| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
purpletiesto 
Super Member
Joined: 11/19/2017
Location: Perth
Status: Offline
Points: 242
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:00pm |
 Pushblocker wrote:
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.
|
All seems very nitpicky to me and frictionless long pips are not allowed in ITTF sanctioned events, whether you want to be nitpicky about terminology about it or not. Every other tournament basically goes by the same rules and those who don't follow them are frowned upon and get a poor reputation.
Do you personally know Eberhard Schoeler and Dr. Neubauer? It's okay, I know you don't. And all that stuff you mentioned is just hearsay. Surely you remember many people rallying from when frictionless long pips were introduced, those who didn't like them and wanted them banned. They were a threat to the sport. And now they're banned. And soon we will have a testing methodology to ensure that they are not used in tournaments. And also penalties for the cheaters who try to use them.
Everyone is happy. It's a good day.
Edited by purpletiesto - 07/23/2019 at 3:01pm
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:08pm |
|
It doesn't prove it because it could be due to use (vs. treatment), but again, that's up to the player to ensure it can pass. There's no perfect test, but that doesn't mean you don't do the test because it's not foolproof.
Edited by pongfugrasshopper - 07/23/2019 at 3:10pm
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:11pm |
purpletiesto wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
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.
|
All seems very nitpicky to me and frictionless long pips are not allowed in ITTF sanctioned events, whether you want to be nitpicky about terminology about it or not. Every other tournament basically goes by the same rules and those who don't follow them are frowned upon and get a poor reputation.
Do you personally know Eberhard Schoeler and Dr. Neubauer? It's okay, I know you don't. And all that stuff you mentioned is just hearsay. Surely you remember many people rallying from when frictionless long pips were introduced, those who didn't like them and wanted them banned. They were a threat to the sport. And now they're banned. And soon we will have a testing methodology to ensure that they are not used in tournaments. And also penalties for the cheaters who try to use them.
Everyone is happy. It's a good day.
|
This is not being nitpicky. Rules are just like laws. They are written in a particular language... in this case in English and they say what they say and they don't say what they don't say. It is 100% incorrect that pimples without friction are illegal to use. It is a requirement for manufacturers to produce pimple that have a minimum amount of friction when new. There is absolutely no rule that requires that rubber to stay above that threshold if it is untreated. Again, it is not there. If you can point to any part of the RULES that would make a uniform rubber that has lost friction naturally due to use and/or age to be against the rules, please point to such rule.
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 3:12pm
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:14pm |
|
My entire point is that this issue should be brought in front of the AGM and voted on and the AGM should not be circumvented by actions of the BoD. The AGM changes rules. Bring this up at the AGM and have them vote on it! If it passes, there will be no complaints from my side.
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/23/2019 at 11:56pm
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 6:13am |
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information.
|
|
Twiddler
Super Member
Joined: 07/18/2019
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 260
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 7:52am |
I don't believe rule changes go to the AGM. I remember years ago when tables had to be painted and pass a friction test. Somehow this regulation was dropped and now tables have the laminated plastic surface. Tables in the old days were way better and had a much truer bounce because of the friction built into the paint.
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 7:52am |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information. |
That's a regulation for manufacturers and a requirement for new rubbers but nothing in the rules would prevent a rubber from naturally losing friction due to age or use. With other words, nothing in the actual rules makes an rubber that is untreated but has lost friction illegal in competition. It is not there. The BoD handles requirements for properties of rubbers for AUTHORIZATION purposes. As I pointed out multiple times, if a rubber exactly meets the required 55 micro newton of friction when new, It will get authorized but after a little bit of playing, that rubber no longer has 55 micro newton as a matter of fact as rubbers lose friction due to use and age and there is nothing that requires a rubber to maintain it's original friction as it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the rubber to stay at the same friction as it's being used.
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 7:57am |
Twiddler wrote:
I don't believe rule changes go to the AGM. I remember years ago when tables had to be painted and pass a friction test. Somehow this regulation was dropped and now tables have the laminated plastic surface. Tables in the old days were way better and had a much truer bounce because of the friction built into the paint.
|
You are referring to another example of regulation of equipment for AUTHORIZATION purposes. Of course, the BoD can pass such regulations that defines the properties of ALL equipment for authorization purposes. However, what is outside of the BoD's power is to require a rubber's properties to maintain a certain friction. It is not there and would require a rule. Of course, the BoD could require manufacturers that rubbers they produce may not lose friction naturally but such technology has not been invented yet, so it would be impossible for manufacturers to comply. Natural aging does occur in all rubber or rubber like products and nothing in the RULES covers that unless that aging and/or wear results in a surface that is no longer uniform. In that case, the rubber can be disallowed. However, if a worn rubber is still uniform and meets all the criteria outlined in the rules, there is nothing in the rules that would make it illegal to use.
