spongeless inverted rubber illegal?

This was discussed on about.com some time ago. Not making inverted Ox rubbers legal was an accident of omission from the original 1959 ruling. Also accidentally left off were sandpaper, cork and wood coverings. Unfortunately, it has never been corrected so those coverings are illegal.

So basically, inverted Ox, sandpaper, cork and wood are all acceptable coverings but unfortunately illegal by accidental omission from the ITTF rules.

Here is an extract from the posts of Jay Turber and bcbcbc.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?sr=y&msg=28480.26&nav=messages&webtag=ab-tabletennis

Jay:

“The rule is very explicit.  You have two options, ordinary pimpled rubber with pips out or sandwich rubber.  That makes it clear that if the pips are in, it must be sandwich rubber. It gets more specific by defining what it means by "ordinary pimpled rubber" and "sandwich rubber."

2.4.3 A side of the blade used for striking the ball shall be covered with either ordinary pimpled rubber, with pimples outwards having a total thickness including adhesive of not more than 2mm, or sandwich rubber, with pimples inwards or outwards, having a total thickness including adhesive of not more than 4mm.

2.4.3.1 Ordinary pimpled rubber is a single layer of non-cellular rubber, natural or synthetic, with pimples evenly distributed over its surface at a density of not less than 10 per sq. cm and not more than 30 per sq. cm.

2.4.3.2 Sandwich rubber is a single layer of cellular rubber covered with a single outer layer of ordinary pimpled rubber, the thickness of the pimpled rubber not being more than 2mm.”

Bcbcbc:

“>> The rule is very explicit.

It explicitly says what is legal. It does not explicitly say that ox inv is illegal. That is implicit by omission. I agree 100% that your interpretation of the actual text is the only logical interpretation I just see no clear and unambiguous intent to eliminate ox inv. The rule makers were very detailed and explicit about maximum thicknesses of rubber and total sandwich. If they really cared about inv having a sponge wouldnt they have listed a minimum thickness?

>> It seems unlikely that this was an accident that has somehow survived for years. That rule dates to 1959!! I suspect the reasons stopped being discussed decades ago - which is why neither of us has heard anything about it. If it were a new rule, I could see that it may just be a matter of poor wording. But the rule is as old as I am, so that seems unlikely. Surely something would have motivated a "fix" in nearly fifty years.

Why? Who ever cared? I've seen recreational bats with ox inverted. Nobody cares if they're 'legal' or not. Inverted works better with MORE sponge. Classic anti works better with sponge to kill speed. Players looking for reversal can/could do better with pips. Has anybody at nationals ever complained that the opponent was cheating due to using inverted without sponge? Has there ever been a usatt or ittf  ruling that did explicitly say that ox inv is illegal and give a reason?”