Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - FITeT:  Cheaters No Passaran !!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

FITeT: Cheaters No Passaran !!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Egghead View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: N.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 4230
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Egghead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 1:38pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

I hardly ever see anyone complain.. just tons of players participating in those threads.. If I start a thread about treating pips, the entire world would start attacking me.. Double Standard..
I understand where you are coming from but maybe those cheaters never say they break no rule. I don't know Embarrassed


Edited by Egghead - 04/13/2018 at 1:38pm
Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
andras View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/26/2012
Location: italy
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote andras Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 1:40pm

Since the same discussion has been dragging on the Italian forum for years,
 I would like to point out that ITTF rules seem to have been made NOT to lead to
anything since I can often be interpreted in many ways according to how it is more
 convenient. One of the main hopes of the introduction of the bat tester is precisely to push
ITTF to the formulation of a regulation that obliges manufacturers to provide us
with non-modifiable materials or that obliges EVERYONE to undergo clear and reliable tests.
Back to Top
Egghead View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: N.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 4230
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Egghead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 1:40pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by Egghead Egghead wrote:

You make an assumption that the aging will be consistent across the rubber surface; did you have a rubber band at home LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

C'mon, ITTF covers that too
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
you highlighted "accidental damage" but ignored "wear". What I'm talking about is WEAR!
Now, you are playing stupid LOL
 



Edited by Egghead - 04/13/2018 at 3:57pm
Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX
Back to Top
andras View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/26/2012
Location: italy
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote andras Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 1:49pm

Such tests would actually enforce a ACTUAL rule.. The friction test does not as there is no rule that says that "x amount of friction" is required when used. There just is no set limit and if there is no set limit, you can't have a test for an imaginary limit that does not exist. Lack of friction is not proof of treatment just like if I can't walk a straight line is not proof that I'm drunk.. Taking a breathalizer or blood test is proof that someone is drunk. Just because someone "acts" drunk is not proof that someone is drunk. Just because a rubber appears treated is no proof that it is treated.

I personally would love to see such test performed in the US and someone being ejected by a tournament.. Then, someone may sue and a court will have to look at the wording of the rule and see if such test for a imaginary limit was ok to eject someone from a tournament.. I would love to see this play out in court.. Being born in Europe, I understand that it is difficult and expensive to pursue legal action in Europe but in the US, it is fairly easy.. 

Due process has to be followed.. The AGM must pass rule changes, not the BoD. The friction regulation was exclusively passed by the BoD with no accompanying rule changes.


I apologize for your frankness: these arguments are those of those who use irregular tires and look
 for every grip to continue using them, there is nothing to add


Edited by andras - 04/13/2018 at 1:50pm
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by andras andras wrote:

I apologize for your frankness:
these arguments are those of those who use irregular tires and look
 for every grip to continue using them, there is nothing to add
No, my tires are all GoodYear Eagle F1's and they are all regular LOL LOL LOL LOL


Edited by Pushblocker - 04/13/2018 at 1:55pm
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
andras View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/26/2012
Location: italy
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote andras Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 1:56pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by andras andras wrote:

I apologize for your frankness:
these arguments are those of those who use irregular tires and look
 for every grip to continue using them, there is nothing to add
No, my tires are all GoodYear Eagle F1's and they are all regular LOL LOL LOL LOL

Handshake
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 3:31pm
"I personally would love to see such test performed in the US and someone being ejected by a tournament.. Then, someone may sue and a court will have to look at the wording of the rule and see if such test for a imaginary limit was ok to eject someone from a tournament.. I would love to see this play out in court.. Being born in Europe, I understand that it is difficult and expensive to pursue legal action in Europe but in the US, it is fairly easy.. "

If I ran tourneys in the US, I would never use such a tester, because I would likely lose any lawsuit. A smart high school kid taking physics can poke many holes in this tester.

In addition to the 3 I already mentioned, mfr tolerances for the incline plane angle, weight and friction of the mass, there's more.

There is no accounting for temp and humidity. The ITTF document on LP says:

"The coefficient of kinetic friction between the rubber and a table tennis ball must be at least 0.50. In the test laboratory, a normal force of 50mN is applied."

Note in the TEST LABORATORY where it is an air conditioned space.

Doing this test in real world conditions with varying temp and humidity makes this tester junk science. The ITTF test was never designed to do this.

