Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
cole_ely View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/16/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6895
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cole_ely Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/22/2019 at 7:53am
I also just got a long email and attachment from ittf about the new color changes. I'll post in a couple of hours if no one else has.
Wavestone St with Illumina 1.9r, defender1.7b

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 07/22/2019 at 8:11am
Originally posted by cole_ely cole_ely wrote:

I also just got a long email and attachment from ittf about the new color changes. I'll post in a couple of hours if no one else has.
I humbly request that you create a separate topic for it.
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: 07/22/2019 at 8:20am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

So regulations don't apply unless there's a specific rule regarding it?  From the 2019 ITTF handbook:

3.1.2.6 The Laws and the Regulations for International Competitions shall be presumed to apply unless variations have been agreed in advance or are made clear in the published rules of the competition.

And as I mentioned above, the racket has to pass racket control (for tournaments that actually have racket control) which in the future might include a friction test.

And from the USATT Rules:

2. Adoption of ITTF Rules 2.1. The ITTF Laws of Table Tennis and the ITTF Regulations for International Competitions shall apply, unless superseded by an amendment in this document. 


Regulations apply. The regulations in the technical leaflet are for MANUFACTURERS and outline what properties the ITTF require to authorize a rubber. This means that a rubber, when new, must have certain properties.
There is, however, no RULE that says that a rubber that naturally changes properties after being used is not allowed to be used in competition. There is no rule on how much a rubber can change when being used. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the rubber constantly changes when being used and therefore, the moment you start using it, the properties will start to slowly change. There is no RULE that determines on how much a rubber may naturally change. It's just not there. Furthermore, there is no "limit" on what friction a rubber must maintain. IT'S NOT THERE!
As I said, if the limit is 55 micro newton and a rubber has exactly that friction when new, the rubber certainly will no longer have 55 micro newton if it has been used for a couple of hours. There is no rule that would make a rubber 
illegal to use if it drops below 55 micro newton as there is no rule that sets a friction limit that a used, untreaded rubber must retain. IT IS NOT THERE!
It's very easy to implement a minimum friction for being used in events. The AGM can easily pass a rule that requires x micro newton of friction to be retained in order for a rubber to be legal in competition.
Since you agree that regulations apply, then I assume that you agree that the following regulation applies:

3 REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
3.4.2 Equipment
3.4.2.3 A racket shall successfully pass all parameters of the racket control tests.

It's currently not the case, but a friction test could become part of it (and from the OP's initial post it looks probable).
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: 07/22/2019 at 8:36am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

So regulations don't apply unless there's a specific rule regarding it?  From the 2019 ITTF handbook:

3.1.2.6 The Laws and the Regulations for International Competitions shall be presumed to apply unless variations have been agreed in advance or are made clear in the published rules of the competition.

And as I mentioned above, the racket has to pass racket control (for tournaments that actually have racket control) which in the future might include a friction test.

And from the USATT Rules:

2. Adoption of ITTF Rules 2.1. The ITTF Laws of Table Tennis and the ITTF Regulations for International Competitions shall apply, unless superseded by an amendment in this document. 


Regulations apply. The regulations in the technical leaflet are for MANUFACTURERS and outline what properties the ITTF require to authorize a rubber. This means that a rubber, when new, must have certain properties.
There is, however, no RULE that says that a rubber that naturally changes properties after being used is not allowed to be used in competition. There is no rule on how much a rubber can change when being used. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the rubber constantly changes when being used and therefore, the moment you start using it, the properties will start to slowly change. There is no RULE that determines on how much a rubber may naturally change. It's just not there. Furthermore, there is no "limit" on what friction a rubber must maintain. IT'S NOT THERE!
As I said, if the limit is 55 micro newton and a rubber has exactly that friction when new, the rubber certainly will no longer have 55 micro newton if it has been used for a couple of hours. There is no rule that would make a rubber 
illegal to use if it drops below 55 micro newton as there is no rule that sets a friction limit that a used, untreaded rubber must retain. IT IS NOT THERE!
It's very easy to implement a minimum friction for being used in events. The AGM can easily pass a rule that requires x micro newton of friction to be retained in order for a rubber to be legal in competition.
Since you agree that regulations apply, then I assume that you agree that the following regulation applies:

3 REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
3.4.2 Equipment
3.4.2.3 A racket shall successfully pass all parameters of the racket control tests.

It's currently not the case, but a friction test could become part of it (and from the OP's initial post it looks probable).
No doubt that it has to pass the racket control test.. However, where are they authorized to test for a parameter that is not defined in the rules? They can't just make shit up..
When you sign your drivers license, you agree to abide by a field sobriety test. Now, can the police just go and test your breath for peppermint in such test and throw you in jail for it even though there is no law preventing you from having peppermint in your breath? I don't think so.. Just like the police can't just make shit up what they test for, the ITTF can't either. They can enforce ALL parameters as defined by the rules in their tests but they can't make shit up.. A rubber may not be above 2 mm for the top sheet and 4 mm total.. Thickness does not change with age, so that is a valid test. Again, those are all things outlined by the rules, just not friction. There just is no rule.

So, let's go back to the drivers license issue.. The way to outlaw peppermint in your breath is for congress to pass a law outlawing peppermint in your breath and the president (or governor in case it's a state law) signing it.. That's the way to make peppermint in your breath illegal. That's when police can start testing for peppermint. The AGM is the equivalent of congress in this scenario. The ITTF BoD can't enforce a rule that does not exist. The AGM hast to FIRST pass the rule and then it can be enforced.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/22/2019 at 8:49am
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
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: 07/22/2019 at 9:40am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

So regulations don't apply unless there's a specific rule regarding it?  From the 2019 ITTF handbook:

3.1.2.6 The Laws and the Regulations for International Competitions shall be presumed to apply unless variations have been agreed in advance or are made clear in the published rules of the competition.

And as I mentioned above, the racket has to pass racket control (for tournaments that actually have racket control) which in the future might include a friction test.

And from the USATT Rules:

2. Adoption of ITTF Rules 2.1. The ITTF Laws of Table Tennis and the ITTF Regulations for International Competitions shall apply, unless superseded by an amendment in this document. 