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/24/2019 at 7:58am
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
Twiddler
Super Member
Joined: 07/18/2019
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 260
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 7:57am |
Frictionless rubber is illegal. So if someone has doctored up their pips to be frictionless that is against the rules. This would be the same if you used WD-40 to add friction. Illegal but no test. Should one do this so they can win?
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 8:03am |
Twiddler wrote:
Frictionless rubber is illegal. So if someone has doctored up their pips to be frictionless that is against the rules.This would be the same if you used WD-40 to add friction. Illegal but no test. Should one do this so they can win? |
Nobody argues that treated rubbers are illegal.. Not all treatments affect friction.. There are easy tests that can detect things like wd40 or silicone spray on a rubber or things like epoxy or super glue. Those can be detected with a magnifying glass and would be 100% illegal. However, what I'm talking about is UNTREATED rubbers that have naturally lost friction due to age and use. Nothing in the rules makes those illegal to use unless they are no longer uniform or are damaged.
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
purpletiesto
Super Member
Joined: 11/19/2017
Location: Perth
Status: Offline
Points: 242
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 8:07am |
Pushblocker wrote:
purpletiesto wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
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.
|
All seems very nitpicky to me and frictionless long pips are not allowed in ITTF sanctioned events, whether you want to be nitpicky about terminology about it or not. Every other tournament basically goes by the same rules and those who don't follow them are frowned upon and get a poor reputation.
Do you personally know Eberhard Schoeler and Dr. Neubauer? It's okay, I know you don't. And all that stuff you mentioned is just hearsay. Surely you remember many people rallying from when frictionless long pips were introduced, those who didn't like them and wanted them banned. They were a threat to the sport. And now they're banned. And soon we will have a testing methodology to ensure that they are not used in tournaments. And also penalties for the cheaters who try to use them.
Everyone is happy. It's a good day.
|
This is not being nitpicky. Rules are just like laws. They are written in a particular language... in this case in English and they say what they say and they don't say what they don't say. It is 100% incorrect that pimples without friction are illegal to use. It is a requirement for manufacturers to produce pimple that have a minimum amount of friction when new. There is absolutely no rule that requires that rubber to stay above that threshold if it is untreated. Again, it is not there. If you can point to any part of the RULES that would make a uniform rubber that has lost friction naturally due to use and/or age to be against the rules, please point to such rule.
|
The intention, which I am sure you are aware since it seems you're not a complete fool, is that players, like you and me, don't play against people with rubbers that have no friction. So you're going through the rules or regulations or whatever syntax you want to use and nitpicking certain words out so that it is okay for you to use old frictionless rubbers. It's entirely against the intent of the rule/regulation, which any reasonable person would interpret as when at a playing level, the person facing long pips is not facing frictionless long pips.
So it doesn't matter how you word it or how you want to go about it, you're just trying to circumvent rules which every other reasonable person I terprets correctly with lexical loopholes. It's really against the spirit of the game and that nitpicking approach does nothing good for the sport.
Are you really that scared of having to switch from your old frictionless long pips? Just move on like everyone else did years ago. So you'll need to develop your stroke and fitness, so what?
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 8:28am |
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information. |
That's a regulation for manufacturers and a requirement for new rubbers but nothing in the rules would prevent a rubber from naturally losing friction due to age or use. With other words, nothing in the actual rules makes an rubber that is untreated but has lost friction illegal in competition. It is not there. The BoD handles requirements for properties of rubbers for AUTHORIZATION purposes. As I pointed out multiple times, if a rubber exactly meets the required 55 micro newton of friction when new, It will get authorized but after a little bit of playing, that rubber no longer has 55 micro newton as a matter of fact as rubbers lose friction due to use and age and there is nothing that requires a rubber to maintain it's original friction as it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the rubber to stay at the same friction as it's being used. |
You keep saying that it's only for manufacturers to authorize their rubbers, but the text does say:
Information for Umpires and Racket Control 4.7.2019
so if they do decide to test for it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they use the same metric mentioned in the leaflet that is used for authorization just as they do for the VOCs and other tests. But nothing has happened so it's all just speculation.
