Print Page | Close Window

ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb

Printed From: Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET
Category: Equipment
Forum Name: Equipment
Forum Description: Share your experience and discussions about table tennis equipments.
Moderator: haggisv
Assistant Moderators: position available

URL: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=86406
Printed Date: 03/29/2024 at 1:53am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb
Posted By: igorponger
Subject: ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb
Date Posted: 07/17/2019 at 9:11pm
ITTF sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubbers.
They're planning to deploy the tests for some ITTF events. The locals may adopt it on their own.   





Be happy.



Replies:
Posted By: mykonos96
Date Posted: 07/18/2019 at 11:36am
when drug test to  umpires I know one who is on dope 


Posted By: Alisha_Hooksit
Date Posted: 07/18/2019 at 8:40pm
Originally posted by mykonos96 mykonos96 wrote:

when drug test to  umpires I know one who is on dope 

Ahhh,  you know an umpire on "dope"  so therefore all of them should be drug tested? Good plan.
BTW what kind of dope does that known to you umpire use, cannabis, opioid pain pills, benzos, shrooms, coke, downers, meth, acid, Angel dust, smack, ludes, roofies, or bathtub gin?


Posted By: Alisha_Hooksit
Date Posted: 07/18/2019 at 8:45pm
Waiting for the Pushblocker to weigh in after he orders the gizmo and deciphers how to confound it Wink


Posted By: haggisv
Date Posted: 07/18/2019 at 8:49pm
Nowhere does it say that this is the device they'll be using.


-------------
Smart; VS>401, Dtecs OX
http://tabletennisshop.com.au/index.php?main_page=page&id=42" rel="nofollow - Tenergy Alternatives | http://tabletennis-reviews.com" rel="nofollow - My TT Articles


Posted By: qpskfec
Date Posted: 07/18/2019 at 9:54pm
Igor has posted pics of this contraption before. If ittf did want to do friction testing, it is doubtful they would use a mickey mouse device like this.

There are a range of professional devices made to test surface friction.


Posted By: gnopgnipster
Date Posted: 07/19/2019 at 10:21am
Am I allowed to clean my long pips before taking the test? Long pips can get awfully dirty during a tournament and show up maybe as frictionless on the test...

-------------
Hardbat: Valor Champion/FH/BH-Valor Premier-OX

Regular:Valor Big Stick FH-Apollo II & BH-Globe 979 OX



Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/19/2019 at 10:37am
Originally posted by Alisha_Hooksit Alisha_Hooksit wrote:

Waiting for the Pushblocker to weigh in after he orders the gizmo and deciphers how to confound it Wink
I hope that someone challenges this in court. They are enforcing a rule that does not exist. They are violating their own bylaws. The friction regulation was created by the BoD. Rules are passed by the AGM.
There is currently no rule in place that would make a uniform used rubber illegal for competition if it has naturally lost it's friction without any treatment.  The "as authorized" wording means that a rubber can't be modified. EVERY rubber will no longer be "as authorized" after only a little bit of use, so if a rubber is a "used rubber", it is still as authorized. Nothing in the rules make a used rubber illegal after a certain amount of use. There is no "pimple specfic" rule when it comes to the "AS AUTHORIZED" rule.  
What the BoD effectively did was to bypass the AGM which is the body that can actually implement rules. Now the BoD passed a REGULATION (not rule) and now the BoD passed a testing mechanism to inforce that REGULATION as a RULE which clearly violates their bylaws.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: notfound123
Date Posted: 07/19/2019 at 12:47pm
they are going after 3 (4? LOL) remaining choppers / blockers on the tour...Maybe boosted H3s is what they should be after 


Posted By: Alisha_Hooksit
Date Posted: 07/19/2019 at 2:38pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by Alisha_Hooksit Alisha_Hooksit wrote:

Waiting for the Pushblocker to weigh in after he orders the gizmo and deciphers how to confound it Wink
I hope that someone challenges this in court. They are enforcing a rule that does not exist. They are violating their own bylaws. The friction regulation was created by the BoD. Rules are passed by the AGM.
There is currently no rule in place that would make a uniform used rubber illegal for competition if it has naturally lost it's friction without any treatment.  The "as authorized" wording means that a rubber can't be modified. EVERY rubber will no longer be "as authorized" after only a little bit of use, so if a rubber is a "used rubber", it is still as authorized. Nothing in the rules make a used rubber illegal after a certain amount of use. There is no "pimple specfic" rule when it comes to the "AS AUTHORIZED" rule.  
What the BoD effectively did was to bypass the AGM which is the body that can actually implement rules. Now the BoD passed a REGULATION (not rule) and now the BoD passed a testing mechanism to inforce that REGULATION as a RULE which clearly violates their bylaws.

I do not doubt that you are likely correct with that information, and also agree with you. Personally I enjoy the challenge and variation that comes with competing against players using long-standing and legal rubber alternatives to inverted, and feel the reactionary discontent against them comes from players who are rather, sore losers, for lack of a better term. Also I enjoy watching videos of your matches and the many valuable contributions and information you share with everyone here regarding the long-pips game.


