In this, the sound of heartbeat is similar to that of cricket. Just like cricket and tennis, there is anxious anticipation. And then comes the replay on the giant screen, followed by the verdict which elicits either a roar of celebration or a collective gasp.
There is DRS in cricket. Hawk-eye is in tennis. And now table tennis, the world’s fastest racket sport, where rallies start in the blink of an eye, has its own review system.
In Ultimate Table Tennis (UTT) Season 7 in Goa, Table Tennis Review (TTR) is being used for the first time in India. Ask anyone involved, be it players, coaches, commentators or umpires adjudicating challenges, and the verdict is almost unanimous: this is a long-awaited innovation for a sport where decisive moments are often determined in fractions of a second.
Yet, unlike DRS or Hawk-Eye, TTR is not primarily about line calls. Its biggest challenge lies in deciding the most complex part of table tennis: the serve.
What exactly does TTR review, and how
In UTT, the TTR is being used to decide on six scenarios – the height of the serve toss (must be at least 16 cm), the serve toss angle (cannot go more than 30 degrees), whether the toss starts below the playing surface, whether it starts inside the last row of the table, whether the ball is hidden from the receiver during the toss, and sideline or net-ball calls. Internationally, the system is designed to review 10 types of decisions; UTT, using a version developed by Stupa Sports, India’s world-leading AI-powered sports technology and analytics firm, has rolled out 6 for this season.
Each team in the UTT is allowed three reviews per match. If the challenge is successful or the result is inconclusive, the review is upheld. If the call is confirmed and the challenge fails, the team loses the review.
TTR in UTT uses 14 high-speed cameras, mounted at different heights around the court, to track from multiple angles. The data is then processed to create a 3D model that shows the ball’s path, speed, spin rate and more. Therefore, when a challenge is raised, the TTR official examines the footage using ball-tracking tools and different replay speeds before making a final decision, which is ultimately displayed on a big screen, along with evidence of how the decision was reached.
International Blue Badge umpire Vipin Kumar is the dedicated TTR referee of the tournament this season in UTT, and only the second Gold Badge umpire in the world. He is the final decision-maker on every challenge, and he clearly explains in each review what the system is looking for.
Kumar, who was part of the TTR initiative, and during the 2025 China Smash in Beijing, officiated in matches where TTR was used on the court, told Hindustan Times on the sidelines of the UTT tournament, “We use 14 cameras located around the table.” “The most important part is to identify the exact frame where the ball leaves the player’s palm. That initial release point, along with the peak trajectory of the ball, is essential to accurately identifying the height and angle of the serve. If that frame is not identified correctly, the decision itself may be incorrect.”
The change is not the same in all scenarios. “For the height of the service and the service approach, the review usually takes 18 to 24 seconds,” said Kumar, who has been with UTT since its inception. “Hidden service reviews take longer – typically 40 to 49 seconds – because we need to assess not only the position of the server, but also whether the receiver’s view of the ball was obstructed.” Stupa Sports’ own pre-season pitch promised decisions in under 20 seconds – more complex hidden-serve calls suggest this figure is closer to the average across all scenarios than the hard ceiling.
And for all the technology involved, it still depends on an individual’s judgment at the point of decision. “Only one official is involved,” said the veteran umpire with more than two decades of experience in international umpiring. “The same trend is true in international table tennis, as TTR is still relatively new. Even in major tournaments with seven or eight tables, TTR is usually only available on center court.”
Where did TTR come from?
The table tennis review system is not a UTT invention, nor is it a table-tennis-first idea. The entire system was built on the concept used in Hawk-Eye, the ball-tracking technology that transformed cricket broadcasting from 2001 and later enabled tennis to adopt its own challenge system by 2006.
The table tennis version was developed by Chinese company Rigor Technology, which had already built a performance-tracking system for China’s national team before the concept of live umpiring was adopted, in partnership with the Chinese Table Tennis Association and the ITTF.
However, TTR did not make its official debut until 2019, and the ITTF later approved the system in early 2020. It was also supposed to be used in the Tokyo Olympics, but it was delayed due to the Covid pandemic. The TTR returns for trials at the 2024 Mixed Team World Cup and becomes a fixture on the international calendar by 2025 – with the World Cup in April, the World Championships in May and China’s domestic Super League by June. Stupa Sports then created their own version for UTT, which made its debut in the current seventh edition of the league.
What makes TTR special is that table tennis is the first Olympic sport in which the technology is used specifically to monitor service, not just line calls or goals. The most difficult thing has been to assess the service in real time.
Why does table tennis need its own version?