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 9:15am |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information. |
That's a regulation for manufacturers and a requirement for new rubbers but nothing in the rules would prevent a rubber from naturally losing friction due to age or use. With other words, nothing in the actual rules makes an rubber that is untreated but has lost friction illegal in competition. It is not there. The BoD handles requirements for properties of rubbers for AUTHORIZATION purposes. As I pointed out multiple times, if a rubber exactly meets the required 55 micro newton of friction when new, It will get authorized but after a little bit of playing, that rubber no longer has 55 micro newton as a matter of fact as rubbers lose friction due to use and age and there is nothing that requires a rubber to maintain it's original friction as it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the rubber to stay at the same friction as it's being used. |
You keep saying that it's only for manufacturers to authorize their rubbers, but the text does say:
Information for Umpires and Racket Control 4.7.2019
so if they do decide to test for it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they use the same metric mentioned in the leaflet that is used for authorization just as they do for the VOCs and other tests. But nothing has happened so it's all just speculation. |
VOC actually proves treatment, low friction doesn't. The BoD has exceeded their authority with the friction test as it tests for something that is NOT in the rules. There is a rule against TREATMENT and the VOC test tests for that treatment and is therefore valid as there is a rule that backs up that test.. However, while there is a friction limit on a rubber when new, there is not a single rule that would make a rubber that naturally has lost it's friction illegal and therefore, that test is testing for a property that is nowhere to be found in the rules. Of course, if lack of friction would prove treatment, this would be a valid test but it is a scientific fact that friction IS lost naturally and therefore, it is a test for something for which no rule exists. Show me a single test other than the friction test that tests for something that does not prove treatment?
Going back to my previous example, it's like police checking for a heartbeat on a body and determining that a person is dead and then concluding that the person died as a victim of a crime even though the person could have passed away naturally.. That's EXACTLY what the ITTF is doing. The BoD has been violating the due process to pass rules. Let the AGM vote on it and not have the BoD shove something down everybody's throat.
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/24/2019 at 9:27am
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 10:18am |
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information. |
That's a regulation for manufacturers and a requirement for new rubbers but nothing in the rules would prevent a rubber from naturally losing friction due to age or use. With other words, nothing in the actual rules makes an rubber that is untreated but has lost friction illegal in competition. It is not there. The BoD handles requirements for properties of rubbers for AUTHORIZATION purposes. As I pointed out multiple times, if a rubber exactly meets the required 55 micro newton of friction when new, It will get authorized but after a little bit of playing, that rubber no longer has 55 micro newton as a matter of fact as rubbers lose friction due to use and age and there is nothing that requires a rubber to maintain it's original friction as it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the rubber to stay at the same friction as it's being used. |
You keep saying that it's only for manufacturers to authorize their rubbers, but the text does say:
Information for Umpires and Racket Control 4.7.2019
so if they do decide to test for it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they use the same metric mentioned in the leaflet that is used for authorization just as they do for the VOCs and other tests. But nothing has happened so it's all just speculation. |
VOC actually proves treatment, low friction doesn't. The BoD has exceeded their authority with the friction test as it tests for something that is NOT in the rules. There is a rule against TREATMENT and the VOC test tests for that treatment and is therefore valid as there is a rule that backs up that test.. However, while there is a friction limit on a rubber when new, there is not a single rule that would make a rubber that naturally has lost it's friction illegal and therefore, that test is testing for a property that is nowhere to be found in the rules. Of course, if lack of friction would prove treatment, this would be a valid test but it is a scientific fact that friction IS lost naturally and therefore, it is a test for something for which no rule exists. Show me a single test other than the friction test that tests for something that does not prove treatment?
Going back to my previous example, it's like police checking for a heartbeat on a body and determining that a person is dead and then concluding that the person died as a victim of a crime even though the person could have passed away naturally.. That's EXACTLY what the ITTF is doing. The BoD has been violating the due process to pass rules. Let the AGM vote on it and not have the BoD shove something down everybody's throat.
|
The VOC test proves exactly what it tests for .... whether or not the rubber has exceeded 3 ppm, a regulation defined by T9 leaflet. In fact it's entirely possible for a brand new ITTF authorized rubber to exceed the 3 ppm limit if not properly aired out (which the ITTF recommends of course). So from the player's/team's perspective, they *do* need to be concerned with the limits that are published.
Recall earlier from the thread that the BoD is tasked with "interpretations of Rules" via the technical leaflets so have not exceeded their authority. The handbook does say that the racket covering shall be used as authorized which I can definitely interpret as meaning not to exceed the limits they've published.
Are there ITTF member nations complaining about the BoD exceeding their authority wrt rules/regulations?
