This user has no status.
This user has no status.
The Impossible Table Tennis Shot?
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- impossible shot
This user has no status.
Member
Last edited:
says
Thanks TTD
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
actually its not impossible, almost impossible maybe.
its still an epic shot anyway! one in a million
topspin is a wonderful thing!
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Oh my, I've been looking for this vid for waay too long. I saw it a couple of years ago and couldn't find it anymore and now I finally got it, thanks
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Thanks Dan for sharing! I bet people will still talk about that shot for many years...
Xavier
Xavier
This user has no status.
One of my favorite shots of all time! Really incredible!!!
I just gonna ask for it. Technically if the ball didn't bounce and only roll it will be allowed by the rules to get the ball when this falls in the right side.
It would be really awesome to see and around the net after that to finish the point
I just gonna ask for it. Technically if the ball didn't bounce and only roll it will be allowed by the rules to get the ball when this falls in the right side.
It would be really awesome to see and around the net after that to finish the point
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
My opinion is that the ball did not have one contact with the table. It had an infinity of contacts because it touched the table with more than one single point on its surface. I'd be happy to hear this confirmed by an international umpire!
This user has no status.
Hi Xavier! Nice to meet you here
It's an interesting point of view. Maybe it will sound a little freak but in my opinion (I'm not an expert at physics) the ball always have more than one contact with the table. The explanation, from my point of view, is that: when the ball have spin you can see how the trajectory changes after the bounce. A topspin will speed up and make a lower bounce, a chop will speed down and make a higher bounce... this is only possible if we assume that the ball have more than one point of contact and rolls a little bit over the table in every bounce (probably there is a little deformation in the surface of the ball).
Anyway the question it's very interesting, I also hope some umpire can solve this.
It's an interesting point of view. Maybe it will sound a little freak but in my opinion (I'm not an expert at physics) the ball always have more than one contact with the table. The explanation, from my point of view, is that: when the ball have spin you can see how the trajectory changes after the bounce. A topspin will speed up and make a lower bounce, a chop will speed down and make a higher bounce... this is only possible if we assume that the ball have more than one point of contact and rolls a little bit over the table in every bounce (probably there is a little deformation in the surface of the ball).
Anyway the question it's very interesting, I also hope some umpire can solve this.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Hi Xavier! Nice to meet you here
It's an interesting point of view. Maybe it will sound a little freak but in my opinion (I'm not an expert at physics) the ball always have more than one contact with the table. The explanation, from my point of view, is that: when the ball have spin you can see how the trajectory changes after the bounce. A topspin will speed up and make a lower bounce, a chop will speed down and make a higher bounce... this is only possible if we assume that the ball have more than one point of contact and rolls a little bit over the table in every bounce (probably there is a little deformation in the surface of the ball).
Anyway the question it's very interesting, I also hope some umpire can solve this.
Hi Josep, nice to meet you here too
I find you point of view is also legitimate, so I've decided to ask some international umpires. I will collect their responses and share on the forum. Stay tuned...
says
The trick to lose the sight of big picture is to focus...
says
The trick to lose the sight of big picture is to focus...
Member
Was just going through this thread, absolutely awesome shots shown in the videos posted by fellow members. I wanted to just highlight one shot which should also get a mention here, it is a double bounce loop. It is a very difficult shot to perform and it seems that Jean-phillipe gatien perfected this shot, although I couldn't find any ready vidoes to support my claim but I am pretty sure that I saw one on youtube which Jean-phillipe performed this shot.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
As promised, I have collected the opinions of 5 international umpires. They are unanimous, although they all admitted this was a very difficult question because the rules don’t clearly cover this particular case. They had to use their judgment and experience to answer.
Here’s the question they have been asked:
“With a perfectly ‘rolling’ ball around the net that shows no visible bounce and remains in contact with the table as in this video, can the red player wait until the ball rolls off the right side of the table and continue the rally? Why?”
ANSWER #1:
“This is a very interesting question. I am sure that scientifically there would be multiple infinitesimal bounces or contacts, however we are not scientists and have to address the issue from a table tennis viewpoint.
The main thing to recognise is that there is nothing in the rules relating to the ball “bouncing” on the table. For both the definition of service and return the words “...touches the receiver’s court...” and “...touches the opponent’s court...” are used, so the important word is “touch”. Whilst not stated, it is definitely implied that this is a single touch (e.g. there is nothing in the rules about a double bounce but we all know that is it not allowed). “Touch” is also used in the definition of “strikes” and “obstructs”. In this case it appears obvious that the ball, by rolling across the table, has “touched” the court more than once, so the umpire was correct in awarding the point the way he did. To answer your specific question, no, the red player can’t wait until the ball rolls off the side of the table and then continue the rally – in effect the return is unplayable. If there had been a very low/small, but visible, bounce then this question would not have been asked, even though the ball would have been unplayable.”