Regulations apply. The regulations in the technical leaflet are for MANUFACTURERS and outline what properties the ITTF require to authorize a rubber. This means that a rubber, when new, must have certain properties.
There is, however, no RULE that says that a rubber that naturally changes properties after being used is not allowed to be used in competition. There is no rule on how much a rubber can change when being used. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the rubber constantly changes when being used and therefore, the moment you start using it, the properties will start to slowly change. There is no RULE that determines on how much a rubber may naturally change. It's just not there. Furthermore, there is no "limit" on what friction a rubber must maintain. IT'S NOT THERE!
As I said, if the limit is 55 micro newton and a rubber has exactly that friction when new, the rubber certainly will no longer have 55 micro newton if it has been used for a couple of hours. There is no rule that would make a rubber 
illegal to use if it drops below 55 micro newton as there is no rule that sets a friction limit that a used, untreaded rubber must retain. IT IS NOT THERE!
It's very easy to implement a minimum friction for being used in events. The AGM can easily pass a rule that requires x micro newton of friction to be retained in order for a rubber to be legal in competition.
Since you agree that regulations apply, then I assume that you agree that the following regulation applies:

3 REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
3.4.2 Equipment
3.4.2.3 A racket shall successfully pass all parameters of the racket control tests.

It's currently not the case, but a friction test could become part of it (and from the OP's initial post it looks probable).
No doubt that it has to pass the racket control test.. However, where are they authorized to test for a parameter that is not defined in the rules? They can't just make shit up..
When you sign your drivers license, you agree to abide by a field sobriety test. Now, can the police just go and test your breath for peppermint in such test and throw you in jail for it even though there is no law preventing you from having peppermint in your breath? I don't think so.. Just like the police can't just make shit up what they test for, the ITTF can't either. They can enforce ALL parameters as defined by the rules in their tests but they can't make shit up.. A rubber may not be above 2 mm for the top sheet and 4 mm total.. Thickness does not change with age, so that is a valid test. Again, those are all things outlined by the rules, just not friction. There just is no rule.

So, let's go back to the drivers license issue.. The way to outlaw peppermint in your breath is for congress to pass a law outlawing peppermint in your breath and the president (or governor in case it's a state law) signing it.. That's the way to make peppermint in your breath illegal. That's when police can start testing for peppermint. The AGM is the equivalent of congress in this scenario. The ITTF BoD can't enforce a rule that does not exist. The AGM hast to FIRST pass the rule and then it can be enforced.
The Board is responsible for equipment specifications that aren't necessarily in the rules, but are described in more detailed in the leaflets as mentioned in the ITTF Handbook:

3 REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
3.1.2.7 Detailed explanations and interpretations of Rules, including equipment specifications for International Competitions, shall be published as Technical or Administrative Leaflets by the Board of Directors; practical instructions and implementation procedures may be issued as Handbooks or Guides by the Executive Committee. These publications may include mandatory parts as well as recommendations or guidance.

And as you are aware in Technical Leaflet T4:

8. Friction for pimples-out 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.

And I understand that this concerns the factory authorization of equipment.  But players must play with equipment as it is authorized by the ITTF and within the limits defined by the leaflets.  That's why there is racket control.  They test for parameters defined in the leaflet which may extend to friction in the future.
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: 07/22/2019 at 10:01am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

So regulations don't apply unless there's a specific rule regarding it?  From the 2019 ITTF handbook:

3.1.2.6 The Laws and the Regulations for International Competitions shall be presumed to apply unless variations have been agreed in advance or are made clear in the published rules of the competition.

And as I mentioned above, the racket has to pass racket control (for tournaments that actually have racket control) which in the future might include a friction test.

And from the USATT Rules:

2. Adoption of ITTF Rules 2.1. The ITTF Laws of Table Tennis and the ITTF Regulations for International Competitions shall apply, unless superseded by an amendment in this document. 


Regulations apply. The regulations in the technical leaflet are for MANUFACTURERS and outline what properties the ITTF require to authorize a rubber. This means that a rubber, when new, must have certain properties.
There is, however, no RULE that says that a rubber that naturally changes properties after being used is not allowed to be used in competition. There is no rule on how much a rubber can change when being used. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the rubber constantly changes when being used and therefore, the moment you start using it, the properties will start to slowly change. There is no RULE that determines on how much a rubber may naturally change. It's just not there. Furthermore, there is no "limit" on what friction a rubber must maintain. IT'S NOT THERE!
As I said, if the limit is 55 micro newton and a rubber has exactly that friction when new, the rubber certainly will no longer have 55 micro newton if it has been used for a couple of hours. There is no rule that would make a rubber 
illegal to use if it drops below 55 micro newton as there is no rule that sets a friction limit that a used, untreaded rubber must retain. IT IS NOT THERE!
It's very easy to implement a minimum friction for being used in events. The AGM can easily pass a rule that requires x micro newton of friction to be retained in order for a rubber to be legal in competition.
Since you agree that regulations apply, then I assume that you agree that the following regulation applies:

3 REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
3.4.2 Equipment
3.4.2.3 A racket shall successfully pass all parameters of the racket control tests.

It's currently not the case, but a friction test could become part of it (and from the OP's initial post it looks probable).
No doubt that it has to pass the racket control test.. However, where are they authorized to test for a parameter that is not defined in the rules? They can't just make shit up..
When you sign your drivers license, you agree to abide by a field sobriety test. Now, can the police just go and test your breath for peppermint in such test and throw you in jail for it even though there is no law preventing you from having peppermint in your breath? I don't think so.. Just like the police can't just make shit up what they test for, the ITTF can't either. They can enforce ALL parameters as defined by the rules in their tests but they can't make shit up.. A rubber may not be above 2 mm for the top sheet and 4 mm total.. Thickness does not change with age, so that is a valid test. Again, those are all things outlined by the rules, just not friction. There just is no rule.