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 12:16pm |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information. |
That's a regulation for manufacturers and a requirement for new rubbers but nothing in the rules would prevent a rubber from naturally losing friction due to age or use. With other words, nothing in the actual rules makes an rubber that is untreated but has lost friction illegal in competition. It is not there. The BoD handles requirements for properties of rubbers for AUTHORIZATION purposes. As I pointed out multiple times, if a rubber exactly meets the required 55 micro newton of friction when new, It will get authorized but after a little bit of playing, that rubber no longer has 55 micro newton as a matter of fact as rubbers lose friction due to use and age and there is nothing that requires a rubber to maintain it's original friction as it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the rubber to stay at the same friction as it's being used. |
You keep saying that it's only for manufacturers to authorize their rubbers, but the text does say:
Information for Umpires and Racket Control 4.7.2019
so if they do decide to test for it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they use the same metric mentioned in the leaflet that is used for authorization just as they do for the VOCs and other tests. But nothing has happened so it's all just speculation. |
VOC actually proves treatment, low friction doesn't. The BoD has exceeded their authority with the friction test as it tests for something that is NOT in the rules. There is a rule against TREATMENT and the VOC test tests for that treatment and is therefore valid as there is a rule that backs up that test.. However, while there is a friction limit on a rubber when new, there is not a single rule that would make a rubber that naturally has lost it's friction illegal and therefore, that test is testing for a property that is nowhere to be found in the rules. Of course, if lack of friction would prove treatment, this would be a valid test but it is a scientific fact that friction IS lost naturally and therefore, it is a test for something for which no rule exists. Show me a single test other than the friction test that tests for something that does not prove treatment?
Going back to my previous example, it's like police checking for a heartbeat on a body and determining that a person is dead and then concluding that the person died as a victim of a crime even though the person could have passed away naturally.. That's EXACTLY what the ITTF is doing. The BoD has been violating the due process to pass rules. Let the AGM vote on it and not have the BoD shove something down everybody's throat.
|
The VOC test proves exactly what it tests for .... whether or not the rubber has exceeded 3 ppm, a regulation defined by T9 leaflet. In fact it's entirely possible for a brand new ITTF authorized rubber to exceed the 3 ppm limit if not properly aired out (which the ITTF recommends of course). So from the player's/team's perspective, they *do* need to be concerned with the limits that are published.
Recall earlier from the thread that the BoD is tasked with "interpretations of Rules" via the technical leaflets so have not exceeded their authority. The handbook does say that the racket covering shall be used as authorized which I can definitely interpret as meaning not to exceed the limits they've published.
Are there ITTF member nations complaining about the BoD exceeding their authority wrt rules/regulations? |
Interpretation does not mean that you can just make things up that are not in the rules and that's exactly what they are doing. The BoD considering every rubber to be treated if it does not meet a friction test is like police declaring every dead person to be the victim of a homicide or other criminal activity even if their cause of death was natural.. It does not work that way. As I said, all the other criteria in racket control test for things that are actually in the rules. A friction test tests for something that is not to be found anywhere in the rules.
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/24/2019 at 12:20pm
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 12:27pm |
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Right now we don't know much because all we have is one sentence from the ITTF. Just in case anyone wishes to find this on the ITTF website, go to the Equipment page and click on the link titled General Information. |
That's a regulation for manufacturers and a requirement for new rubbers but nothing in the rules would prevent a rubber from naturally losing friction due to age or use. With other words, nothing in the actual rules makes an rubber that is untreated but has lost friction illegal in competition. It is not there. The BoD handles requirements for properties of rubbers for AUTHORIZATION purposes. As I pointed out multiple times, if a rubber exactly meets the required 55 micro newton of friction when new, It will get authorized but after a little bit of playing, that rubber no longer has 55 micro newton as a matter of fact as rubbers lose friction due to use and age and there is nothing that requires a rubber to maintain it's original friction as it's scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the rubber to stay at the same friction as it's being used. |
You keep saying that it's only for manufacturers to authorize their rubbers, but the text does say:
Information for Umpires and Racket Control 4.7.2019
so if they do decide to test for it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they use the same metric mentioned in the leaflet that is used for authorization just as they do for the VOCs and other tests. But nothing has happened so it's all just speculation. |
VOC actually proves treatment, low friction doesn't. The BoD has exceeded their authority with the friction test as it tests for something that is NOT in the rules. There is a rule against TREATMENT and the VOC test tests for that treatment and is therefore valid as there is a rule that backs up that test.. However, while there is a friction limit on a rubber when new, there is not a single rule that would make a rubber that naturally has lost it's friction illegal and therefore, that test is testing for a property that is nowhere to be found in the rules. Of course, if lack of friction would prove treatment, this would be a valid test but it is a scientific fact that friction IS lost naturally and therefore, it is a test for something for which no rule exists. Show me a single test other than the friction test that tests for something that does not prove treatment?
