@@LosAngelesTableTennis Isnt the rule that it depends on where the ball was hit, inside or outside of the long sides of the table? If he hit it on the inside of the two lines that go along the long side of the table, it is very hard for the ball to hit the side and not also the edge. It is physically possible, but I've learned the rule this way, even if the ball is bouncing downwards. I saw a game where Fan Zhendong hit the side of the table and they counted it as a point because he hit it from the outside of the long sides of the table and the ball trajectory made it seem like it hit the edge because he hit the ball so low to the ground that the ball bounced slightly upwards when hitting the side of the table. In my opinion it was on the side of the table and not on the corner. I think it was vs. Harimoto. Like a typical obediant japanese person, Harimoto did not protest, and it was a very important point.
@@z0uLess I think the rule is determined whether or not a ball hit the side or not and that is up to the interpretation of the players/judges. But I believe the trajectory of the ball whether it hits the edge or the side is a major indicator of what exactly happened.
@@LosAngelesTableTennis ok, so I am new to the sport (2 years) and I was told this rule by a 85 year old player and a veteran of the game. he seemed to be part of a milieu that knew a lot about table tennis. the most achieved norwegian player in hiistory in table tennis even practiced there some times
why not, the ball was clearly not behind the table when Sid hit the ball, also look at the stroke before the ball that Nandan hit diagonally to the corner
@@hubertgoetschalckx8860 Lets assume that you mean on the side of the table when you say "behind the table", well, f it, I dont know what you mean and I dont really care to try and explain it. I bet you didnt even read my comment about it. Physics is physics, no matter how much you played table tennis or how good you are at it. I think the umpires just looks at the trajectory after hitting the table, and so lean into what is the norm in terms of how most table tennis players perceive it, instead of actually judging out from the likelyhood that the ball would be able to hit the side in that situation, which is something that is highly unlikely. There was not much sidespin on the ball.
@@z0uLess the ball was clearly not behind the extension of the table when Sid hit the ball, so the ball could hit the side of the table in a perfect straight line, which was also evident from the trajectory of the ball after hitting the side of the table and also look at the trajectory of the ball before Sid hit it against the side of the table.
I replayed it in slow-mo, it barely touched the side, but it did, Nandan won the point.
I agree. There wasn't any upward movement on the ball.
@@LosAngelesTableTennis Isnt the rule that it depends on where the ball was hit, inside or outside of the long sides of the table? If he hit it on the inside of the two lines that go along the long side of the table, it is very hard for the ball to hit the side and not also the edge. It is physically possible, but I've learned the rule this way, even if the ball is bouncing downwards. I saw a game where Fan Zhendong hit the side of the table and they counted it as a point because he hit it from the outside of the long sides of the table and the ball trajectory made it seem like it hit the edge because he hit the ball so low to the ground that the ball bounced slightly upwards when hitting the side of the table. In my opinion it was on the side of the table and not on the corner. I think it was vs. Harimoto. Like a typical obediant japanese person, Harimoto did not protest, and it was a very important point.
@@z0uLess I think the rule is determined whether or not a ball hit the side or not and that is up to the interpretation of the players/judges. But I believe the trajectory of the ball whether it hits the edge or the side is a major indicator of what exactly happened.
@@LosAngelesTableTennis ok, so I am new to the sport (2 years) and I was told this rule by a 85 year old player and a veteran of the game. he seemed to be part of a milieu that knew a lot about table tennis. the most achieved norwegian player in hiistory in table tennis even practiced there some times
@@z0uLess no one cares bruh
nice match
Agreed!
Sid Naresh has some really nice plays just think if his forehand looks more like xu xin it would be very deadly
i couldnt have hit the side from his angel wtf
angle*
I agree, I wrote a long comment about it as a reply to graveman5704
why not, the ball was clearly not behind the table when Sid hit the ball, also look at the stroke before the ball that Nandan hit diagonally to the corner
@@hubertgoetschalckx8860 Lets assume that you mean on the side of the table when you say "behind the table", well, f it, I dont know what you mean and I dont really care to try and explain it. I bet you didnt even read my comment about it. Physics is physics, no matter how much you played table tennis or how good you are at it. I think the umpires just looks at the trajectory after hitting the table, and so lean into what is the norm in terms of how most table tennis players perceive it, instead of actually judging out from the likelyhood that the ball would be able to hit the side in that situation, which is something that is highly unlikely. There was not much sidespin on the ball.
@@z0uLess the ball was clearly not behind the extension of the table when Sid hit the ball, so the ball could hit the side of the table in a perfect straight line, which was also evident from the trajectory of the ball after hitting the side of the table and also look at the trajectory of the ball before Sid hit it against the side of the table.
no you are wrong it is big Sid point that is totally Sid point
Big sid! New nickname tech. I love it!