So, let's go back to the drivers license issue.. The way to outlaw peppermint in your breath is for congress to pass a law outlawing peppermint in your breath and the president (or governor in case it's a state law) signing it.. That's the way to make peppermint in your breath illegal. That's when police can start testing for peppermint. The AGM is the equivalent of congress in this scenario. The ITTF BoD can't enforce a rule that does not exist. The AGM hast to FIRST pass the rule and then it can be enforced.
The Board is responsible for equipment specifications that aren't necessarily in the rules, but are described in more detailed in the leaflets as mentioned in the ITTF Handbook:

3 REGULATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
3.1.2.7 Detailed explanations and interpretations of Rules, including equipment specifications for International Competitions, shall be published as Technical or Administrative Leaflets by the Board of Directors; practical instructions and implementation procedures may be issued as Handbooks or Guides by the Executive Committee. These publications may include mandatory parts as well as recommendations or guidance.

And as you are aware in Technical Leaflet T4:

8. Friction for pimples-out 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.

And I understand that this concerns the factory authorization of equipment.  But players must play with equipment as it is authorized by the ITTF and within the limits defined by the leaflets.  That's why there is racket control.  They test for parameters defined in the leaflet which may extend to friction in the future.
Those are regulations for MANUFACTURERS, not players.
As I said, "as authorized" means untreated.. If it would mean to require the same exact properties as new, all rubbers would be illegal after a couple of hours of use. Any scientist could confirm 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
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: 07/22/2019 at 10:18am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
Those are regulations for MANUFACTURERS, not players.
As I said, "as authorized" means untreated.. If it would mean to require the same exact properties as new, all rubbers would be illegal after a couple of hours of use. Any scientist could confirm that..
It does not have to mean exact properties as new.  It obviously can't.  Rubbers that are authorized by the ITTF have to be within the limits specified in the leaflet.  By the same token, when players are playing a competition, the rubber has to fall within the same limits.  Which is why there is racket control.  It's no coincidence that ITTF racket control procedures tests that for 4.0 mm thickness of a sandwich rubber or test for VOCs at whatever the limit is.  I see no reason why this cannot extend to the friction limit specified in the leaflet.  


If you *really, really* want to associate this with a rule, you could say that this is for clarification of:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

And to test for this, among other methods they use a thickness measuring tool, a VOC measuring tool, and possibly in the future a friction measuring tool to see if the rubber does not meet the specifications outlined in the leaflet.
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: 07/22/2019 at 10:37am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
Those are regulations for MANUFACTURERS, not players.
As I said, "as authorized" means untreated.. If it would mean to require the same exact properties as new, all rubbers would be illegal after a couple of hours of use. Any scientist could confirm that..
It does not have to mean exact properties as new.  It obviously can't.  Rubbers that are authorized by the ITTF have to be within the limits specified in the leaflet.  By the same token, when players are playing a competition, the rubber has to fall within the same limits.  Which is why there is racket control.  It's no coincidence that ITTF racket control procedures tests that for 4.0 mm thickness of a sandwich rubber or test for VOCs at whatever the limit is.  I see no reason why this cannot extend to the friction limit specified in the leaflet.  


If you *really, really* want to associate this with a rule, you could say that this is for clarification of:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

And to test for this, among other methods they use a thickness measuring tool, a VOC measuring tool, and possibly in the future a friction measuring tool to see if the rubber does not meet the specifications outlined in the leaflet.
Where is the RULE that a rubber's properties have to remain within the technical leaflet? Obviously, thickness is not affected by use or aging. Friction is. 
So, if a rubber is 55 micro newton when new, after 1 hour of use, it's likely at 54 micro newton and therefore illegal based on what you are saying.. So, anybody buying a rubber with 55 micro newton can only use it for 1 hour before he needs a new one.. Makes perfect sense... LOL

If the AGM passes a RULE that states that the rubbers properties have to remain within the limits specified in the Regulations for Manufacturers, it would be no issue.. However, such rule does not exist. No matter what regulations the BoD passes, they have no authority to change the rules. The AGM has to pass rules, not the BoD. Read the ITTF bylaws.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/22/2019 at 10:40am
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
mjamja View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 05/30/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2892
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mjamja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/22/2019 at 10:51am
Could this be the first step in redefining "as authorized" as "in new condition"?  So before beginning play at each tournament at racket control you will be required to open a new package of rubber and glue it on blade in front of an official.  No more boosting and no more old rubbers.  Manufacturers would love this.  Lots more like new "national" versions of rubbers for sale for the "play what the pros play" crowd.   Some special edge tape put on that must remain intact for whole tournament as proof of no tampering.

Mark - Tinfoil hat on and ready for the march on Area 51
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: 07/22/2019 at 11:05am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
Those are regulations for MANUFACTURERS, not players.
As I said, "as authorized" means untreated.. If it would mean to require the same exact properties as new, all rubbers would be illegal after a couple of hours of use. Any scientist could confirm that..
It does not have to mean exact properties as new.  It obviously can't.  Rubbers that are authorized by the ITTF have to be within the limits specified in the leaflet.  By the same token, when players are playing a competition, the rubber has to fall within the same limits.  Which is why there is racket control.  It's no coincidence that ITTF racket control procedures tests that for 4.0 mm thickness of a sandwich rubber or test for VOCs at whatever the limit is.  I see no reason why this cannot extend to the friction limit specified in the leaflet.  


If you *really, really* want to associate this with a rule, you could say that this is for clarification of:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

And to test for this, among other methods they use a thickness measuring tool, a VOC measuring tool, and possibly in the future a friction measuring tool to see if the rubber does not meet the specifications outlined in the leaflet.
Where is the RULE that a rubber's properties have to remain within the technical leaflet? Obviously, thickness is not affected by use or aging. Friction is. 
So, if a rubber is 55 micro newton when new, after 1 hour of use, it's likely at 54 micro newton and therefore illegal based on what you are saying.. So, anybody buying a rubber with 55 micro newton can only use it for 1 hour before he needs a new one.. Makes perfect sense... LOL

If the AGM passes a RULE that states that the rubbers properties have to remain within the limits specified in the Regulations for Manufacturers, it would be no issue.. However, such rule does not exist. No matter what regulations the BoD passes, they have no authority to change the rules. The AGM has to pass rules, not the BoD. Read the ITTF bylaws.
Rules do not have to spell out in minute details what the properties of the rubber need to be.  That's why there are the technical leaflets.  As I previously mentioned, the Board *is* responsible for:

3.1.2.7 Detailed explanations and interpretations of Rules, including equipment specifications for International Competitions, shall be published as Technical or Administrative Leaflets by the Board of Directors; practical instructions and implementation procedures may be issued as Handbooks or Guides by the Executive Committee. These publications may include mandatory parts as well as recommendations or guidance.

