DHS national, provincial, etc. etc.

At another forum someone mentioned that they bought different versions of H3 Neo from different sites and as expected they played quite differently, although they all had the same ITTF identification number on the topsheet.  And that got me to thinking that it is a serious issue I had never thought about before.  It relates to all of the various versions of DHS rubbers that are out there and the many threads on where to buy them, their authenticity, who uses what, etc. etc.

The question it raises is, how can rubbers that are so different be allowed to have the same ITTF identifying number? The rules ITTF has for racket coverings and their approval are quite specific and are found here: 

http://www.old.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/Technical_Leaflets/T4_Racket_Coverings.pdf

In brief, the procedure is that DHS submits a form telling the ITTF that they are coming out with a rubber and they are given an ID code for that rubber (which is the one we will eventually see on the rubber topsheet).  They then submit rubber samples for testing along with a testing fee  and also an authorization fee (the later fee they have to pay every year).  They are not supposed to sell or distribute any rubber before the tests are finished.

Now, here is the thing:  This document says that "The ITTF authorisation applies to a racket covering as originally submitted and tested; its subsequent alteration, by a supplier, a player or anyone else, is not permitted".  [emphasis added]

Now if the "provincial" and "national" and "super-duper secret Ma Long versions" are all different from each other and from the "commercial" versions that they sell to all the rest of us, say, at TT11, than how can all of those various versions have the same ITTF ID number?  Only one of them could have been approved by ITTF.  Which one?  If it was something other than the kind Ma Long or FZD uses, or if those players are each getting their own custom versions, how can that be legal according to thge ITTF's own procedures?  Not all of those different versions would have been submitted for testing and if each was different, each would need its own ID. 

And bear in mind, it is not just the topsheet that is submitted (as I once thought until corrected by someone here); it is the whole finished rubber, since one of the things they have to test is the rubber thickness. 

And this document also states that: "It is the responsibility of the suppliers to keep their brands on the LARC by paying the fees and maintaining the original properties of the racket covering as authorised, without alterations".  [emphasis added]

So if Ma Long and FZD et al. each get their own unique super top-secret Hurricane rubbers and if these "national" versions are different from the ordinary "commercial" versions, and yet they all have the same topsheet code, is not the ITTF allowing DHS to collude with the CNT to provide them with an unfair advantage?

Am I missing something here?  One thing of course is that how would you be able to check at a tournament that e.g. Ma Long's rubbers was different from the one submitted to ITTF for testing?  (You wouldn't be able to do that).  On the other hand, given that it seems to be common knowledge that there a zillion versions of these things and each CNT player gets their own version, wouldn't ITTF at some point find a way to do a spot check on the consistency of the stuff?

Baal wrote: And bear in mind, it is not just the topsheet that is submitted (as I once thought until corrected by someone here); it is the whole finished rubber, since one of the things they have to test is the rubber thickness.

That's the bit to confirm... I though it was the topsheet only that gets approved, any sponge variation are perfectly legal.

haggisv wrote: Baal wrote: And bear in mind, it is not just the topsheet that is submitted (as I once thought until corrected by someone here); it is the whole finished rubber, since one of the things they have to test is the rubber thickness.  That's the bit to confirm... I though it was the topsheet only that gets approved, any sponge variation are perfectly legal.

I can't understand the confusion here and agree with NL...

There's not much change to old procedures where it was more obvious that mainly/ony  topsheet needs to be certified and tested.
T4 says:
2.2.3.
"The supplier should submit the following to the address given under “Contact Person” on the ITTF
web site: One top sheet sample of each colour –withoutsponge.
One  red  racket  covering  for each  available sponge  colour,  with  the  thickest  available sponge,in plastic retail packaging.
One black racket covering with the thickest available sponge in any colour, in plastic retail packaging."

This IMO clearly implies, that there can be a combination of multiple types of sponge , as it has ever been .  For the red topsheets the different colours for sponge are tested, because due to translucent red topsheets may fall out of the colour specs with a dark sponge (has been discussed for the xiom black sponges at some point - in Germany there even was an official letter to umpires that they should look for "too dark red" xiom rubbers some years ago...).
The black with max sponge is mainly beeing tested for VOC....
But bottomline is that ITTF wording clearly implies there might be multiple versions of sponge used - they just want to test "the extremes" of those different versions used .
Just my 2 cents of course...

Baal wrote: The thing is, if companies like DHS (or anyone else) are producing rubbers with different sponges than what was submitted for testing, but with the same identifier on the topsheet, then that is against what is in T4.  It specifically says "The ITTF authorisation applies to a racket covering as originally submitted and tested; its subsequent alteration, by a supplier, a player or anyone else, is not permitted".

If ITTF only tests certain characteristics and declares only rubbers that meets those characteristics are authorized, does changing characteristics that are NOT tested make that rubber illegal?  If all of the measurable characteristics are unchanged, how would you determine that it was illegal?

I don't know about Roundell Regular/Soft/Hard, but at least with Rhyzm the three versions have different sponge colours.  So Joola would have had to send one red and one black (in max thickness) for each sponge colour in their retail packaging (as specified by 2.2.3 in the T4) at least.  Interesting that the ITTF specify sponge colour rather than hardness.