Going back to my previous example, it's like police checking for a heartbeat on a body and determining that a person is dead and then concluding that the person died as a victim of a crime even though the person could have passed away naturally.. That's EXACTLY what the ITTF is doing. The BoD has been violating the due process to pass rules. Let the AGM vote on it and not have the BoD shove something down everybody's throat.
|
The VOC test proves exactly what it tests for .... whether or not the rubber has exceeded 3 ppm, a regulation defined by T9 leaflet. In fact it's entirely possible for a brand new ITTF authorized rubber to exceed the 3 ppm limit if not properly aired out (which the ITTF recommends of course). So from the player's/team's perspective, they *do* need to be concerned with the limits that are published.
Recall earlier from the thread that the BoD is tasked with "interpretations of Rules" via the technical leaflets so have not exceeded their authority. The handbook does say that the racket covering shall be used as authorized which I can definitely interpret as meaning not to exceed the limits they've published.
Are there ITTF member nations complaining about the BoD exceeding their authority wrt rules/regulations? |
Interpretation does not mean that you can just make things up that are not in the rules and that's exactly what they are doing. The BoD considering every rubber to be treated if it does not meet a friction test is like police declaring every dead person to be the victim of a homicide or other criminal activity even if their cause of death was natural.. It does not work that way. As I said, all the other criteria in racket control test for things that are actually in the rules. A friction test tests for something that is not to be found anywhere in the rules.
|
IMHO, a test for different properties of a rubber, such as friction, in support of the rule regarding treatment is reasonable. But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
|
|
ZingyDNA
Platinum Member
Joined: 09/19/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2373
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 12:37pm |
Well, I don't think they're making up things, not entirely anyways. I think they focus on "as authorized" and are defining what is authorized (and what is not). If they have a device that can accurate measure friction, then they can define a friction level when they authorize rubbers to be approved. I mean, it IS reasonable to make a threshold for friction in the rubber approval process, right? Also, they can define a friction level, say, 80% of the original, for the rubber to stay authorized. By YOUR interpretation, any rubber, even a rubber like Tenergy, can lose 99% of the friction and still be legal (as long as it's uniform, through normal play w/o treatment etc etc). Isn't that a little UNreasonable?  Pushblocker wrote:
Interpretation does not mean that you can just make things up that are not in the rules and that's exactly what they are doing. The BoD considering every rubber to be treated if it does not meet a friction test is like police declaring every dead person to be the victim of a homicide or other criminal activity even if their cause of death was natural.. It does not work that way. As I said, all the other criteria in racket control test for things that are actually in the rules. A friction test tests for something that is not to be found anywhere in the rules.
|
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 1:10pm |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
IMHO, a test for different properties of a rubber, such as friction, in support of the rule regarding treatment is reasonable. But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. |
Sure, if you believe that considering every death to be a homicide, then you can also consider every low friction rubber to be the result of treatment. Of course, you have the right to your opinon but I'd day it's not reasonable the equate cause and effect.. The effect is not prove of the cause.
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 1:12pm |
ZingyDNA wrote:
Well, I don't think they're making up things, not entirely anyways. I think they focus on "as authorized" and are defining what is authorized (and what is not). If they have a device that can accurate measure friction, then they can define a friction level when they authorize rubbers to be approved. I mean, it IS reasonable to make a threshold for friction in the rubber approval process, right? Also, they can define a friction level, say, 80% of the original, for the rubber to stay authorized. By YOUR interpretation, any rubber, even a rubber like Tenergy, can lose 99% of the friction and still be legal (as long as it's uniform, through normal play w/o treatment etc etc). Isn't that a little UNreasonable? Pushblocker wrote:
Interpretation does not mean that you can just make things up that are not in the rules and that's exactly what they are doing. The BoD considering every rubber to be treated if it does not meet a friction test is like police declaring every dead person to be the victim of a homicide or other criminal activity even if their cause of death was natural.. It does not work that way. As I said, all the other criteria in racket control test for things that are actually in the rules. A friction test tests for something that is not to be found anywhere in the rules.
|
|
If there was a rule that would define that a rubber may not lose more than x percent of it's friction or may not be below x micro newton, this would be the case but there is no such rule. NO used rubber is as authorized as rubber is a material that CONSTANTLY changes and therefore no used rubber will be as authorized.. The only time that a rubber is "as authorized" would be when you take it out of the vacuum sealed package. The "as authorized" wording comes in combination with mentioning of treatment. As authorized clearly means that the rubber should not be artificially be modified.. If they would LITERALLY mean "as authorized", no used rubber would be legal.