As purpletiesto previously mentioned, a manufacturer could produce a rubber just above the limit just for training purposes that may have a limited lifetime (and inexpensive I would hope).  

EDIT: Let me also add the following from the T4 Leaflet:

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.

So yes, manufacturers need to follow the specifications.  But players have some responsibility here too in keeping their equipment within the permitted limits.


Edited by pongfugrasshopper - 07/22/2019 at 12:35pm
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: 07/22/2019 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
Those are regulations for MANUFACTURERS, not players.
As I said, "as authorized" means untreated.. If it would mean to require the same exact properties as new, all rubbers would be illegal after a couple of hours of use. Any scientist could confirm that..
It does not have to mean exact properties as new.  It obviously can't.  Rubbers that are authorized by the ITTF have to be within the limits specified in the leaflet.  By the same token, when players are playing a competition, the rubber has to fall within the same limits.  Which is why there is racket control.  It's no coincidence that ITTF racket control procedures tests that for 4.0 mm thickness of a sandwich rubber or test for VOCs at whatever the limit is.  I see no reason why this cannot extend to the friction limit specified in the leaflet.  


If you *really, really* want to associate this with a rule, you could say that this is for clarification of:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

And to test for this, among other methods they use a thickness measuring tool, a VOC measuring tool, and possibly in the future a friction measuring tool to see if the rubber does not meet the specifications outlined in the leaflet.
Where is the RULE that a rubber's properties have to remain within the technical leaflet? Obviously, thickness is not affected by use or aging. Friction is. 
So, if a rubber is 55 micro newton when new, after 1 hour of use, it's likely at 54 micro newton and therefore illegal based on what you are saying.. So, anybody buying a rubber with 55 micro newton can only use it for 1 hour before he needs a new one.. Makes perfect sense... LOL

If the AGM passes a RULE that states that the rubbers properties have to remain within the limits specified in the Regulations for Manufacturers, it would be no issue.. However, such rule does not exist. No matter what regulations the BoD passes, they have no authority to change the rules. The AGM has to pass rules, not the BoD. Read the ITTF bylaws.
Rules do not have to spell out in minute details what the properties of the rubber need to be.  That's why there are the technical leaflets.  As I previously mentioned, the Board *is* responsible for:

3.1.2.7 Detailed explanations and interpretations of Rules, including equipment specifications for International Competitions, shall be published as Technical or Administrative Leaflets by the Board of Directors; practical instructions and implementation procedures may be issued as Handbooks or Guides by the Executive Committee. These publications may include mandatory parts as well as recommendations or guidance.

As purpletiesto previously mentioned, a manufacturer could produce a rubber just above the limit just for training purposes that may have a limited lifetime (and inexpensive I would hope).  

EDIT: Let me also add the following from the T4 Leaflet:

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.

So yes, manufacturers need to follow the specifications.  But players have some responsibility here too in keeping their equipment within the permitted limits.
It says that the racket has to comply with the RULES. It does NOT say that it has to comply with REGULATIONS for MANUFACTURERS. Those are 2 completely different things. As I pointed out, EVERY rubber is no longer "as authorized" if it is used and there is no definition that a rubber becomes illegal if the friction is reduced. 
BTW, the 4mm RULE is also in the RULEBOOK and not just in a technical leaflet. 
So, if you want a minimum friction, PUT THE MINIMUM FRICTION REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES JUST LIKE THE OTHER PARAMETERS!!


Quote 2.04.03 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.

The entire 2.04 section outlines the parameters for a rubber and racket. Those are the criteria to be enforced by racket control.

Please show me the same rule for friction!


The BoD is violating the bylaws by enforcing a rule that has not been authorized by the AGM.

They are fighting their war against long pips by violating the bylaws!


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/22/2019 at 2:57pm
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
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: 07/22/2019 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

[... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
It says that the racket has to comply with the RULES. It does NOT say that it has to comply with REGULATIONS for MANUFACTURERS. Those are 2 completely different things. As I pointed out, EVERY rubber is no longer "as authorized" if it is used and there is no definition that a rubber becomes illegal if the friction is reduced. 
BTW, the 4mm RULE is also in the RULEBOOK and not just in a technical leaflet. 
So, if you want a minimum friction, PUT THE MINIMUM FRICTION REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES JUST LIKE THE OTHER PARAMETERS!!


Quote 2.04.03 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.

The entire 2.04 section outlines the parameters for a rubber and racket. Those are the criteria to be enforced by racket control.

Please show me the same rule for friction!


The BoD is violating the bylaws by enforcing a rule that has not been authorized by the AGM.

They are fighting their war against long pips by violating the bylaws!
It doesn't have to explicitly state friction.  Just like no where in section 2.4 does it explicitly say booster, or voc, or volatile organic compound.  But 2.4.7 does say:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

So for official sanctioned tournaments you're not allowed to bake it in the sun or garage or whatever just like you're not legally allowed to boost the rubber beyond what came from the factory (which some tournaments do test for).  So if the rubber "ages" after one session of play and the friction does not meet the equipment specification (which thus far they have not tested for) and your expectation is that this is a competition rubber and not merely a training rubber, then your beef is with the manufacturer.  Because if they do decide to make it part of racket control testing, then your low friction rubber may very well be deemed illegal.  You can say there's no rule that says it has to be within what's described in the leaflet if you want to, but the reality is the racket control procedures use *exactly* the parameters mentioned in leaflets T4 and T9.


Edited by pongfugrasshopper - 07/22/2019 at 4:44pm
Back to Top
purpletiesto View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/19/2017
Location: Perth
Status: Offline
Points: 242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote purpletiesto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/23/2019 at 4:47am
I don't see what the fuss is about. Any reasonable person would think a rule will definitely be implemented. Along with a testing procedure to enforce the rule. A test for friction has been announced, surely that implies that it is to enforce an associated upcoming rule.