Baal wrote: T4 says "Authorisation is given to the top sheet plus the top sheet / sponge combination".  There is no ambiguity there. The top sheets are submitted without sponge so they can easily assess compliance with rules about the pips (density, symmetry, etc.).   But it is also required that the companies submit topsheets plus sponge -- i.e. the finished rubbers.  Presumably this is mainly to test for compliance with the overall thickness requirement (because they only test the thickest version that will be sold). The thing is, if companies like DHS (or anyone else) are producing rubbers with different sponges than what was submitted for testing, but with the same identifier on the topsheet, then that is against what is in T4.  It specifically says "The ITTF authorisation applies to a racket covering as originally submitted and tested; its subsequent alteration, by a supplier, a player or anyone else, is not permitted". I don't play with DHS, so have I have no knowledge of whether there are as many versions of any one rubber as is claimed.  However, there is a lot of commentary here and elsewhere that each CNT player has their own specially tuned version, and that DHS makes all sorts of National, Provincial and Commercial version of rubbers that nevertheless have the same stamp on the surface. I think it is quite clear from ITTF documents that this is against ITTF rules and I wonder why they don't crack down on it?  Since they want a "clean sport" and all...... Or maybe it is just an Urban Story.

Hi Baal,
I might very well be wrong, as english isn't my native language. But, I read and understand it a bit differently. 
ITTF requires "One  red  racket  covering  for each  available sponge  colour,  with  the  thickest  available sponge,in plastic retail packaging."
Reason is testing for accordance to colour requirements  - and in original packaging cause VOC test and max thickness  test.  For black sheets they therefore require only :
"One black racket covering with the thickest available sponge in any colour, in plastic retail packaging."

To me this means they only ask for one version - cause colour test doesn't need all colour versions with black topsheet.
There's no requirement for different hardness sponge or anything along this line.

I think ITTF is well aware that there are many, many sponge versions availlable for one topsheet ID - and this applies for almost all brands.
Testing of complete topsheet/sponge combination was added recently  - and if I'm not mistaken the reasons are described as well - colour for the red topsheets, max thickness and VOC testing .
(somewhere I recall, in some document they explecitely pointed out this is more for getting some better datafor future developements....)
But nowhere there's any mention of different hardness grades or even playability properties....
Best regards

Ttpanopticum raises a good point that they are mostly concerned with color of the red side. Still it seems like another case where the way ITTF writes their rules and regulations is not precise enough. Because since ITTF says that the thing they test has to be the thing the companies sell that is how it should be. They should not allow ones with a different sponge. I am sure it is not just DHS but it came to my mind first.

cole_ely wrote: In practice the ittf really just approves the top sheet. They could care less what sponge should you put it on, no I suppose they might get complaints from customers if those customers got disqualified for overall thickness. I'm sure they passed those complaints on to the manufacturer. But the question to me is do all these have the same top sheet? That's where the rub will be.

Clearly that seems to be the case (about the sponge), and it makes sense given that the only rule ITTF has about sponge is the total thickness of the entire rubber. 

But at the same time, this means that what ITTF does in practice is not what it says in T4.  And that in turn makes you wonder why they are so adamant about the evils of players boosting, since they don't even follow their own rules that much.  In other words, if they are so blase about what the companies glue on for a sponge, why do they care if players add something to it as long as it is not a health hazard? 

Also, like you, I wonder if the different versions always have the same topsheet.

That is an interesting thought.

I think that last terminology about the sponge being submitted is about vocs and tuning. They are the what you would get in trouble for if you submitted a rubber that passed the test but in the field your rubbers were failing the test. I believe that's the reasoning behind the T4 wording

Edited by cole_ely - 04/29/2017 at 9:04pm

cole_ely wrote: I think that last terminology about the sponge being submitted is about vocs and tuning. They are the what you would get in trouble for if you submitted a rubber that passed the test but in the field your rubbers were failing the test. I believe that's the reasoning behind the T4 wording

Perhaps, except bear in mind that some rubbers from companies profoundly smell like tuner (Evolution MX-P for example), so ITTF doesn't care about that as long as the stuff is under the allowable thickness and the red side meets their color requirements.  Unless, of course, Tibhar is actually sending unboosted MX-P to ITTF for approval and then selling it to us permeated with something that must be the same or very similar to Dandoy Biobooster, but perhaps on a sponge slightly thinner so it still passes whatever tests they have at tournaments.  And if ITTF doesn't care in practice about what sponge is attached to the rubber, why wouldn't they do that? And why wouldn't DHS or whoever makes the national Hurricanes?

My good friend bought me a sheet of provincial H3 neo. It quite different from commercial H3.
Especially rubber surface, quality is definitely not the same.

Baal wrote: Now if the "provincial" and "national" and "super-duper secret Ma Long versions" are all different from each other and from the "commercial" versions that they sell to all the rest of us, say, at TT11, than how can all of those various versions have the same ITTF ID number?

Edited by slevin - 05/01/2017 at 10:32am