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 1:17pm |
|
Again, my entire point is that the AGM has never voted on a rule that bans rubbers with low friction. This has been rammed down everybodys throat by the BoD. Let the AGM vote on it.
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
ghostzen
Silver Member
Joined: 08/15/2010
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 881
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 1:53pm |
It's a difficult one definitely. You end up almost creating the need to change because of natural wear and tear like PB said.. Which sounds more like a money making exercise than a rule making one a bit.
But again with alot of the racket control rules.... it won't filter down to much below the tour. Which means boosting and treatments will still occur common place below those events.
Feels like a very sanititized version of TT from the very interesting game I started playing.
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 2:17pm |
ghostzen wrote:
It's a difficult one definitely. You end up almost creating the need to change because of natural wear and tear like PB said.. Which sounds more like a money making exercise than a rule making one a bit.
But again with alot of the racket control rules.... it won't filter down to much below the tour. Which means boosting and treatments will still occur common place below those events.
Feels like a very sanititized version of TT from the very interesting game I started playing. |
For me, the question is on IF the rules mean what they say or if the mean whatever the bord of directors (who can't change rules) want them to mean even if they want it to mean something that is not written in them.
The BoD is overstepping it's authority by enforcing rules that are nowhere in the rulebook.
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
ZingyDNA
Platinum Member
Joined: 09/19/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2373
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 3:35pm |
Pushblocker wrote:
Again, my entire point is that the AGM has never voted on a rule that bans rubbers with low friction. This has been rammed down everybodys throat by the BoD. Let the AGM vote on it. |
Thing is, friction seems to be one of the major physical properties of a TT rubber, as it's need to make spin. If it hasn't been measured during the rubber authorization/approval process, would you need a new rule to include it? Makes me wonder what they DO measure when approving a rubber? Prolly just a rubber stamp and a money-making measure 
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 3:45pm |
ZingyDNA wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
Again, my entire point is that the AGM has never voted on a rule that bans rubbers with low friction. This has been rammed down everybodys throat by the BoD. Let the AGM vote on it. |
Thing is, friction seems to be one of the major physical properties of a TT rubber, as it's need to make spin. If it hasn't been measured during the rubber authorization/approval process, would you need a new rule to include it? Makes me wonder what they DO measure when approving a rubber? Prolly just a rubber stamp and a money-making measure |
They do test for it in the authorization process. From the T4 Leaflet:
2.2. Normal procedure (Recommended)
... 3. The supplier should submit the following to the address given under “Contact Person” on the ITTF.com:
...
For pimples-out, one additional sample without sponge in red. Pimples-out racket coverings
are subject to a friction test which may take additional time and will be invoiced
additionally. This extra sample is intended to save time.
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 4:28pm |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
ZingyDNA wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
Again, my entire point is that the AGM has never voted on a rule that bans rubbers with low friction. This has been rammed down everybodys throat by the BoD. Let the AGM vote on it. |
Thing is, friction seems to be one of the major physical properties of a TT rubber, as it's need to make spin. If it hasn't been measured during the rubber authorization/approval process, would you need a new rule to include it? Makes me wonder what they DO measure when approving a rubber? Prolly just a rubber stamp and a money-making measure |
They do test for it in the authorization process. From the T4 Leaflet:
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">2.2. Normal procedure (Recommended) <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">... 3. The supplier should submit the following to the address given under “Contact Person” on the ITTF.com: <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">... <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">For pimples-out, one additional sample without sponge in red. Pimples-out racket coverings
are subject to a friction test which may take additional time and will be invoiced
additionally. This extra sample is intended to save time.
|
Nobody contests that rubbers are tested for friction for manufacturers to gain authorization of their rubbers. I don't think that we disagree that a rubber must have a certain friction when new in order for them to authorize any pips out rubber for competition. Weird thing is that they are only testing pips out rubbers for friction while it is perfectly fine for antis to be frictionless..
