|
Hobby Forum Index » Sport - Table Tennis » Is this situation a let or a fault?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Raymond Kennington |
 Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sequence of events:
1. Server serves.
2. A ball trickles quietly into the court at the back end of it, far behind the
server and unbeknownst to the server.
3. Umpire calls 'Let'.
4. The served ball hits the net and misses the table.
Arguments:
A. The umpire called a let, so it's a let no matter what transpires.
B. That the server was a fault had already been set in motion before the other
ball had trickled into the playing area and hence the call of 'Let' is null and
void.
The same situation would arise if a player lobs a ball that is clearly going to
miss and then another ball appears in the playing area.
What is the rule regarding this and what is it's item number in the rule book?
Thanks.
Raymond |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chico |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Raymond Kennington <raymondk@chariot.net.au> wrote in message news:<40C18163.16CDF578@chariot.net.au>...
Quote: Sequence of events:
1. Server serves.
2. A ball trickles quietly into the court at the back end of it, far behind the
server and unbeknownst to the server.
3. Umpire calls 'Let'.
4. The served ball hits the net and misses the table.
Arguments:
A. The umpire called a let, so it's a let no matter what transpires.
B. That the server was a fault had already been set in motion before the other
ball had trickled into the playing area and hence the call of 'Let' is null and
void.
The same situation would arise if a player lobs a ball that is clearly going to
miss and then another ball appears in the playing area.
What is the rule regarding this and what is it's item number in the rule book?
Thanks.
Raymond
Hey dude..don't know about the "item number in the rule book" but a
"let" ends the point..regardless of what has transpired or what will
likely transpire.
Time to re-serve.
Chico Helpful |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Raymond Kennington |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chico wrote:
Quote:
Raymond Kennington <raymondk@chariot.net.au> wrote in message news:<40C18163.16CDF578@chariot.net.au>...
Sequence of events:
1. Server serves.
2. A ball trickles quietly into the court at the back end of it, far behind the
server and unbeknownst to the server.
3. Umpire calls 'Let'.
4. The served ball hits the net and misses the table.
Arguments:
A. The umpire called a let, so it's a let no matter what transpires.
B. That the server was a fault had already been set in motion before the other
ball had trickled into the playing area and hence the call of 'Let' is null and
void.
The same situation would arise if a player lobs a ball that is clearly going to
miss and then another ball appears in the playing area.
What is the rule regarding this and what is it's item number in the rule book?
Thanks.
Raymond
Hey dude..don't know about the "item number in the rule book" but a
"let" ends the point..regardless of what has transpired or what will
likely transpire.
Time to re-serve.
Chico Helpful
So to be fair, the umpire should hesitate before calling a let, in order to
properly assess the situation?
Raymond |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chico |
| Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Raymond Kennington <raymondk@chariot.net.au> wrote in message news:<40C270E7.8EF30E4A@chariot.net.au>...
Quote: Chico wrote:
Raymond Kennington <raymondk@chariot.net.au> wrote in message news:<40C18163.16CDF578@chariot.net.au>...
Sequence of events:
1. Server serves.
2. A ball trickles quietly into the court at the back end of it, far behind the
server and unbeknownst to the server.
3. Umpire calls 'Let'.
4. The served ball hits the net and misses the table.
Arguments:
A. The umpire called a let, so it's a let no matter what transpires.
B. That the server was a fault had already been set in motion before the other
ball had trickled into the playing area and hence the call of 'Let' is null and
void.
The same situation would arise if a player lobs a ball that is clearly going to
miss and then another ball appears in the playing area.
What is the rule regarding this and what is it's item number in the rule book?
Thanks.
Raymond
Hey dude..don't know about the "item number in the rule book" but a
"let" ends the point..regardless of what has transpired or what will
likely transpire.
Time to re-serve.
Chico Helpful
So to be fair, the umpire should hesitate before calling a let, in order to
properly assess the situation?
Raymond
No, i dont think an ump should hesitate at all...if he/she sees an
errant ball come into the field of play he should quickly call a
let..regardless of any advantage or disadvantage to a player...
i dont know the rule for sure but i suspect it is as i sugest
above...i personally would want to see that changed though so that an
ump COULD make a subjective call......that is..he could see the errant
ball come into the field of play but decide to NOT call a let as he
determined it was not a distraction to the players.....its a shame to
sometimes see a match point advantage called off due to an irrelavent
consideration trickling somewhere in the backround..
if thats going to distract you maybe we should just have prayer
competition.
Chico Vesence |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Botook |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chico" <chicovesence@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Quote: ... maybe we should just have prayer competition.
Chico Vesence
Yeah ! You might have a slight chance of winning that !! But, guess what ?
You dont have a prayer !!! HAHAHAHAHAHA ! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