It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

So in just a few minutes, I have come up with many variables which will affect the "test". I am sure others will come up with more.
Back to Top
andras View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/26/2012
Location: italy
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote andras Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 3:41pm
the question is that in Italia and not only in Italia it works like this:
in order to play sanctioned tournaments you must be registered with the f.i.t.e.t.
at the time you sign up, you accept the regulation imposed by the fitet.
If the fitet puts in the regulation that your racket must pass this test, by registering 
you have accepted the test. Alternatively you can play tournaments under other federations but are NOT registered
to I.t.t.f. and therefore are only amateur.
Back to Top
pgpg View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pgpg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 3:42pm
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

"I personally would love to see such test performed in the US and someone being ejected by a tournament.. Then, someone may sue and a court will have to look at the wording of the rule and see if such test for a imaginary limit was ok to eject someone from a tournament.. I would love to see this play out in court.. Being born in Europe, I understand that it is difficult and expensive to pursue legal action in Europe but in the US, it is fairly easy.. "

If I ran tourneys in the US, I would never use such a tester, because I would likely lose any lawsuit. A smart high school kid taking physics can poke many holes in this tester.

In addition to the 3 I already mentioned, mfr tolerances for the incline plane angle, weight and friction of the mass, there's more.

There is no accounting for temp and humidity. The ITTF document on LP says:

"The coefficient of kinetic friction between the rubber and a table tennis ball must be at least 0.50. In the test laboratory, a normal force of 50mN is applied."

Note in the TEST LABORATORY where it is an air conditioned space.

Doing this test in real world conditions with varying temp and humidity makes this tester junk science. The ITTF test was never designed to do this.

It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

So in just a few minutes, I have come up with many variables which will affect the "test". I am sure others will come up with more.

Out of curiosity, are you vigorously objecting to the test implementation or the principle of testing for minimal LP friction itself?  
USATT: ~1810
Butterfly Defense Alpha ST - H3 Neo - Cloud&Fog OX
Back to Top
andras View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/26/2012
Location: italy
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote andras Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 3:46pm
the test works because the difference between a frictionless and a regular lp in terms 
of friction is so big that it can not keep a large part of marginal components under
control. It is as if the time to measure the thickness of a rubber should be kept in mind the
tenth decimal.
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 3:49pm
Originally posted by pgpg pgpg wrote:

Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

"I personally would love to see such test performed in the US and someone being ejected by a tournament.. Then, someone may sue and a court will have to look at the wording of the rule and see if such test for a imaginary limit was ok to eject someone from a tournament.. I would love to see this play out in court.. Being born in Europe, I understand that it is difficult and expensive to pursue legal action in Europe but in the US, it is fairly easy.. "

If I ran tourneys in the US, I would never use such a tester, because I would likely lose any lawsuit. A smart high school kid taking physics can poke many holes in this tester.

In addition to the 3 I already mentioned, mfr tolerances for the incline plane angle, weight and friction of the mass, there's more.

There is no accounting for temp and humidity. The ITTF document on LP says:

"The coefficient of kinetic friction between the rubber and a table tennis ball must be at least 0.50. In the test laboratory, a normal force of 50mN is applied."

Note in the TEST LABORATORY where it is an air conditioned space.

Doing this test in real world conditions with varying temp and humidity makes this tester junk science. The ITTF test was never designed to do this.

It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

So in just a few minutes, I have come up with many variables which will affect the "test". I am sure others will come up with more.


Out of curiosity, are you vigorously objecting to the test implementation or the principle of testing for minimal LP friction itself?  


I play smooth rubber, but have goofed around with LP. I play many LP players and don't care what friction they have. I have no strong opinion one way or the other.

I do have a strong opinion about junk science. This "tester" has way too many issues.
Back to Top
andras View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/26/2012
Location: italy
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote andras Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 3:56pm
if a national federation has decided that the test is valid to assess the validity
 of a rubber .... it will certainly be the federation that is wrong not the rubber
that is irregular ... I think it is logical!LOL
Back to Top
pgpg View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pgpg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

 
...
It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

I do have a strong opinion about junk science. This "tester" has way too many issues.

May be, may be not - the basic idea is pretty sound (although I would probably try to measure/test for a critical angle instead). One can list a lot of factors, but if these are small, then it does not matter much. 

In other words, just listing a lot of factors that *might* impact a measurement, is not enough to declare something a 'junk science', someone has to show that these actually matter. So, if main effect is 100% and you came up with 5-6 sources of potential systematic errors that are each of 1% magnitude, I don't think you disproved the original premise.