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/24/2019 at 4:31pm
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 10:49pm |
Pushblocker wrote:
... If there was a rule that would define that a rubber may not lose more than x percent of it's friction or may not be below x micro newton, this would be the case but there is no such rule. NO used rubber is as authorized as rubber is a material that CONSTANTLY changes and therefore no used rubber will be as authorized.. The only time that a rubber is "as authorized" would be when you take it out of the vacuum sealed package. The "as authorized" wording comes in combination with mentioning of treatment. As authorized clearly means that the rubber should not be artificially be modified.. If they would LITERALLY mean "as authorized", no used rubber would be legal. |
That's one interpretation of "as authorized", and you are, of course, entitled to it.
I'd like to offer another interpretation if I may. Certainly an authorized rubber loses its authorization if it's treated by the consumer. I think we can agree there. The process of authorizing a rubber involves sending samples to be checked that the properties do not exceed the upper/lower limits of the specifications required by the ITTF. Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. At some point in the rubber's life cycle it might lose it's authorization due to loss of friction. Just another viewpoint.
|
|
purpletiesto
Super Member
Joined: 11/19/2017
Location: Perth
Status: Offline
Points: 242
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/24/2019 at 11:24pm |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
... If there was a rule that would define that a rubber may not lose more than x percent of it's friction or may not be below x micro newton, this would be the case but there is no such rule. NO used rubber is as authorized as rubber is a material that CONSTANTLY changes and therefore no used rubber will be as authorized.. The only time that a rubber is "as authorized" would be when you take it out of the vacuum sealed package. The "as authorized" wording comes in combination with mentioning of treatment. As authorized clearly means that the rubber should not be artificially be modified.. If they would LITERALLY mean "as authorized", no used rubber would be legal. |
That's one interpretation of "as authorized", and you are, of course, entitled to it.
I'd like to offer another interpretation if I may. Certainly an authorized rubber loses its authorization if it's treated by the consumer. I think we can agree there. The process of authorizing a rubber involves sending samples to be checked that the properties do not exceed the upper/lower limits of the specifications required by the ITTF. Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. At some point in the rubber's life cycle it might lose it's authorization due to loss of friction. Just another viewpoint. |
Any reasonable person would interpret the rules this way. Standard.
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/25/2019 at 7:02am |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
... If there was a rule that would define that a rubber may not lose more than x percent of it's friction or may not be below x micro newton, this would be the case but there is no such rule. NO used rubber is as authorized as rubber is a material that CONSTANTLY changes and therefore no used rubber will be as authorized.. The only time that a rubber is "as authorized" would be when you take it out of the vacuum sealed package. The "as authorized" wording comes in combination with mentioning of treatment. As authorized clearly means that the rubber should not be artificially be modified.. If they would LITERALLY mean "as authorized", no used rubber would be legal. |
That's one interpretation of "as authorized", and you are, of course, entitled to it.
I'd like to offer another interpretation if I may. Certainly an authorized rubber loses its authorization if it's treated by the consumer. I think we can agree there. The process of authorizing a rubber involves sending samples to be checked that the properties do not exceed the upper/lower limits of the specifications required by the ITTF. Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. At some point in the rubber's life cycle it might lose it's authorization due to loss of friction. Just another viewpoint. |
As authorized can ONLY mean that as it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that a rubber constantly changes. ANY used rubber is no longer as authorized as it naturally changes. "As authorized" therefore has to mean "unmodified" it even says so when the wording continues.
When you say:
"Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. " you are making things up. This is NOT defined anywhere in the rules. You can't just go and make up things that are not there. It would be very easy to add a line to the rules that says that the rubber has to remain within the limits used for authorization. However, THAT TAKES AN ACTION FROM THE AGM and they know that they will not get the needed 2/3 majority to pass it. As I said, I would not engage in any arguments over this topic if the AGM passes such rule. If they pass it, I will accept it and move on. However, the reason why I'm hammering this topic is because the BoD has effectively circumvented the AGM and makes up their own rules which they are not entitled to based on their bylaws. It takes an act of the AGM to change any rules. Bring it up at the AGM and vote on it!
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/25/2019 at 7:08am
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
pongfugrasshopper
Premier Member
Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/25/2019 at 8:53am |
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
... If there was a rule that would define that a rubber may not lose more than x percent of it's friction or may not be below x micro newton, this would be the case but there is no such rule. NO used rubber is as authorized as rubber is a material that CONSTANTLY changes and therefore no used rubber will be as authorized.. The only time that a rubber is "as authorized" would be when you take it out of the vacuum sealed package. The "as authorized" wording comes in combination with mentioning of treatment. As authorized clearly means that the rubber should not be artificially be modified.. If they would LITERALLY mean "as authorized", no used rubber would be legal. |
That's one interpretation of "as authorized", and you are, of course, entitled to it.