Table tennis demanded a judging system tailored to its unique challenges. Unlike tennis or cricket, rallies take place in split seconds, where even a single wrong call, especially on serve, can turn the match. Furthermore, TTR cannot simply be an imitation of Hawk Eye. The main reason is that the ball moves in three-dimensional space over, around, and even along the edges of the table, making tracking far more complex than on a flat court.
“The overall concept is actually quite similar. Tennis and badminton have an additional feature in the form of ball or shuttle tracking, and we are working in that direction as well. The experience for players and spectators is very similar – a feeling of anticipation while waiting for the decision, like an LBW review in cricket. Sometimes I need to check three or four different camera angles before reaching a conclusion. Basketball also follows a similar review process. So while the game is different, So the philosophy and the decision-making process remains largely the same,” Kumar explained. Asked about differences in technologies used.
He said high-speed cameras and adjustable playback ensure officials can make accurate calls despite the fast pace of the game.
Initial numbers on UTT
Kumar says the tournament has seen 33 TTR challenges through the second week of the season, a figure he is still finalizing in a full analysis of right and wrong origin calls against fair and unfair appeals – a number he expects to only get stronger once the tournament ends. However, a pattern is already clear: “About 70 percent of all challenges are related to the service angle,” he says, “and I expect this trend to continue until the end of the tournament.”
This is in line with what similar systems have shown internationally. At the 2025 ITTF World Cup and World Championships, umpires’ accuracy on serve calls increased from 76 percent in the World Cup to 82 percent in the World Cup, while players’ own success rate in challenging their opponents’ serve increased from 45 percent to 75 percent, suggesting that players have become sharper and more selective about calling for review rather than simply opposing close calls.
What players, coaches and commentators are really saying
The overwhelming sentiment from inside the tournament is positive, a reaction that Kumar also got, but beneath the surface-level praise a really interesting tactical layer has emerged.
Egypt’s Omar Assar, playing for Pune Jaguars, said the value of the system is simple: it protects the accuracy of the call, not the umpire’s authority. “TTR gives everyone an opportunity to re-examine the decision,” he told HT. “It’s not about questioning the umpire, it’s about making sure the right decision is taken.”
And Asar has lived both sides of it. At the LA Grand Smash two weeks before the UTT, an umpire called a fault on her serve and was convinced it was legal; The review proved him right and the umpire later apologized. “That’s why I think TTR is good for the game,” he said. “It encourages players to develop a technically correct serve and rewards those who do.”
But Assar is also clear that reviews have become a true strategic layer of the game, not just a fairness mechanism. “We study our opponents before matches,” he said. “There are some players whose serve we feel needs more attention, so we discuss situations where using a challenge might be appropriate. Sometimes those players adjust because they know they are being watched, while others continue with the same serve. So there is definitely a tactical element involved.”
Asked whether reviews could be used to slow down a match at a crucial moment, he did not dodge the question: “I hope that players will not use it in this way, because it would not be in keeping with the spirit of the game. That said, it is possible that some players could use reviews to hold their breath or disrupt the rhythm of the match. That is always a possibility.”
Indian national coach Saurav Chakraborty, in his first UTT season with the Ahmedabad APL Pipers, is more measured on the question of strategy. “We don’t specifically discuss TTR before matches because it comes with both advantages and risks,” he told the publication. “If you ask for a review and it’s unsuccessful, you miss the point.” But he’s actually unreserved about its value in borderline calls – “questionable serves, ball height or angle, edge balls or net touches. In those situations, TTR really helps.” He is particularly enjoying the theater of it: “Especially when the opposition calls for a TTR review, the music creates so much suspense that you start wondering what’s going to happen next. It’s really quite exciting.”
Commentator Adam Bobrow, UTT’s longtime “voice of table tennis,” is unequivocal. “I really think it’s one of the best facilities the league has done,” he said. “UTT continues to push boundaries and that’s one of the reasons I enjoy being a part of it.”
But the praise doesn’t stop where it stops. Asked if the system could go further, he didn’t exclude himself from the conversation: “It’s probably above my pay grade. Having said that, if someone invited me into a room to brainstorm ideas, I would happily contribute. I think there’s still a lot of room to further develop TTR – making it faster, expanding the types of decisions it can review and continuing to improve the experience.”
That trend, that TTR is a foundation rather than a finished product, echoes what has happened at the top of the game internationally, where even strong supporters of the system have marked real friction. Prolonged secret-serve reviews, sometimes lasting more than a minute at major tournaments, can disrupt the rhythm of a match so much that some coaches publicly worry about the effect on players’ focus. UTT’s figures so far suggest a tighter, more controlled version of the same technique, but the underlying tension the system has to manage is the same everywhere it is used: speed versus certainty, in a game where both matter more than almost anywhere else.
