46^th World Table Tennis Championships

Osaka, Japan · April 23 - May 6, 2001

Here are some of the major proposals that will be voted on at the ITTF Council meetings taking place at this Worlds. The Explanations are from the ITTF; the Analysis is from this writer.

Proposed by Rules Committee and England: When the ball is struck, no part of the body or clothing of the server or of his doubles partner shall be in a line (area) between the ball and any part of the net.
Explanation: The purpose of the proposed change is to prevent the service from being hidden from the receiver by requiring that no part of the server’s body or clothing to be within the triangular area formed by the net and the imaginary lines between the ball and ends of the net when the ball is struck.
Analysis: Very likely will pass, but hopefully with adjusted language. I agree with the goal of the rule. However, it leaves a huge, gaping loophole. It is not too difficult to serve so that there is nothing in the triangular area between the ball and the two ends of the net, while using the arm to hide contact from a receiver whose eyes are normally well above the net. Result? Players will still be able to hide contact unless receivers crouch way down to receive so that their eyes are at net height – three feet from the floor. Not only is this going to be pretty tough on the back, but I think it’ll look silly making receivers crouch down like that. (I’m trying to picture poor Vladimir Samsonov, about 6’4", trying to do this – it isn’t pretty.) I suggest they simply add the words "…or above this area" at the very end of the proposed wording. Or they could be more specific and change the wording to: "When the ball is struck, no part of the body or clothing of the server or of his doubles partner shall be in a triangular area formed by the ball and any two points of the net, or above this triangular area."

Proposed by Germany: That when the ball is struck in service it shall be above the server’s forearm.
Explanation: This would mean that the ball must be struck above the level of that part of the server’s arm between the free hand and the elbow.
Analysis: Unlikely to pass. Also, the wording is again poor – it says that contact must be "above" the server’s forearm, not "above the level of the forearm." It can be interpreted to mean either what the explanation says, or that contact must be actually be directly over the forearm.

Proposed by Germany (if previous proposal – see above – is not accepted): That when the ball is struck in service it shall be between the server’s end line and the front of his body.
Explanation: None given.
Analysis: Unlikely to pass. If it did pass, it would basically require all players to serve backhand. The purpose is to outlaw hidden serves and make serves less dominating.

Proposed by Athletes’ Commission and Executive Committee:

• That a game shall be won by the player or pair scoring 11 points unless both players or pairs score 10 points, when the game shall be won by the player or pair first scoring subsequently 2 points more than the opposing player or pair.
• That the server shall change after every 2 points (even number) until the score 10-10, after which the players or pairs shall server alternatively.
• That in the last possible game of a match the players or pairs shall change ends when first either player or pair scores 5 points.

Explanation: None given.
Analysis: There is a good chance this will pass. However, if it does, then the next two proposals will also likely be considered. The purpose is to make each game shorter, and so each point more important and exciting to spectators. If passed, matches would most likely be best of 5, best of 7 or best of 9.

Proposed by Finland: That a game shall consist of either 11 points or 21 points.
Explanation: This would allow both 11 and 21 point games to continue for the time being, with the situation being reviewed at the next AGM.
Analysis: If the previous proposal passes, then this proposal becomes rather important. The odds are it will pass, but not for certain.

Proposed by Athletes’ Commission, Executive Committee and Finland: That a match shall be best of any odd number of games, and that the number of games in a match for particular types of competition would be specified in the regulations applying to those competitions.
Explanation: This would also change rule 3.7.4.4. (This refers to senior and junior competitions where the number of games in a match are specified in the ITTF Constitution.
Analysis: If the 11-point game rule passes, it will likely pass.

Proposed by Finland: That the server shall change after every odd-numbered total of points until the score 10-10, after which the players or pairs shall serve alternatively.
Explanation: This is the system used in lawn tennis tie-breaks.
Analysis: Unlikely to pass at this time.

Proposed by Latvia: That the loser of each rally shall serve for the next rally.
Explanation: None given.
Analysis: Unlikely to pass at this time.

Proposed by Finland: That the players shall not change ends in the last possible game of a match.
Explanation: None given.
Analysis: Unlikely to pass at this time.

Proposed by Athletes’ Commission and Executive Committee: That the expedite system shall be introduced when a game has lasted 10 minutes, unless both players or pairs have scored at least 9 points, and that if a game lasts 10 minutes all subsequent games of the match shall be played under the expedite system.

Explanation: None given.
Analysis: If 11-point rule is adopted, this will likely pass, either at this meeting or at the next one.

Proposals Requiring a Simple Majority to Pass

Proposed by Equipment Committee: Rule 3.4.4.1.1: That a player shall not use a racket that exudes volatile solvent, the limit of detection to be specified by the Equipment Committee.
Explanation: This would prevent the use of "speed glue."
Analysis: Unlikely to pass.

Proposed by Finland: That a racket shall not be changed after the start of pre-match practice.
Explanation: This would prevent a racket being changed between the practice period and the start of a match.
Analysis: It will probably pass, but the explanation doesn’t match the proposal. The proposal will prevent players to change rackets once pre-match practice has begun; the explanation says it will prevent players from changing rackets after the practice period but before the start of the match.

Back to 2001 Worlds Home Page