I'd like to offer another interpretation if I may. Certainly an authorized rubber loses its authorization if it's treated by the consumer. I think we can agree there. The process of authorizing a rubber involves sending samples to be checked that the properties do not exceed the upper/lower limits of the specifications required by the ITTF. Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. At some point in the rubber's life cycle it might lose it's authorization due to loss of friction. Just another viewpoint. |
As authorized can ONLY mean that as it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that a rubber constantly changes. ANY used rubber is no longer as authorized as it naturally changes. "As authorized" therefore has to mean "unmodified" it even says so when the wording continues.
When you say:
"Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. " you are making things up. This is NOT defined anywhere in the rules. You can't just go and make up things that are not there. It would be very easy to add a line to the rules that says that the rubber has to remain within the limits used for authorization. However, THAT TAKES AN ACTION FROM THE AGM and they know that they will not get the needed 2/3 majority to pass it. As I said, I would not engage in any arguments over this topic if the AGM passes such rule. If they pass it, I will accept it and move on. However, the reason why I'm hammering this topic is because the BoD has effectively circumvented the AGM and makes up their own rules which they are not entitled to based on their bylaws. It takes an act of the AGM to change any rules. Bring it up at the AGM and vote on it!
|
So it's your assertion that the moment a table tennis ball touches a brand new rubber on the very first hit it's no longer as authorized? Interesting.
|
|
Pushblocker
Gold Member
Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1976
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07/25/2019 at 9:02am |
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
pongfugrasshopper wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
... If there was a rule that would define that a rubber may not lose more than x percent of it's friction or may not be below x micro newton, this would be the case but there is no such rule. NO used rubber is as authorized as rubber is a material that CONSTANTLY changes and therefore no used rubber will be as authorized.. The only time that a rubber is "as authorized" would be when you take it out of the vacuum sealed package. The "as authorized" wording comes in combination with mentioning of treatment. As authorized clearly means that the rubber should not be artificially be modified.. If they would LITERALLY mean "as authorized", no used rubber would be legal. |
That's one interpretation of "as authorized", and you are, of course, entitled to it.
I'd like to offer another interpretation if I may. Certainly an authorized rubber loses its authorization if it's treated by the consumer. I think we can agree there. The process of authorizing a rubber involves sending samples to be checked that the properties do not exceed the upper/lower limits of the specifications required by the ITTF. Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. At some point in the rubber's life cycle it might lose it's authorization due to loss of friction. Just another viewpoint. |
As authorized can ONLY mean that as it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that a rubber constantly changes. ANY used rubber is no longer as authorized as it naturally changes. "As authorized" therefore has to mean "unmodified" it even says so when the wording continues.
When you say:
"Thus, "as authorized" can mean that the rubber continues to be authorized as long as it does not exceed those limits defined by the ITTF in the technical leaflets. " you are making things up. This is NOT defined anywhere in the rules. You can't just go and make up things that are not there. It would be very easy to add a line to the rules that says that the rubber has to remain within the limits used for authorization. However, THAT TAKES AN ACTION FROM THE AGM and they know that they will not get the needed 2/3 majority to pass it. As I said, I would not engage in any arguments over this topic if the AGM passes such rule. If they pass it, I will accept it and move on. However, the reason why I'm hammering this topic is because the BoD has effectively circumvented the AGM and makes up their own rules which they are not entitled to based on their bylaws. It takes an act of the AGM to change any rules. Bring it up at the AGM and vote on it!
|
So it's your assertion that the moment a table tennis ball touches a brand new rubber on the very first hit it's no longer as authorized? Interesting. |
If "as authorized" would mean the exact properties that the rubber has when it was authorized, then this would be true as scientifically a rubber continuously degrades. However, it is VERY CLEAR what they really mean with "as authorized" as the rules continue "with no treatment", making it clear that "as authorized" refers to "not treated or modified" and not natural wear. My point is just that if you take "as authorized" literally meaning the exact same properties, the rubber will no longer have the EXACT same properties after a very short time. Let me go back to a previous example. Let's say a long pips rubber has 55 micro newton friction when brand new. Now. let's say that you play the rubber for one hour and you put it back on the friction machine that you used to get 55 micro newton. I can GUARANTEE you that it will no longer be 55 micro newton.. The difference could be minimal at like 54.4 micro newton but it would no longer be the same. So, if the limit for the rubber is 55 micro newton, a rubber that was used for 1 hour would no longer meet that requirement and be illegal if this is true.
Edited by Pushblocker - 07/25/2019 at 9:06am
|
|
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
|
|
Tweet