Physics PhD here, if you are wondering (and no, I don't remember on top of my head how much humidity or temperature would matter here, but that's quite easy to test).

USATT: ~1810
Butterfly Defense Alpha ST - H3 Neo - Cloud&Fog OX
Back to Top
Egghead View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: N.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 4230
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Egghead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 4:09pm
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

"I personally would love to see such test performed in the US and someone being ejected by a tournament.. Then, someone may sue and a court will have to look at the wording of the rule and see if such test for a imaginary limit was ok to eject someone from a tournament.. I would love to see this play out in court.. Being born in Europe, I understand that it is difficult and expensive to pursue legal action in Europe but in the US, it is fairly easy.. "

If I ran tourneys in the US, I would never use such a tester, because I would likely lose any lawsuit. A smart high school kid taking physics can poke many holes in this tester.

In addition to the 3 I already mentioned, mfr tolerances for the incline plane angle, weight and friction of the mass, there's more.

There is no accounting for temp and humidity. The ITTF document on LP says:

"The coefficient of kinetic friction between the rubber and a table tennis ball must be at least 0.50. In the test laboratory, a normal force of 50mN is applied."

Note in the TEST LABORATORY where it is an air conditioned space.

Doing this test in real world conditions with varying temp and humidity makes this tester junk science. The ITTF test was never designed to do this.

It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

So in just a few minutes, I have come up with many variables which will affect the "test". I am sure others will come up with more.
You sound like a reasonably intelligent person; have you worked on the site before? 
From my limited exposure to the petrochemical industry,  I think the tool is fine. LOL
Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX
Back to Top
arg0 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/22/2009
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2023
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote arg0 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 4:34pm
As my post was overshadowed, here it is again, with some further comments:

My reading of the rules is that repeatedly hitting a tt ball is a physical treatment that, if it causes changes to the friction properties of the covering material, be it uniformly or not, causes a violation of Rule 2.04.07.

Rule 2.04.07 is silent about uniformity/continuity and includes any modification, be it uniform or not.
Just because there's a specific rule (2.04.07.01) about deviations from continuity this does not mean that the other rules do not apply.

At least this is my understanding: uniform wear is not allowed by Rule 2.04.07 if it modified the properties of the rubber surface.

As to the testing device, as I see it it's not the final friction coefficient that counts, but the difference from the original, ITTF-approved surface. So yes, measuring the time for the puck to slide through the rubber with the testing device and comparing it to a fixed threshold time only works if the threshold comes from the ITTF-approved rubber with the lowest friction coefficient. It will, however not detect a worn T64, if it's still grippier than, say, a Nittaku Micro.
Testing of relative times (e.g. T64 of current racket vs T64 new) would be possible but impractical, also due to manufacturing tolerances.

Nexy Arche & Nittaku Violin LG.
Join the Nexy Clan!
Also member of Violin & 1-Ply clans.
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by pgpg pgpg wrote:

Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

 
...
It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

I do have a strong opinion about junk science. This "tester" has way too many issues.


May be, may be not - the basic idea is pretty sound (although I would probably try to measure/test for a critical angle instead). One can list a lot of factors, but if these are small, then it does not matter much. 

In other words, just listing a lot of factors that *might* impact a measurement, is not enough to declare something a 'junk science', someone has to show that these actually matter. So, if main effect is 100% and you came up with 5-6 sources of potential systematic errors that are each of 1% magnitude, I don't think you disproved the original premise.

Physics PhD here, if you are wondering (and no, I don't remember on top of my head how much humidity or temperature would matter here, but that's quite easy to test).



Agree the basic idea from a theoretical standpoint is sound. teaching this concept in a physics class is one thing, building many testers in a practical way and using them is different.

For example, the tester looks like it is made of many pieces of injection molded plastic. Many things in the mfr process will affect the dimensions of the finished parts.

That is why the final put together tester will have an angle of X plus or minus Y degrees. What is Y? My industry experience says Y is non trivial for a product like this.

My quick and dirty google search for a COF equation on an inclined plane says COF is proportional to the sine of the angle. So if I pick an arbitrary angle then vary the angle by 2 degrees, I get a variation of almost 10% in COF. Since you are a Physics PHD, maybe you can confirm this. 10% variation would be significant.

