ERKE GERMAN OPEN 2008

elcapitan_thfc wrote: JimT wrote: pingpongpaddy wrote: ... I just dont believe that a sponsored player doesnt have rubbers of legal thickness available to him at a major tournament, and its his responsibility to make sure that he does. Those who complain that the thickness limit was too tight must realize that whatever limit they set the players will try to get as close to the limit as possible without failing. Boll showed professionalism in having his rubbers as thick as possible within the permitted tolerance. Do you know which device is used for measuring the thickness of rubbers at ITTF ProTour tournaments? do you know the procedure? can you imagine yourself getting results within 0.02 mm tolerance... this is less than 1/5 or 1/6 of thickness of an average human hair http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_thickness_of_a_human_hair I think that Boll was just lucky that his racket wasn't outside the tolerance. Judging by the info available here, his rubbers were 4.02 mm thick... another 0.02 or 0.03 and he would be DQ'd as well.... I wonder what the referees would do then. I am sure that both Boll and Crisan do not do those measurements by themselves - they trust their coaches and other technical personnel and when they are told that their rubbers are legal, they just go and play.   How stupid to call him 'lucky' for following the rules. He must have prepared them and made sure they were legal and there is a reason that the rule is 4.04mm and that is so that people can have their rubbers up to that thickness, so Boll's bat is almost perfect.   No need to wonder what the referees would do if his rubbers were 0.02 or 0.03 more as they would certainly disqualify him as they did Crisan who was more over than that. BUT HE WASN'T   As for the measurements, I would say that Boll definitely has checked and measured his own rubbers as is illustrated by the fact that they are of a legal measurement. He also probably didn't tamper with his material during the tournament so the thickness has stayed similar. As Crisan's appear to have exceded the limit for this match, it would appear that he has tampered with his equipment and there should be strong allegations of cheating.   I am absolutely astounded that Crisan did not have a back up bat that was definitely legal even if he has planning to cheat and optimize his primary racquet, but I guess that just goes to show why Boll is number 5 in the world and Crisan is lingering somewhere around 30.

1. I agree with you that Boll must have measured his racket before. When I say he was lucky I mean the following - a) rubbers could have easily expanded just a little tiny bit (0.02 mm is almost invisible to a human eye); b) errors of his measuring device plus errors of referees measuring device could have easily added up to 0.03 mm (again, this is an absolutely  miniscule amount of thickness, won't you agree). Then he would have been disqualified for taking such a strange and probably unnecessary risk.

BTW, there was really no need to call my statement stupid - especially if you suspected that you didn't fully understand what I meant.

2. The fact that Crisan didn't have an almost identical spare racket is just mind-boggling to me. I mean this is the guy from the first 30-40 in the world, sponsored by Donic, and playing in international competitions for many years now. Amazingly strange (or stupid)... I myself have three spare rackets (not extremely identical but more or less the same), and if one of them breaks or rubbers tear I will be able to switch to a new one within 10 minutes, I am sure.

elcapitan_thfc wrote: Sorry, saying stupid was a little unfair...but if you are saying that it is possible that there is an error in the measuring device or by the umpires then it is also possible that Boll's racket thickness could have been less than the actual amount given by the machine.   Either way, it appears that Boll has been correct in preparing the thickness of his rubbers as he waswithin the limit and therefore I would say is totally comliant with the rules and he didn't take any unnecessary or stupid risks.   Agreed, stupid on Crisan's part not to have a backup. But the thing that troubles me is that how have his rubbers expanded so much after his last match? He must have been incredibly naive in thinking that he could get away with it..

But if Boll knew his rubbers were so super close to the limit, that makes his decision also pretty risky.

My guess is that they all do that. Not to mention that Boll probably turned out to be smarter than Crisan, and he had an extra racket (or two, just in case).