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/19/2019 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by gnopgnipster gnopgnipster wrote:

Am I allowed to clean my long pips before taking the test? Long pips can get awfully dirty during a tournament and show up maybe as frictionless on the test...

Surely the testing process will ensure the surface is in a control state when taking friction readings.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 10:32am
Can anyone show me the rule that requires a untreated rubber to maintain a certain amount of friction? I'm not talking about the regulation that a rubber must have x friction when being manufactored. I'm talking about any RULE that requires a rubber to maintain x amount of friction or x percent of it's original friction to be used in an event. What if a rubber is authorized with 50 micro newton friction and the limit is 50 micro newton. Now the rubber is used for 1 hour and now is 49 micro newton. Where is the rule that the rubber has to stay above that when it was used? As I said, EVERY rubber loses friction naturally and if "as authorized" means the original friction, then no used rubber would be legal for competition as a used rubber does not have it's original properties in as short time as a match. 
Any such rule that requires a certain amount of friction or % of the original friction?


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 12:50pm
Yep, someone show me this in the Laws of Table Tennis.

-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: Egghead
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 1:01pm
Here we go again LOL

-------------
Aurora ST: Rhyzm / Talent OX


Posted By: benfb
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Can anyone show me the rule that requires a untreated rubber to maintain a certain amount of friction? I'm not talking about the regulation that a rubber must have x friction when being manufactored. I'm talking about any RULE that requires a rubber to maintain x amount of friction or x percent of it's original friction to be used in an event. What if a rubber is authorized with 50 micro newton friction and the limit is 50 micro newton. Now the rubber is used for 1 hour and now is 49 micro newton. Where is the rule that the rubber has to stay above that when it was used? As I said, EVERY rubber loses friction naturally and if "as authorized" means the original friction, then no used rubber would be legal for competition as a used rubber does not have it's original properties in as short time as a match. 
Any such rule that requires a certain amount of friction or % of the original friction?
I can see how this would be an important rule for you and perhaps emotional. However, if we look at it dispassionately, then I think it's workable.

First, ITTF doesn't invent rules with amateur players in mind.  As far as they're concerned, we don't actually exist. To them, someone at (as an example) your level of play, is no different than the guys in the homeless shelter playing ping pong.  So we might be stuck with rules that make no sense to us because they were designed with us in mind.

Second, "as authorized" has some meaning for how some long pips are being sold.  Last year I posted a thread about some long pips that one of my club mates was (and still is) using.  The pips as  approved by ITTF had some grip, enough that a player could actual put spin on the ball.  However, the same manufacturer also sold a version that was UV treated and were *very* slick.  This second version is very much not "as approved", but people are using it anyway. That's clearly illegal and a test for it would be nice.

Third, you talked about natural wear and loss of friction on all rubbers. I think ITTF would need to set a tolerance for loss.  You gave an example of a rubber that, when new, has a friction of 50 when the legal limit is 50.  After an hour of use, the rubber is now 49 and no longer technically legal.  ITTF would have to argue that you should have bought at rubber that has a friction of 55 (if you change rubbers frequently) or even 60 (if you don't change rubbers frequently).  Their argument would be that they've set the minimum standard for friction and it's up to you to not go below it. If they really thought it was OK for the grip to go down to 49, then they wold have set the minimum standard at, for example, 45.

At the professional level, the pros do change rubbers frequently, so old or abused rubbers aren't really a problem for them.  And, as I said, they are all that ITTF cares about.  At the amateur level, I see rubbers that don't behave right all the time, because they're old or in some way deteriorated.  It leads to some weird or unexpected play, but we're only amateurs and I can't see anyone testing those rubbers.

As for whether ITTF is implementing these rules following the proper procedures: I don't know the ITTF political structure well enough to not what's allowed and what is not.  However, I do know that in most democratic governments (including our federal government and all 50 states), there are multiple ways to implement restrictions that seem like laws.  You can have actual laws passed by a legislature, you can have executive fiats by governors or the President, and you can have administrative rules that are created by bureaucrats.


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 2:25pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Can anyone show me the rule that requires a untreated rubber to maintain a certain amount of friction? I'm not talking about the regulation that a rubber must have x friction when being manufactored. I'm talking about any RULE that requires a rubber to maintain x amount of friction or x percent of it's original friction to be used in an event. What if a rubber is authorized with 50 micro newton friction and the limit is 50 micro newton. Now the rubber is used for 1 hour and now is 49 micro newton. Where is the rule that the rubber has to stay above that when it was used? As I said, EVERY rubber loses friction naturally and if "as authorized" means the original friction, then no used rubber would be legal for competition as a used rubber does not have it's original properties in as short time as a match. 
Any such rule that requires a certain amount of friction or % of the original friction?

