The Results
This week's quiz question relates to a number of issues that are really shades of grey rather than black and white, so it's no surprise that opinions from readers were pretty evenly divided, with a slight bias in favor of option 3.Results at the time of writing are as follows:
Option 1: 11 votes (20%)
Option 2: 11 votes (20%)
Option 3: 19 vote (35%)
Option 4: 13 votes (24%)
with a grand total of 54 votes.
The Answer
This a tough one to answer authoritatively, since the ITTF rules don't specifically deal with this particular scenario. So the best I can do is mention the Laws involved, explain how they relate to the situation, and give my own opinion about the best course of action for the referee.Issue 1 - The Initial Damage - 2 Pips Missing
It makes sense to start with the issue of whether Player A's bat was illegal to start with, since it had 2 pips missing from the middle of the racket. If we decide that his bat was illegal before Player B even touched it, then everything else becomes nice and simple. It is Player A's responsibility to bring a legal racket to the match, and if this is the only racket he has, then it's his tough luck and Player B wins the match by default, in which case Option 2 - Award the match to Player B, since Player A's racket was illegal to begin with would be the correct choice.
So what are the rules covering the initial damage to the racket? Here's what the ITTF Laws have to say:
2.04.07.01 Slight deviations from continuity of surface or uniformity of colour due to accidental damage or wear may be allowed provided that they do not significantly change the characteristics of the surface.
Personally, I think that two missing pips would be unlikely to significantly change the characteristics of the long pip rubber, even if they are in the middle of the racket. But at the same time I'm not sure exactly how many pips would have to be missing in the same location before the damage would significantly change the characteristics of the surface. Three in the same place is starting to get a bit worrisome, and five missing in a clump would probably be too much for my liking.
Five pimples missing that are scattered all over the long pips would probably be OK though, since each one would be not that significant by themselves. Ten pips missing that are scattered all over the rubber might be a bit too much for me, since it would indicate to me that the rubber is probably in an advanced state of deterioration.
So in my own opinion I would say that Player A's racket was legal at the start, even with two pips missing in the middle. So I'm not choosing Option 2, although I'm aware that others might disagree about whether 2 missing pips is significant damage.
Issue 2 - Can Player A Continue With His Damaged Racket?
The referee has already determined that Player A's racket is illegal after Player B's accidental damage, so the next question is really whether Player A can start the match with his damaged racket, if he wished to do so.
There isn't anything in the Laws of Table Tennis regarding this topic, but the ITTF Handbook for Match Officials does have this to say:
7.4 Damage
7.4.1 A racket which is legal when a player starts to use it may become damaged to an extent which invalidates its legality by, perhaps, destroying the continuity of the covering or the uniformity of pimples over a significant part of the surface. If a player wishes to continue with a damaged racket and the umpire has any doubt about its continuing legality he should immediately report to the referee.
7.4.2 In deciding whether to allow further use of a damaged racket the referee should
consider primarily the interests of the opponent. The ball is likely to rebound
unpredictably from a damaged surface and this could cause difficulties for both players, although the player who wishes to use the racket has implicitly accepted this risk. Therefore, unless the damage is trivial, it is generally better for the racket to be replaced.
With a half inch circular gap in the middle of his long pips, there's little doubt that this could cause some unpredictable rebounds from Player A's racket. The ITTF are more concerned about the interests of Player B than Player A, which is understandable since they aren't expecting Player B to be the cause of the damage.
Once again, there's no hard and fast rule here. If I was the referee, I'd probably ask Player B if he is happy for Player A to use his damaged racket, and also ask Player A if he wants to continue with his damaged racket. If both players say that it is OK, then I'd let them play on. So in this case Option 4 - Allow Player A to continue the match using the damaged racket, becomes the best choice.
But we'd strike trouble if either Player B wasn't happy for Player A to play with his damaged racket, or if Player A wasn't happy about having to use his racket which has been damaged even more by Player B. Then what?
As the referee, I'm supposed to be primarily looking out for the interests of Player B, according to Point 7.4.2 above. I agree that the racket is likely to have some unpredictable rebounds, so if Player B objected I think I would have to stop Player A from using the racket. And of course, if Player A is not willing to use the damaged racket, we have the same situation. In either case, the damaged racket is not going to be used.
Since there is no backup racket that Player A can switch to, the match cannot continue and somebody will have to be defaulted. The question is whether it should be Player A, who does not have a legal backup racket, or Player B, who accidentally damaged Player A's racket so that it cannot be used.
Issue 3 - Who Is More To Blame?
Again, this is a tough decision, and the ITTF doesn't have anything to say on the matter of a player damaging another player's bat. So it's up to the referee to use his own best judgment. Here's what I would be thinking:
Continued on next page