And more control measures the better it is for the sport. It is the only sport in the world where the consistency of the ball changes every tournament, and then people need to play against all different types of sponges with different characteristics and then all different types of rubbers with an equal amount of characteristics. At least now players won't be to worry about facing a cheater who is using unethical methods or coverings on their racket to create frictionless rubbers. A step in the right direction and it also helps the cheaters develop some actual technique, mobility and fitness instead of just standing at the table blocking the ball without actually moving. It is win win.

No wonder the pros switch up their equipment so often. It is just to bamboozle their opponent by sending balls with different properties of speed, spin, trajectory from using the same stroke from tournament to tournament. 
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: 07/23/2019 at 10:38am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

[... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
It says that the racket has to comply with the RULES. It does NOT say that it has to comply with REGULATIONS for MANUFACTURERS. Those are 2 completely different things. As I pointed out, EVERY rubber is no longer "as authorized" if it is used and there is no definition that a rubber becomes illegal if the friction is reduced. 
BTW, the 4mm RULE is also in the RULEBOOK and not just in a technical leaflet. 
So, if you want a minimum friction, PUT THE MINIMUM FRICTION REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES JUST LIKE THE OTHER PARAMETERS!!


Quote 2.04.03 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.

The entire 2.04 section outlines the parameters for a rubber and racket. Those are the criteria to be enforced by racket control.

Please show me the same rule for friction!


The BoD is violating the bylaws by enforcing a rule that has not been authorized by the AGM.

They are fighting their war against long pips by violating the bylaws!
It doesn't have to explicitly state friction.  Just like no where in section 2.4 does it explicitly say booster, or voc, or volatile organic compound.  But 2.4.7 does say:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

So for official sanctioned tournaments you're not allowed to bake it in the sun or garage or whatever just like you're not legally allowed to boost the rubber beyond what came from the factory (which some tournaments do test for).  So if the rubber "ages" after one session of play and the friction does not meet the equipment specification (which thus far they have not tested for) and your expectation is that this is a competition rubber and not merely a training rubber, then your beef is with the manufacturer.  Because if they do decide to make it part of racket control testing, then your low friction rubber may very well be deemed illegal.  You can say there's no rule that says it has to be within what's described in the leaflet if you want to, but the reality is the racket control procedures use *exactly* the parameters mentioned in leaflets T4 and T9.
USE is not treatment. Again, there is NO rule that requires a rubber to maintain a friction within a certain limit if the rubber is UNTREATED. IT IS NOT THERE! TREATMENT is in the rule and obviously includes all type of treatment but USE is not treatment. 
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: 07/23/2019 at 10:40am
Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

I don't see what the fuss is about. Any reasonable person would think a rule will definitely be implemented. Along with a testing procedure to enforce the rule. A test for friction has been announced, surely that implies that it is to enforce an associated upcoming rule.

And more control measures the better it is for the sport. It is the only sport in the world where the consistency of the ball changes every tournament, and then people need to play against all different types of sponges with different characteristics and then all different types of rubbers with an equal amount of characteristics. At least now players won't be to worry about facing a cheater who is using unethical methods or coverings on their racket to create frictionless rubbers. A step in the right direction and it also helps the cheaters develop some actual technique, mobility and fitness instead of just standing at the table blocking the ball without actually moving. It is win win.

No wonder the pros switch up their equipment so often. It is just to bamboozle their opponent by sending balls with different properties of speed, spin, trajectory from using the same stroke from tournament to tournament. 
There is no issue if the AGM actually passes a rule that says that a rubber may not drop below a certain friction. This belongs right into the 2.04 section of the rulebook. I have no issue with that. Right now, such rule is not there. If the AGM passes such rule, it has to be abided by. NOTHING that the BoD does affects the RULES. The BoD handles REGULATIONS for MANUFACTURERS.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 10:42am
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
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: 07/23/2019 at 11:04am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

[... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference
It says that the racket has to comply with the RULES. It does NOT say that it has to comply with REGULATIONS for MANUFACTURERS. Those are 2 completely different things. As I pointed out, EVERY rubber is no longer "as authorized" if it is used and there is no definition that a rubber becomes illegal if the friction is reduced. 
BTW, the 4mm RULE is also in the RULEBOOK and not just in a technical leaflet. 
So, if you want a minimum friction, PUT THE MINIMUM FRICTION REQUIREMENT IN THE RULES JUST LIKE THE OTHER PARAMETERS!!


Quote 2.04.03 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.

The entire 2.04 section outlines the parameters for a rubber and racket. Those are the criteria to be enforced by racket control.

Please show me the same rule for friction!


The BoD is violating the bylaws by enforcing a rule that has not been authorized by the AGM.

They are fighting their war against long pips by violating the bylaws!
It doesn't have to explicitly state friction.  Just like no where in section 2.4 does it explicitly say booster, or voc, or volatile organic compound.  But 2.4.7 does say:

2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

So for official sanctioned tournaments you're not allowed to bake it in the sun or garage or whatever just like you're not legally allowed to boost the rubber beyond what came from the factory (which some tournaments do test for).  So if the rubber "ages" after one session of play and the friction does not meet the equipment specification (which thus far they have not tested for) and your expectation is that this is a competition rubber and not merely a training rubber, then your beef is with the manufacturer.  Because if they do decide to make it part of racket control testing, then your low friction rubber may very well be deemed illegal.  You can say there's no rule that says it has to be within what's described in the leaflet if you want to, but the reality is the racket control procedures use *exactly* the parameters mentioned in leaflets T4 and T9.
USE is not treatment. Again, there is NO rule that requires a rubber to maintain a friction within a certain limit if the rubber is UNTREATED. IT IS NOT THERE! TREATMENT is in the rule and obviously includes all type of treatment but USE is not treatment. 
So how can the ITTF determine the difference between use and treatment?  They cannot so they need some metric to determine what is acceptable or not.  There *is* a minimum friction metric stated in the T4 Leaflet.  It's been there for years now and wasn't placed there just for fun.  There's a reason for it (same for VOC ppm limit).  It's just that it's never been tested for during racket control until perhaps now.  From the 2019 ITTF Handbook:

3.1.2.7 Detailed explanations and interpretations of Rules, including equipment specifications for International Competitions, shall be published as Technical or Administrative Leaflets by the Board of Directors;

Rules and Regulations go together.  I'm not up to speed on ITTF politics.  Are the AGM and Board of Directors two warring factions fighting over rules vs. regulations?  
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: 07/23/2019 at 11:17am
Tha AGM passes rule changes and the BoD passes regulations for Manufactorers. Parameters for rackets as being used in tournaments are in section 2.04 of the rules and friction is not even mentioned at all. You can't interpret something into the rules that is not there at all.
The BoD can detemine ways to enforce the rules but they can't just make up a rule that is not there at all.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 11:19am
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
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: 07/23/2019 at 11:45am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Tha AGM passes rule changes and the BoD passes regulations for Manufactorers. Parameters for rackets as being used in tournaments are in section 2.04 of the rules and friction is not even mentioned at all. You can't interpret something into the rules that is not there at all.
The BoD can detemine ways to enforce the rules but they can't just make up a rule that is not there at all.
Neither does section 2.4 mention pip density nor VOC limit.  Those technical details are in the T4 leaflet and tested for during racket control (which happens *after* authorization).
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: 07/23/2019 at 12:02pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Tha AGM passes rule changes and the BoD passes regulations for Manufactorers. Parameters for rackets as being used in tournaments are in section 2.04 of the rules and friction is not even mentioned at all. You can't interpret something into the rules that is not there at all.
The BoD can detemine ways to enforce the rules but they can't just make up a rule that is not there at all.
Neither does section 2.4 mention pip density nor VOC limit.  Those technical details are in the T4 leaflet and tested for during racket control (which happens *after* authorization).
VOC limit falls under "treatment" as a rubber does not naturally emit it. Treatment can be PROVEN with those criteria.. Same goes for pip density. If the pip density changed, then it must be the result of treatment as there is NO NATURAL WAY for the pip density to change. Same goes for pip length. Those are parameters that can be used to assess if a rubber was treated as none of those parameters can change without treatment. Lack of friction however is no proof of treatment. Of course, one could use a microscope or magnifying glass to look for evidence of treatment like Super Glue or Epoxy coating of the pips, or you could check for pip size. If a pip was "oiled" pips will be larger than when the rubber was untreated. That can be proven too and would be a valid test for the rubber. 
It is against the rule to treat a rubber and there are several parameters that proof that a rubber was treated. However, lack of friction is not proof of treatment in any way. Any scientist familiar with the material(s) used for rubbers will confirm that rubber ages and properties change over time consistently.. There is no question that a rubbers friction WILL degrade over time. This can be established WITHOUT A DOUBT and therefore, lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment.

BTW, not all treatment can be proven. There are several oils that do not emit VOC's and if a player treats their sponge with non VOC oil, he or she VIOLATES THE RULES but just like low friction pips, it can't be proven. Same thing applies for both.

As I said, it all comes down to the rule that prevents treatment.  Some treatments can be proven, others can't. As long as there is no rule on the books that assesses rubber properties and tests for change in those properties, there will be loopholes in the rules.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 12:08pm
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
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: 07/23/2019 at 12:19pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Tha AGM passes rule changes and the BoD passes regulations for Manufactorers. Parameters for rackets as being used in tournaments are in section 2.04 of the rules and friction is not even mentioned at all. You can't interpret something into the rules that is not there at all.
The BoD can detemine ways to enforce the rules but they can't just make up a rule that is not there at all.
Neither does section 2.4 mention pip density nor VOC limit.  Those technical details are in the T4 leaflet and tested for during racket control (which happens *after* authorization).
VOC limit falls under "treatment" as a rubber does not naturally emit it. Treatment can be PROVEN with those criteria.. Same goes for pip density. If the pip density changed, then it must be the result of treatment as there is NO NATURAL WAY for the pip density to change. Same goes for pip length. Those are parameters that can be used to assess if a rubber was treated as none of those parameters can change without treatment. Lack of friction however is no proof of treatment. Of course, one could use a microscope or magnifying glass to look for evidence of treatment like Super Glue or Epoxy coating of the pips, or you could check for pip size. If a pip was "oiled" pips will be larger than when the rubber was untreated. That can be proven too and would be a valid test for the rubber. 
It is against the rule to treat a rubber and there are several parameters that proof that a rubber was treated. However, lack of friction is not proof of treatment in any way. Any scientist familiar with the material(s) used for rubbers will confirm that rubber ages and properties change over time consistently.. There is no question that a rubbers friction WILL degrade over time. This can be established WITHOUT A DOUBT and therefore, lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment.
Yes, it will degrade over time, and if it falls below the metric that ITTF racket control has deemed acceptable, then it cannot be used. Simple as that.  This goes back to what I said above regarding use vs. treatment.  Better to be on the conservative side and use a newer rubber than to potentially have your rubber fail racket control I'd imagine.
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: 07/23/2019 at 12:52pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Tha AGM passes rule changes and the BoD passes regulations for Manufactorers. Parameters for rackets as being used in tournaments are in section 2.04 of the rules and friction is not even mentioned at all. You can't interpret something into the rules that is not there at all.
The BoD can detemine ways to enforce the rules but they can't just make up a rule that is not there at all.
Neither does section 2.4 mention pip density nor VOC limit.  Those technical details are in the T4 leaflet and tested for during racket control (which happens *after* authorization).
VOC limit falls under "treatment" as a rubber does not naturally emit it. Treatment can be PROVEN with those criteria.. Same goes for pip density. If the pip density changed, then it must be the result of treatment as there is NO NATURAL WAY for the pip density to change. Same goes for pip length. Those are parameters that can be used to assess if a rubber was treated as none of those parameters can change without treatment. Lack of friction however is no proof of treatment. Of course, one could use a microscope or magnifying glass to look for evidence of treatment like Super Glue or Epoxy coating of the pips, or you could check for pip size. If a pip was "oiled" pips will be larger than when the rubber was untreated. That can be proven too and would be a valid test for the rubber. 
It is against the rule to treat a rubber and there are several parameters that proof that a rubber was treated. However, lack of friction is not proof of treatment in any way. Any scientist familiar with the material(s) used for rubbers will confirm that rubber ages and properties change over time consistently.. There is no question that a rubbers friction WILL degrade over time. This can be established WITHOUT A DOUBT and therefore, lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment.
Yes, it will degrade over time, and if it falls below the metric that ITTF racket control has deemed acceptable, then it cannot be used. Simple as that.  This goes back to what I said above regarding use vs. treatment.  Better to be on the conservative side and use a newer rubber than to potentially have your rubber fail racket control I'd imagine.