As for the change in Crisan's racket from the previous match - you are forgetting that these guys change rubbers every millisecond (). My educated guess is that they change rubbers entirely after each match at the ProTour events (this is not a backyard competition after all...)

crs2 wrote: Crisan must have been sure that his raquet was legal and didn't have a backup. 0.02  is too thin to assume that he was boosting. I am sure he wasn't . Boll at 4.02 did not boost because he said so, but Crisan at 4.04 definately boosted, dirty cheater, right? Come on, german or not you have to admit you're covering for Boll.   I have to say it again, I am amazed how after 2 months under this new and stupid rule you feel the need to defend it, not knowing what it will bring in the more distant future. Your position must have been something along the lines of: look at this mess the ITTF created, they made pro players struggle with equipment they don't like, they don't have a way to enforce these rules, a lot of players injured themselves because of the new technique, and so on. Instead we argue over 0.02 mm. We're  all ridiculous.

I am absolutely against these stupid rules and the mess that ITTF has created.

I am told, by the way, by people who train with Swedish teams, that almost all the players in Swedish league are boosting - they just have a slient understanding between themselves that they do not object to that.

Makes you wonder what they do when they go to ITTF tourneys - but that probably concerns only a couple of real super-pros, so...

I would imagine that it is more or less the same in many other places

crs2 wrote: Crisan must have been sure that his raquet was legal and didn't have a backup. 0.02  is too thin to assume that he was boosting. I am sure he wasn't . Boll at 4.02 did not boost because he said so, but Crisan at 4.04 definately boosted, dirty cheater, right? Come on, german or not you have to admit you're covering for Boll.   I have to say it again, I am amazed how after 2 months under this new and stupid rule you feel the need to defend it, not knowing what it will bring in the more distant future. Your position must have been something along the lines of: look at this mess the ITTF created, they made pro players struggle with equipment they don't like, they don't have a way to enforce these rules, a lot of players injured themselves because of the new technique, and so on. Instead we argue over 0.02 mm. We're  all ridiculous.

crs2 wrote:  Instead we argue over 0.02 mm. We're  all ridiculous.

Yes, the only the stupid ones are us, for arguing over 0.02 mm..
good point..

pingpongpaddy wrote: I rather suspect too that the tournament organisers would be only too happy to give players the benefit of unofficial early testing of their kit to give them the best chance of getting it right Crisan apparently expected his rubbers to fail!!!! that argues that he did have pre access to testing equipment, and given that his rubber company probably give him a plentiful supply of rubber, and would be willing to check the thickness for him to ensure it fell under the limit, that really he is either very naive or always intended to try and do a psycheout job on Boll. Or perhaps at recent lesser tournaments Crisan has been successful in bluffing his way through testing without coming up against the post match test. Perhaps he hoped to borrow his mates bat for that!!

Dunno there, too much suspect, apparently and perhaps to be use to accuse Crisan. I think the only one who can explain it is Crisan himself. And as long as we don't have any proof that he is cheating on purpose, than we have to give him the benefit of the doubt..
The officials and Boll don't think Crisan was cheating, and the article the match official handed over his racket and said that it was fine for him to play with it, based on another racket test results.. I still say it's the match official's (honest) mistake rather than Crisan's

one point! umpires give the blade to crisan when the players are in the field to play so he can go anyware with his blade to do somethink

and crisan was not sure if the blade will be OK becouse in the morning his blade was tested by umpires and was not Ok becouse from rubbers, in this time crisan give the cioti blade to umpires to check and that was OK.( to have a blade with can play at least one point), after he clean his rubbers from glue and reglued very soft he give his blade again to be tested by umpires and his blade now was Ok and was give to crisan on the field to play...

If a umpire come with your blade on the table after he tested and say it's OK, be sure all the game umpires stay with eyes on blades to not switch them and remain all time game on the table if u think crisan switch blade then crisan is a magician
and if he switch had only other blade(cioti blade) who had other setup rubbers and blade with who crisan can't play...
anyway this stuff was tolked before here if u read all...

 I've just seen the final,very good game.I haven't seen Boll hitting with the right hand before.Nice shot.

SoWhySoSerious wrote: http://www.megaupload.com/pl/?d=JRILORLJ Timo Boll-Chuan Chih Yuan Final enjoy...

SWSS  thanks much for posting that vid!!!