Then there is the usage of this tester over time. If it is left in a hot car, dropped, etc., how does that affect the test? If it is being used to DQ people out of a tourney where they have paid entry fees and have a chance to win $$$, the bar should be set high.

BTW, if someone came to my company and tried to sell me a friction tester, I would ask all the questions I have stated here. Before even taking a meeting with the salesman, I would require them to send me all their technical documentation.

There are commercial friction testers that work on this principal. They cost lots of $$$$.
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by andras andras wrote:


<pre ="tw--text tw-ta tw-text-small" -placeholder="Traduzione" id="tw-target-text" style="text-align: left; height: 144px;" -fulltext="" dir="ltr"><span lang="en">if a national federation has decided that the test is valid to assess the validity
 of a rubber .... it will certainly be the federation that is wrong not the rubber
that is irregular ... I think it is logical!LOL</span>

Of course, each organization can have their own rules.. Not contesting that..
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by pgpg pgpg wrote:

Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

 
...
It is entirely possible to have a rubber pass this tester at low humidity and have it fail at high humidity.

I do have a strong opinion about junk science. This "tester" has way too many issues.


May be, may be not - the basic idea is pretty sound (although I would probably try to measure/test for a critical angle instead). One can list a lot of factors, but if these are small, then it does not matter much. 

In other words, just listing a lot of factors that *might* impact a measurement, is not enough to declare something a 'junk science', someone has to show that these actually matter. So, if main effect is 100% and you came up with 5-6 sources of potential systematic errors that are each of 1% magnitude, I don't think you disproved the original premise.

Physics PhD here, if you are wondering (and no, I don't remember on top of my head how much humidity or temperature would matter here, but that's quite easy to test).

The issue is not the test itself. The issue is that there is no rule that a rubber has to maintain x amount of friction to be allowed to use. It does not exist.. As I said, if the friction requirement for authorization is 50 mn and a rubber barely passes that limit it would certainly be below that limit within a short period of time. If there is no set minimun in the rules, how can you enforce a limit that has not been set. Of course, if a national association decides to pass a rule for their sanctioned events, they can be free to do so.

Edited by Pushblocker - 04/13/2018 at 5:45pm
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
Egghead View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: N.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 4230
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Egghead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 7:05pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

The issue is not the test itself. The issue is that there is no rule that a rubber has to maintain x amount of friction to be allowed to use. It does not exist.. As I said, if the friction requirement for authorization is 50 mn and a rubber barely passes that limit it would certainly be below that limit within a short period of time. If there is no set minimun in the rules, how can you enforce a limit that has not been set. Of course, if a national association decides to pass a rule for their sanctioned events, they can be free to do so.
First of all, can you play with a frictionless LP? In addition, do you read the ITTF's Technical Leaflet T4: Racket Coverings, section 10 Player’s responsibilities? 

Actually, ITTF found that a 25 mN LP may be around 15 mN after a couple of years under normal conditions, not frictionless.

haha, somehow, I keep hearing 'Blowin in The Wind' in my head LOL
Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX
Back to Top
mts388 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 03/21/2014
Location: Sonora CA
Status: Offline
Points: 2382
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mts388 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 8:10pm
I thought it ironic that the top thread was about cheaters using frictionless LP's and the next one was about how to cheat using boosters.


Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 8:32pm
Originally posted by Egghead Egghead wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

The issue is not the test itself. The issue is that there is no rule that a rubber has to maintain x amount of friction to be allowed to use. It does not exist.. As I said, if the friction requirement for authorization is 50 mn and a rubber barely passes that limit it would certainly be below that limit within a short period of time. If there is no set minimun in the rules, how can you enforce a limit that has not been set. Of course, if a national association decides to pass a rule for their sanctioned events, they can be free to do so.

First of all, can you play with a frictionless LP? In addition, do you read the ITTF's Technical Leaflet T4: Racket Coverings, section 10 Player’s responsibilities? 

Actually, ITTF found that a 25 mN LP may be around 15 mN after a couple of years under normal conditions, not frictionless.

haha, somehow, I keep hearing 'Blowin in The Wind' in my head LOL

Technical Leaflet is a regulation for manufacturers that a rubber must have a certain friction for authorization purposes. Regulations are for authorization. Rules are for players. There is no rule that requires a rubber from retaining a certain amount of friction. I have been discussing the exact wording of the rules regulations and ITTF bylaws with 2 lawyer friends and one judge friend of mine and all came to the same conclusion.. I have to admit that one of those lawyer friends is also a long pips player...Rubbers have to be on the list of authorized rubbers but there is no rule against rubber wear if the wear does not cause the rubber to no longer be uniform.