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 12:57pm
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
purpletiesto View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/19/2017
Location: Perth
Status: Offline
Points: 242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote purpletiesto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/23/2019 at 1:01pm
Maybe just wait for the rule to be implemented. Any reasonable organisation will pass a rule and a methodology to test certain metrics to enforce the rule.

In saying that, one might argue that the ITTF is far from a reasonable organisation- more like an unreasonable disorganisation.

I mean, which organisation, which wants to be taken seriously, plans out 4 major tournaments within a month? Absolutely pathetic. Athletes competing in wd/md, ws/ms and xd. So essentially 12 tournaments in a month.

Maybe, you @pushblocker would want to take ittf to court for whatever friction stuff (lol), but if I were a competitor and got injured due to the ittf calendar ... I think that presents a case. Especially during a year where every competitor is trying to grind as many points as possible because of olympic selection. Surely, it's their duty of care to ensure that players have sufficient rest between tournaments for health reasons.

BUT, let's remember you can replace your red rubber with a different colour now! Excellent use of resources.
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: 07/23/2019 at 1:09pm
Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Maybe just wait for the rule to be implemented. Any reasonable organisation will pass a rule and a methodology to test certain metrics to enforce the rule.

In saying that, one might argue that the ITTF is far from a reasonable organisation- more like an unreasonable disorganisation.

I mean, which organisation, which wants to be taken seriously, plans out 4 major tournaments within a month? Absolutely pathetic. Athletes competing in wd/md, ws/ms and xd. So essentially 12 tournaments in a month.

Maybe, you @pushblocker would want to take ittf to court for whatever friction stuff (lol), but if I were a competitor and got injured due to the ittf calendar ... I think that presents a case. Especially during a year where every competitor is trying to grind as many points as possible because of olympic selection. Surely, it's their duty of care to ensure that players have sufficient rest between tournaments for health reasons.

BUT, let's remember you can replace your red rubber with a different colour now! Excellent use of resources.
The AGM never voted on any rule banning pimples without friction.. This was an action by the Board of Directors, specifically Eberhard Schoeler who wanted to hurt his nemesis Dr. Herbert Neubauer's business. He abused his position on the Board of Directors and twised some arms to get that regulation passed. 
All I'm looking for is that they bring this issue up at the AGM for a vote. Have the AGM take a vote weather to allow or disallow pips with low friction from being used given that they lost their friction naturally.
As for going to court, this would have to be decided at a real court, not ITTF court. It's like going to a police court for a ticket issued by the police...
However, in order for someone to take something to court, 2 things have to be established: You have to have standing and you have to have proof of harm. As I'm not an ITTF member, nor do I have any harm that I can prove, I would have no standing and any litigation that I would file would be dismissed due to lack of standing. I'm very familiar in filing lawsuits as I have filed a few during my lifetime and some of my better friends are Lawyers and judges who have helped me with them.
So, the way to establish harm could for example be that someone who is a ITTF member signs up for a tournament and is refused to play the event due to the racket failing the friction test. Now, you can sue for travel expenses and other harm (like reputational harm due to being labeled a cheater etc.).
Now you can present evidence that the ITTF is testing for a criteria NOT covered by the rules and you can call expert witnesses that will testify that rubber degrades over time and that a rubber can end up with too little friction without violating the only applicable rule that prevents treatment.


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 1:10pm
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
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: 07/23/2019 at 1:22pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.
I'm fine with the ITTF using rule 2.4.7 as justification even if it means heavily used rubbers will need to be replaced.  In fact I'm fine with them just using the regulations written in T4/T9 and verify the parameters during racket control.  When the ITTF sends out a notice that says:

Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".  

and you as a player decide to tempt fate by using an old, well used rubber with little friction left, that's on you.  
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: 07/23/2019 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.
I'm fine with the ITTF using rule 2.4.7 as justification even if it means heavily used rubbers will need to be replaced.  In fact I'm fine with them just using the regulations written in T4/T9 and verify the parameters during racket control.  When the ITTF sends out a notice that says:

Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".  

and you as a player decide to tempt fate by using an old, well used rubber with little friction left, that's on you.  
You keep referring to the Technical Leaflet which applies to MANUFACTURERS!
Low friction does not prove treatment. This is a FACT. If you want to use rule 2.4.7. as justification, you are effectively declaring that every person who died, did so as the result of a crime regardless of the evidence.. This won't fly in a court of law.
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
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: 07/23/2019 at 2:04pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.
I'm fine with the ITTF using rule 2.4.7 as justification even if it means heavily used rubbers will need to be replaced.  In fact I'm fine with them just using the regulations written in T4/T9 and verify the parameters during racket control.  When the ITTF sends out a notice that says:

Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".  

and you as a player decide to tempt fate by using an old, well used rubber with little friction left, that's on you.  
You keep referring to the Technical Leaflet which applies to MANUFACTURERS!
Low friction does not prove treatment. This is a FACT. If you want to use rule 2.4.7. as justification, you are effectively declaring that every person who died, did so as the result of a crime regardless of the evidence.. This won't fly in a court of law.
The T9 leaflet is titled "Racket Control".  You don't think that applies to the players as well (not just the manufacturers).  It describes the tests that are run at the racket control center and the player has a vested interest in ensuring the racket falls within the parameters specified by T9 Racket Control.
 