ANSWER #2:
“In my opinion there is only one point of the ball in contact with table on a normal bounce.
In a rolling ball the contact point is constantly changing as it would when a ball bounces several times. In a usual situation the ball bounces once and is still in play. Once it bounces a second time the rally is over. In my opinion a rolling ball is the equivalent of an infinite number of bounces.”
ANSWERS #3:
“To me the key is the word "touches" in the Law (2.7.1). A good return is defined as "shall be struck so that it touches the opponent's court". Bounce and roll are not mentioned, but they are all subsequent to the "touch".
ANSWERS #4:
“There is nothing in the rules that addresses a rolling ball or other types of “impossibilities”.
I do not have a “big” explanation. I fully realize that it was impossible for Xavier to make a good return. The rules do not cover a rolling ball. This is an “ANOMALY” and unfortunately Pierre was luck and Xavier was not.”
ANSWERS #5:
“The ball must be returned after the first bounce. If it rolls I consider it to have bounced more than once and this is impossible to return. The point goes automatically to Pierre-Luc and no, Xavier cannot continue the rally by letting it roll off the right side.”
Here’s the question they have been asked:
“With a perfectly ‘rolling’ ball around the net that shows no visible bounce and remains in contact with the table as in this video, can the red player wait until the ball rolls off the right side of the table and continue the rally? Why?”
ANSWER #1:
“This is a very interesting question. I am sure that scientifically there would be multiple infinitesimal bounces or contacts, however we are not scientists and have to address the issue from a table tennis viewpoint.
The main thing to recognise is that there is nothing in the rules relating to the ball “bouncing” on the table. For both the definition of service and return the words “...touches the receiver’s court...” and “...touches the opponent’s court...” are used, so the important word is “touch”. Whilst not stated, it is definitely implied that this is a single touch (e.g. there is nothing in the rules about a double bounce but we all know that is it not allowed). “Touch” is also used in the definition of “strikes” and “obstructs”. In this case it appears obvious that the ball, by rolling across the table, has “touched” the court more than once, so the umpire was correct in awarding the point the way he did. To answer your specific question, no, the red player can’t wait until the ball rolls off the side of the table and then continue the rally – in effect the return is unplayable. If there had been a very low/small, but visible, bounce then this question would not have been asked, even though the ball would have been unplayable.”
ANSWER #2:
“In my opinion there is only one point of the ball in contact with table on a normal bounce.
In a rolling ball the contact point is constantly changing as it would when a ball bounces several times. In a usual situation the ball bounces once and is still in play. Once it bounces a second time the rally is over. In my opinion a rolling ball is the equivalent of an infinite number of bounces.”
ANSWERS #3:
“To me the key is the word "touches" in the Law (2.7.1). A good return is defined as "shall be struck so that it touches the opponent's court". Bounce and roll are not mentioned, but they are all subsequent to the "touch".
ANSWERS #4:
“There is nothing in the rules that addresses a rolling ball or other types of “impossibilities”.
I do not have a “big” explanation. I fully realize that it was impossible for Xavier to make a good return. The rules do not cover a rolling ball. This is an “ANOMALY” and unfortunately Pierre was luck and Xavier was not.”
ANSWERS #5:
“The ball must be returned after the first bounce. If it rolls I consider it to have bounced more than once and this is impossible to return. The point goes automatically to Pierre-Luc and no, Xavier cannot continue the rally by letting it roll off the right side.”
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
wow! this shot that you show dan is outstanding. not impossible but extremly difficult. i love these incredible shots. anyone have more clips or any website to recomend?
This user has no status.
Hi and sorry for the delay answering.
Great job Xavier! It seem's that there is a consence about the question. Your point of view it's the logical answer, but I love the impossible shots and my heart want to defend the most unbelievable possibility hehe
Thanks for sharing the answers of the umpairs.
Regards,
Josep
Great job Xavier! It seem's that there is a consence about the question. Your point of view it's the logical answer, but I love the impossible shots and my heart want to defend the most unbelievable possibility hehe
Thanks for sharing the answers of the umpairs.
Regards,
Josep
Similar threads