Edited by Pushblocker - 04/13/2018 at 8:42pm
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
Egghead View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: N.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 4230
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Egghead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 9:17pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
Technical Leaflet is a regulation for manufacturers that a rubber must have a certain friction for authorization purposes. Regulations are for authorization. Rules are for players. There is no rule that requires a rubber from retaining a certain amount of friction. I have been discussing the exact wording of the rules regulations and ITTF bylaws with 2 lawyer friends and one judge friend of mine and all came to the same conclusion.. I have to admit that one of those lawyer friends is also a long pips player...Rubbers have to be on the list of authorized rubbers but there is no rule against rubber wear if the wear does not cause the rubber to no longer be uniform.
As I said, show us this; you are saying "gospel" here.
 
On the other hand, section 10 did say it is player's responsibilities Dead

10. Player’s responsibilities 
It is the player’s responsibility to use racket coverings that comply with the rules. For example, a red racket covering may become too dark when affixed to a dark sponge or blade. A thick glue layer may cause the racket covering to exceed the maximum thickness regulation of 4.0mm including top sheet, sponge, and adhesive; or 2.0mm for rubber and adhesive without sponge. Players are advised to air a brand-new rubber before use, even though the manufacturer is expected to aerate the rubber before packaging. Use of post-factory treatments is not permitted and may cause the racket covering to exceed the permitted thickness, friction, pimple density, etc.

Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by Egghead Egghead wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
Technical Leaflet is a regulation for manufacturers that a rubber must have a certain friction for authorization purposes. Regulations are for authorization. Rules are for players. There is no rule that requires a rubber from retaining a certain amount of friction. I have been discussing the exact wording of the rules regulations and ITTF bylaws with 2 lawyer friends and one judge friend of mine and all came to the same conclusion.. I have to admit that one of those lawyer friends is also a long pips player...Rubbers have to be on the list of authorized rubbers but there is no rule against rubber wear if the wear does not cause the rubber to no longer be uniform.
As I said, show us this; you are saying "gospel" here.
 
On the other hand, section 10 did say it is player's responsibilities Dead

10. Player’s responsibilities 
It is the player’s responsibility to use racket coverings that comply with the rules. For example, a red
racket covering may become too dark when affixed to a dark sponge or blade. A thick glue layer may
cause the racket covering to exceed the maximum thickness regulation of 4.0mm including top sheet,
sponge, and adhesive; or 2.0mm for rubber and adhesive without sponge. Players are advised to air a
brand-new rubber before use, even though the manufacturer is expected to aerate the rubber before
packaging. Use of post-factory treatments is not permitted and may cause the racket covering to
exceed the permitted thickness, friction, pimple density, etc.

As usual, you highlight things out of context. The statement is clearly about treatment, not wear.
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
pgpg View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/18/2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pgpg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 9:56pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

...

 The issue is not the test itself. The issue is that there is no rule that a rubber has to maintain x amount of friction to be allowed to use. It does not exist.. As I said, if the friction requirement for authorization is 50 mn and a rubber barely passes that limit it would certainly be below that limit within a short period of time. If there is no set minimun in the rules, how can you enforce a limit that has not been set. Of course, if a national association decides to pass a rule for their sanctioned events, they can be free to do so.

I was talking about the test - the other stuff was debated already ad nauseam and I'm not getting into it again, don't see a chance of changing anyone's mind here (including mine).
USATT: ~1810
Butterfly Defense Alpha ST - H3 Neo - Cloud&Fog OX
Back to Top
Egghead View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: N.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 4230
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Egghead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 10:31pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by Egghead Egghead wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
Technical Leaflet is a regulation for manufacturers that a rubber must have a certain friction for authorization purposes. Regulations are for authorization. Rules are for players. There is no rule that requires a rubber from retaining a certain amount of friction. I have been discussing the exact wording of the rules regulations and ITTF bylaws with 2 lawyer friends and one judge friend of mine and all came to the same conclusion.. I have to admit that one of those lawyer friends is also a long pips player...Rubbers have to be on the list of authorized rubbers but there is no rule against rubber wear if the wear does not cause the rubber to no longer be uniform.
As I said, show us this; you are saying "gospel" here.
 