Rich215 wrote: Why was the point called for Chuan with Boll serving...at about 17:30 in...did Boll strike the ball inside the end line?

Because the referee thought, the ball was not thrown high enough from Boll.

Mark 5 wrote: Rich215 wrote: Why was the point called for Chuan with Boll serving...at about 17:30 in...did Boll strike the ball inside the end line?    Because the referee thought, the ball was not thrown high enough from Boll.

Someone, I think it was the ref, said something about "... cannot see..." in English afterwards, so I think during the serve Timo's body or free arm blocked the view of the ref or assitant ref so he couldn't see the ball.

In the video I saw the serve and thought it was suspicious at least. I for one think illegal serves should be dealt with harshly.  Rules are not made to be broken

"Someone, I think it was the ref, said something about "... cannot see..." in English afterwards..."

No, i think it was Prause, who said this to the referee. The referee sat behind Timo during the serve and really coul not see clearly, what Timo is doing. The other referee who was counting only would have seen clearly Timos serves. This is what Prause said i think.

And here is, what Timo said in a german forum to the incident with crisan:
(in german)


"Hi,

da es hier viele Diskussionen �ber den Vorgang meines Achtelfinalspiels gegen Adrian Crisan gab, m�chte ich mal die Vorg�nge schildern, wie sie wirklich abgelaufen sind. Jede Partei versucht hier den schwarzen Peter in die Schuhe des anderen zu schieben. Es waren viele Fehler und Missverst�ndnisse die hier passiert sind:

