge contact, then it is deemed as edge contact regardless of whether anybody (i.e. umpire or players/coaches) thinks it might have been side (i.e. not edge) contact.
(2) If a ball that is struck from outside the parallels of the sides of the table makes edge contact, and the umpire is uncertain whether the contact was edge or side contact, then the point is replayed.
(3) In the event of (2) above the umpire's decision is final, and players and coaches may not comment on or question the umpire. Any comments or questions from players or coaches attracts an immediate yellow card.

Maybe there are rules that already say something like that. I only know the rules in the 'unofficial/amateur' sense that most of us do.

 

[lodro]

I see no technical problem that would not allow the white paint strip be made into a contact-strip. It will then not matter if a ball will arrive from the top or the bottom or the side or from wherever. If the ball touches the white strip a control light will show up on the umpires console etc, etc ,, blah blah blah
Version b) have the control strip around the sides of the table etc, etc more blah blah blah 😁

 

[Zwill]

Hi guys
Let watch again the important point in the match: Simon GAUZY vs Mohamed EL-BEIALI yesterday

Time: 40:40

From this position, how come the ball hit the table side ?
View attachment 29357

I think the reference was wrong but Simon Gauzy also was not fair play
How do you think ?

I guess I will get a lot of shit or love for my post.

Just to get it out of the way, that was an edge ball without a question and I bet Simon feels horrible after the fact for contesting it because he looks like a fraud and he is on camera. I am sure he is not a fraud, he is one of the last of the Mohicans who plays entertaining table tennis. (since XX is in retirement and Zhou Qihao is like a sinus scale in his performance)
But anyway I play table tennis for very long and I am aware of my opponent's contact position and bat angle etc etc more than my opponent is! If I am aware then Simon must be too. I'm sorry, there is no way in this heated moment he blinked.
During a side ball even the bounce sound is very different than edge.

But the problem is that the umpires are mostly just droids flipping the score and once confronted they change their opinion.
For argument's sake if the umpire were Guoliang, Persson, Rosskopf... heck just to not name super respected well-seasoned sly AF foxes, if the umpire were Harimoto and his sis they would have known what happened and Gauzy would have been shut down. I am sure. And I'm talking about Chinese-Japanese players who have the utmost respect.

I don't expect umpires to be pro table tennis players who know all, but for frack's sake look at the bloody replay screen what is happening, and the players can do the same and get to an agreement.
You don't need eagle eye tech, just look at the replay.

My biggest issue is that Mohammed gave up on the point purely on the fact that Simon is a well-respected tour player while he is (well let's face it) not.

 

[lodro]

During a side ball even the bounce sound is very different than edge.

there was NO bounce ..................
I take no side here. If i remember correctly , the umpire first called it one way then changed here mind. Simon approached her and asked if she indeed had first called it 9 :9 and then changed her mind to 8 :10
Nobody was the wiser, it ended up 9 :9 and all is well .
NO BLAME.

 

[Gtsnake]

What about a set of rules that read something like this:

(1) If a ball that is struck from within the parallels of the sides of the table makes edge contact, then it is deemed as edge contact regardless of whether anybody (i.e. umpire or players/coaches) thinks it might have been side (i.e. not edge) contact.
(2) If a ball that is struck from outside the parallels of the sides of the table makes edge contact, and the umpire is uncertain whether the contact was edge or side contact, then the point is replayed.
(3) In the event of (2) above the umpire's decision is final, and players and coaches may not comment on or question the umpire. Any comments or questions from players or coaches attracts an immediate yellow card.

Maybe there are rules that already say something like that. I only know the rules in the 'unofficial/amateur' sense that most of us do.

But it allows an unusual bounce that is almost impossible to return. Which takes away from skill in the game.

 

[NextLevel]

But it allows an unusual bounce that is almost impossible to return. Which takes away from skill in the game.

Unusual bounces can be returned or created to sometimes display an even higher level of skill in the game. Such is life and table tennis.

 

[Der_Echte]

Its a thin fine line and these umpires are apparently trained (by who or certified by who I don’t know) to see everything

I frequently make the point that ITTF umpires are essentially expenses paid volunteer work force that must do a pro level job... but are being paid for it... so of course they gunna do work that is not pro sometimes or often.
If there is real money in hte sport, then you can hire pro umpires. And even then there is human eyesight working... if there are three umpires present and the loudspeakers start playing "Three Blind Mice" after a bad call what would you do? Laugh? look at umpire face get red?

 

[Der_Echte]

But it allows an unusual bounce that is almost impossible to return. Which takes away from skill in the game.

Increased amount of nets and edges are a skill. Period.

Luck is luck, but you experience more luck when you have more skill.