On the other hand, section 10 did say it is player's responsibilities Dead

10. Player’s responsibilities 
It is the player’s responsibility to use racket coverings that comply with the rules. For example, a red
racket covering may become too dark when affixed to a dark sponge or blade. A thick glue layer may
cause the racket covering to exceed the maximum thickness regulation of 4.0mm including top sheet,
sponge, and adhesive; or 2.0mm for rubber and adhesive without sponge. Players are advised to air a
brand-new rubber before use, even though the manufacturer is expected to aerate the rubber before
packaging. Use of post-factory treatments is not permitted and may cause the racket covering to
exceed the permitted thickness, friction, pimple density, etc.

As usual, you highlight things out of context. The statement is clearly about treatment, not wear.
C'mon, if you want to play stupid or to cover your eyes,  no one will stop you LOLLOLLOLLOL

2.04.07.01 clearly covers "wear" already, and that pt 10 clearly pts out that it is player's responsibilities.
Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 10:51pm
Originally posted by Egghead Egghead wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by Egghead Egghead wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
Technical Leaflet is a regulation for manufacturers that a rubber must have a certain friction for authorization purposes. Regulations are for authorization. Rules are for players. There is no rule that requires a rubber from retaining a certain amount of friction. I have been discussing the exact wording of the rules regulations and ITTF bylaws with 2 lawyer friends and one judge friend of mine and all came to the same conclusion.. I have to admit that one of those lawyer friends is also a long pips player...Rubbers have to be on the list of authorized rubbers but there is no rule against rubber wear if the wear does not cause the rubber to no longer be uniform.
As I said, show us this; you are saying "gospel" here.
 
On the other hand, section 10 did say it is player's responsibilities Dead

10. Player’s responsibilities 
It is the player’s responsibility to use racket coverings that comply with the rules. For example, a red
racket covering may become too dark when affixed to a dark sponge or blade. A thick glue layer may
cause the racket covering to exceed the maximum thickness regulation of 4.0mm including top sheet,
sponge, and adhesive; or 2.0mm for rubber and adhesive without sponge. Players are advised to air a
brand-new rubber before use, even though the manufacturer is expected to aerate the rubber before
packaging. Use of post-factory treatments is not permitted and may cause the racket covering to
exceed the permitted thickness, friction, pimple density, etc.

As usual, you highlight things out of context. The statement is clearly about treatment, not wear.

C'mon, if you want to play stupid or to cover your eyes,  no one will stop you LOLLOLLOLLOL

2.04.07.01 clearly covers "wear" already, and that pt 10 clearly pts out that it is player's responsibilities.
Wear only causes an issue if it causes lack of uniformity. If it doesn't, the rule does not apply. The english language used for the rule is not ambiguous. It is 100% clear.
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
smackman View Drop Down
Assistant Moderator
Assistant Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 07/20/2009
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote smackman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 11:42pm
The two leading treads "How to boost tenergy" YAY 
and "the long pimple cheaters" BOO

too funny



Ulmo Duality,Donic BlueGrip C2 red max ,Yinhe Super Kim Ox Black
NZ table tennis selector, third in the World (plate Doubles)I'm Listed on the ITTF website
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/13/2018 at 11:46pm
Originally posted by mts388 mts388 wrote:

[QUOTE=andras]
if playing with a frictionless rubber does not give benefits or is not different 
from using a regular LP nobody would have problems playing with a regular LP. Evidently it is not like that. This is enough and make the test necessary.
(QUOTE)

Pushblocker has been treating LP's to make them frictionless for years.
He has admitted to doing it and selling them, and has said that he only does it for
training purposes.

I actually prefer playing against frictionless LP's.


If this is true (PB treating LP and selling) then all of this parsing of rules and regulations to infinity is moot. I think all that needs to be said has already been said. I'm out. Have fun all.
Back to Top
jpenmaster View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 12/24/2008
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 2176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jpenmaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/14/2018 at 12:03am
This exactly

Originally posted by smackman smackman wrote:

The two leading treads "How to boost tenergy" YAY 
and "the long pimple cheaters" BOO

too funny



OSP Expert II w DNA Dragon Grip
Back to Top
LUCKYLOOP View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/27/2013
Location: Pongville USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2800
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LUCKYLOOP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/14/2018 at 12:59am

The friction long pips have more shot options than the frictionless pips.
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer

MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd.

Copyright ©2003-2024 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.