Adrian Crisan und ich gingen ein halbe Stude vor dem Spiel gemeinsam zum Schl�gertest. Mein Schl�ger war ok, sein Vorhandbelag war mit 4,15mm zu dick. Darauf meinte der Kontrolleur, er solle ein bisschen auf den Belag dr�cken, dann wird er d�nner und sie messen dann nochmal. Da war ich schon etwas verwundert und erregt. Als der Schl�ger nochmal gemessen wurde nach ein paar Minuten war er nur noch 4,08mm, aber immer noch zu dich, da der Grenzwert 4,04mm ist. Was mich noch mehr �rgerte ist, dass daraufhin nochmal der Schl�ger getestet wurde, doch er war immer noch zu dick.
Adrian hatte aber keinen eigenen Ersatzschl�ger und lie� daraufhin den Butterflyschl�ger seines Landsmanns Cioti messen. Dieser war 3,88mm und regelkonform.
Das Spiel konnte also beginnen, doch als ich an die Box kurz vor SPielbeginn kam gab es schon wieder Diskussionen. Donic-Chef Frank Schreiner und Ochsenhausens Pr�sident Rainer Ihle waren erbost �ber die Tatsache, dass der Donic-Schl�ger von Adrian Crisan zu dick war. Da Frank Schreiner ihren Vertragsspieler Crisan anscheinend nicht mt Butterfly-Material nicht spielen lassen wollten(was ich nachvollziehen kann), sagten sie zu Richard Prause und zu mir, dass Adrian aufgeben muss. Als die Turnierorganisation dies mitbekam und sich einschaltete kam es nochmal zu Diskussionen. Schreiner und Ihle schimpften, dass Crisan mit seinem Schl�ger gestern noch spielen durfte und es keine Probleme gab und heute w�re er pl�tzlich zu dick. Dies w�re seltsam.
Daraufhin ging der Turnierdirektor zum Schl�gerkontrolleur und schaute sich nur die Messergebnisse an, ohne den Schl�ger nochmal zu testen. Da stand nat�rlich 3,88mm, dies waren allerdings die Messergebnisse des Butterflyschl�gers von Cioti und nicht die des Donic-Schl�gers.
Daraufhin kam der Turnierdirektor mt dem Donic-Schl�ger zur�ck an die Box und meinte: Der Schl�ger ist ok.
Ich war nat�rlich stinksauer. Dachte, der Schl�ger wurde nochmal(!) kontrolliert und nun hat er den Tets bestanden. Ich hatte nat�rlich die Spannung verloren da ich dachte, das Spiel findet gar nicht statt, da Crisan aufgeben wollte! Zudem wird so lang getestet, Hauptsache die Zuschauer bekommen dieses Spiel zu sehen, ohne sich ans Regelwerk zu halten.(Normale Testprozedur: 1x Schl�gertest, falls zu dick 1x Test des Ersatzschl�gers und falls dieser nicht in Ordnung ist Disqualifikation).
Naja, nun musste ich doch in die Box, Adrian hat sehr gut gespielt und ich habe knapp verloren. Doch wie das alles gelaufen war, fand ich nicht in Ordnung. Ich d�ste aus der Halle direkt ins Hotel. Duschte und sass schon gepackt im Auto, als Richard Prause meine Frau an der Hotelrezeption am Telefon erwischte. Er meinte zu ihr Crisan sei noch disqualifiziert worden. Als ich mit ihm sprach, h�rte ich dann, wie alles weitergelaufen ist, als ich schon aus der Halle war.
Die Schiedsrichter m�ssen im SPiel gemerkt haben, dass Crisan doch nicht mit dem getesten Butterflyschl�ger spielte und witterten, dass etwas nicht stimmte. Diese lie�en dann nach dem Spiel nochmal den gespielten DOnic-Schl�ger testen. Dieser war noch immer zu dick und daraus resultierte die nachtr�gliche Disqualifikation von Crisan.
Ich musste nun �berlegen, was ich mache. Weiterspielen oder Heimfahren?
Nachdem ich alles absch�tzte, dachte ich mir: Ich habe keinen Fehler gemacht. Crisan hat mit einem unerlaubten Schl�ger gespielt, wollte schon aufgeben und bei den Schiedsrichtern und der Turnierorganisation sind Fehler unterlaufen, f�r die ich auch nichts kann.
Wir sind im Tischtennis einfach noch zu unprofessionel.
Der Spieler hat keinen Ersatzschl�ger: Darf nicht passieren.
Der Turnierdirektor mischt sich ins Geschehen ein: Da hat er nix verloren!
Die Schiedsrichter sind nicht konsequent.
Ich h�tte nichts gewonnen, wenn ich nicht weitergespielt h�tte: Ich h�tte viele Weltranglistenpunkte verloren, h�tte viel Preisgeld verloren, die Zuschauer h�tten kein Viertelfinale gesehen.
Ich hoffe, der Trubel wird etwas �ndern in den K�pfen der ITTF: Die Schl�gerkontrollen sind n�mlich wie sie sind l�cherlich. Es muss h�rtere Strafen geben! SOnst werden die SPieler machen was sie wollen.

Gru�

Timo Boll"

First, I should say that Timo should not blame anyone that he has lost composure. That is wholly his problem - god knows, there are a lot of events going on at the big tournaments, some of them concern a player but he should not react to them as to distractions even if they are. That just shows he does not have a thick enough skin... which is rather surprising to me.

Secondly I agree with him that racket controls as they are now, are ridiculous. But then he goes and says that punishment for that must be more severe than it is now. I would love to see his excuses and reasoning if that were him with, say, 4.05 thickness (the device that they use to measure rubber thickness can easily add extra 0.03 mm which is a ridiculously small amount... not to mention that during the game rubbers could expand, accumulate dirt etc.)

Certainly, the rules must be changed - my advice is to abandon most of that stuff completely. As for the thickness check, i would say if a regular ruler-device that they used before shows that the rubber is less than 4.1 thick then it's OK to play with it. 0.1 mm is already an almost invisible amount...

ice592 wrote: Diffus� � Sport+ Finale Messieurs Timo Boll - Chuan Chih Yuan 6/11 11/5 11/7 11/3 11/8 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1EFZHC8F 1/2 Finale Messieurs Timo Boll - Cheung Yuk 13/11 11/3 11/4 11/6 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G8PS1U8S Chuan Chih-Yuan - Jiang Tianyi 12/10 11/7 12/14 7/11 11/8 11/13 13/11 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=07TQ84FM

crisan vs boll nobody have nothing video?