I don't disagree that low friction does not prove treatment.  But a player doesn't get a free pass just because his/her racket was used a lot (or a little depending on it's initial condition).  Ultimately it's up to the players to keep their rubbers in a condition good enough to pass racket control.
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: 07/23/2019 at 2:32pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.
I'm fine with the ITTF using rule 2.4.7 as justification even if it means heavily used rubbers will need to be replaced.  In fact I'm fine with them just using the regulations written in T4/T9 and verify the parameters during racket control.  When the ITTF sends out a notice that says:

Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".  

and you as a player decide to tempt fate by using an old, well used rubber with little friction left, that's on you.  
You keep referring to the Technical Leaflet which applies to MANUFACTURERS!
Low friction does not prove treatment. This is a FACT. If you want to use rule 2.4.7. as justification, you are effectively declaring that every person who died, did so as the result of a crime regardless of the evidence.. This won't fly in a court of law.
The T9 leaflet is titled "Racket Control".  You don't think that applies to the players as well (not just the manufacturers).  It describes the tests that are run at the racket control center and the player has a vested interest in ensuring the racket falls within the parameters specified by T9 Racket Control.
 
I don't disagree that low friction does not prove treatment.  But a player doesn't get a free pass just because his/her racket was used a lot (or a little depending on it's initial condition).  Ultimately it's up to the players to keep their rubbers in a condition good enough to pass racket control.
The issue is that it describes a test for a rule that does not exist.
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
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: 07/23/2019 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.
I'm fine with the ITTF using rule 2.4.7 as justification even if it means heavily used rubbers will need to be replaced.  In fact I'm fine with them just using the regulations written in T4/T9 and verify the parameters during racket control.  When the ITTF sends out a notice that says:

Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".  

and you as a player decide to tempt fate by using an old, well used rubber with little friction left, that's on you.  
You keep referring to the Technical Leaflet which applies to MANUFACTURERS!
Low friction does not prove treatment. This is a FACT. If you want to use rule 2.4.7. as justification, you are effectively declaring that every person who died, did so as the result of a crime regardless of the evidence.. This won't fly in a court of law.
The T9 leaflet is titled "Racket Control".  You don't think that applies to the players as well (not just the manufacturers).  It describes the tests that are run at the racket control center and the player has a vested interest in ensuring the racket falls within the parameters specified by T9 Racket Control.
 
I don't disagree that low friction does not prove treatment.  But a player doesn't get a free pass just because his/her racket was used a lot (or a little depending on it's initial condition).  Ultimately it's up to the players to keep their rubbers in a condition good enough to pass racket control.
The issue is that it describes a test for a rule that does not exist.
Rule 2.4.7 doesn't exist?  You may not like the manner in which they're testing for it.  The testing may not be comprehensive enough.  The testing may be require the player to keep the rubber in reasonable condition.  There may be loopholes in the test.  This is all true (and not just for a potential friction test but all tests).  But the manner in which they test for it is up to the ITTF BoD.  
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: 07/23/2019 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

... lots of stuff deleted because this thread is getting huge ... Just look above if u need reference

Again, there is no RULE that would back up a check for friction. Like I said, the parameters what rackets have to meet are clearly defined in the RULES and there is no mention of friction. The only mention that COULD possibly apply is the rule for treatment. However, as lack of friction is NOT proof of treatment by itself, you can't test for it as there is no rule to test for.
1) there is no rule that a rubber has to have a certain amount of friction
2) there is no rule that a rubber may not naturally lose a certain amount of friction.

As I pointed out (and it can be verified scientifically), rubber constantly degrades and loses friction and therefore, lack of friction is no proof of treatment.
Let me get back to the scenario where a rubber is authorized with 55 micro newton of friction. After 1 hour of use, it no longer has 55 micro newton and would therefore be illegal if the friction regulation for manufacturers would also apply to used rubbers. So, theoretically, you could only use such rubber for 1 match and then use a new one.. That does not make sense and is nowhere to be found in the rules.
To legally enforce a rule, the rule has to be written first. 
All that the AGM needs to do is to pass a rule that says that a pimpled rubber's friction may not drop below the authorization threshold, naturally or via treatment.. However, this rule does not exist yet.

Declaring a rubber illegal because of lack of friction is like declaring that if there is a dead body, it must have been murder even if the person passed away naturally.
That's EXACTLY what the BoD is doing. They declaring every dead body as being the victim of murder.
I'm fine with the ITTF using rule 2.4.7 as justification even if it means heavily used rubbers will need to be replaced.  In fact I'm fine with them just using the regulations written in T4/T9 and verify the parameters during racket control.  When the ITTF sends out a notice that says:

Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".  

and you as a player decide to tempt fate by using an old, well used rubber with little friction left, that's on you.  
You keep referring to the Technical Leaflet which applies to MANUFACTURERS!
Low friction does not prove treatment. This is a FACT. If you want to use rule 2.4.7. as justification, you are effectively declaring that every person who died, did so as the result of a crime regardless of the evidence.. This won't fly in a court of law.
The T9 leaflet is titled "Racket Control".  You don't think that applies to the players as well (not just the manufacturers).  It describes the tests that are run at the racket control center and the player has a vested interest in ensuring the racket falls within the parameters specified by T9 Racket Control.
 
I don't disagree that low friction does not prove treatment.  But a player doesn't get a free pass just because his/her racket was used a lot (or a little depending on it's initial condition).  Ultimately it's up to the players to keep their rubbers in a condition good enough to pass racket control.
The issue is that it describes a test for a rule that does not exist.
Rule 2.4.7 doesn't exist?  You may not like the manner in which they're testing for it.  The testing may not be comprehensive enough.  The testing may be require the player to keep the rubber in reasonable condition.  There may be loopholes in the test.  This is all true (and not just for a potential friction test but all tests).  But the manner in which they test for it is up to the ITTF BoD.  
A friction test does not prove that Rule 2.4.7  was violated.. Again, if a friction test proves that 2.4.7 was violated, then a dead body proves that a murder was committed.. If there is a dead body, is this prove that there was a murder?
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: 07/23/2019 at 2:59pm
pongfugrasshopper,

let me make this very simple..

As you pointed out, the BoD is in charge of enforcing the rules.

That's just like Police is in charge of enforcing the laws.

So, do you think that that police can just decide to arrest someone for murder without having prove that a crime was commited... just because there is a dead body??

They can't! They FIRST have to have prove that a crime was commmited before they can arrest someone for it.. Same thing applies to the ITTF. 


Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 3:01pm
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  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 0.375 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.