It would be reasonable to assume they will implement a testing methodology to determine a number of metrics which will in turn determine whether or not a rubber is violating the rule and those metrics and associated violating thresholds will be published as a new specific rule in conjunction with the testing methodology.

Also, you may want to read this -->  https://www.britannica.com/science/friction" rel="nofollow - https://www.britannica.com/science/friction

Once that is implemented, you may need to start playing with new rubbers, which are legal according to the new rule set regarding friction. I wouldn't mind what you used, though, I love beating a cheater or a sook but even better when it's both at once.


Posted By: Ingo_Ger
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 3:40pm
Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

First, ITTF doesn't invent rules with amateur players in mind.  As far as they're concerned, we don't actually exist. To them, someone at (as an example) your level of play, is no different than the guys in the homeless shelter playing ping pong.  So we might be stuck with rules that make no sense to us because they were designed with us in mind.
I don't know where you are playing, here in Germany, the rule is for sure for us "amateur" players. You will find most of these type of totally frictionless long pimples within the last(!) 4-6 leagues. Above a certain skill level, everyone is too consistent with their top spin and you will loose if you're dependant on your material alone. In Germany, I would say "Bezirksliga" which should translate into a TTR of round about >1500 is the ceiling for most of the players with frictionless material. There are some exceptions but those I would bet would be better with inverted rubber.
Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

Second, "as authorized" has some meaning for how some long pips are being sold.  Last year I posted a thread about some long pips that one of my club mates was (and still is) using.  The pips as  approved by ITTF had some grip, enough that a player could actual put spin on the ball.  However, the same manufacturer also sold a version that was UV treated and were *very* slick.  This second version is very much not "as approved", but people are using it anyway. That's clearly illegal and a test for it would be nice.
And everybody, who knows the difference between frictionless and "legal" pimples can immediately tell the difference with stroking a ball on it. So we're not talking about 60 to 59 µN but something about 60 to 5 µN. 
I really like the idea to get rid of all of these illegal pimples. Using this material cover a (often physical and technical) weakness and to get an advantage has nothing to do with sport. On the other hand I see so many of them played in the lower leagues by old and often not so athletic players. I doubt that they would continue playing table tennis after their material will be really banned.


Posted By: haggisv
Date Posted: 07/20/2019 at 11:34pm
I do believe the decision to ban frictionless (and minimum friction level for pimples) was made with amateur players in mind, because I don't think anyone at the professional level used it.

I also agree with ingo_Ger, in that frictionless is an advantage only up to a certain level, above which it because a weakness that can be exploited by higher level players. It takes a high-skilled players (eg Pushblocker) to still play that style at the higher level. It bugs me that players of this style at this level are not given the credit and respect that they deserve. Those that have tried to play this style and the higher level will appreciate how hard it gets.

Note: Although I play with long pimples myself, I don't use frictionless as it does not suit my style.


-------------
Smart; VS>401, Dtecs OX
http://tabletennisshop.com.au/index.php?main_page=page&id=42" rel="nofollow - Tenergy Alternatives | http://tabletennis-reviews.com" rel="nofollow - My TT Articles


Posted By: benfb
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 2:05am
Originally posted by haggisv haggisv wrote:

I do believe the decision to ban frictionless (and minimum friction level for pimples) was made with 
To quote one of my favorite movies: "I love your innocence. Never lose it."

ITTF *never, ever* makes rules with amateurs in mind.  In  this case, the story behind the ban on frictionless pips is well known, and relates to Dr. Neubeur and some high-up person at ITTF.  I'll let someone else provide the details.


Posted By: haggisv
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 2:54am
Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

To quote one of my favorite movies: "I love your innocence. Never lose it."
That's a little condescending, don't you think? Ouch

Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

ITTF *never, ever* makes rules with amateurs in mind.  In  this case, the story behind the ban on frictionless pips is well known, and relates to Dr. Neubeur and some high-up person at ITTF.  I'll let someone else provide the details.

When I say 'amateurs in mind', I mean that they were looking at the effect on amateurs, I wasn't implying it was done for their benefit. Yes I've read lots of things about what really went on, and the people influencing the decisions...hard to know who and what to believe, but it was yet another non-transparent decision by the ITTF.Angry


-------------
Smart; VS>401, Dtecs OX
http://tabletennisshop.com.au/index.php?main_page=page&id=42" rel="nofollow - Tenergy Alternatives | http://tabletennis-reviews.com" rel="nofollow - My TT Articles


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 8:04pm
It's unclear what device will be used to measure low friction, as https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - the ITTF notice on low friction is devoid of any image , but a low friction racket could be deemed illegal based on this regulation if a friction test is added: 

3.4.2.3 A racket shall successfully pass all parameters of the racket control tests.


Posted By: AmiciSumus
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 9:05pm
Why use money on this  ...  Why not ban all pimpled rubbers ?! Big smileTongueBig smile

-------------
Xiom Ice Cream AZXi FL
- FH ALC: Butterfly Dignics 2.1 Red
- BH ZLC: Butterfly Dignics 2.1 Black

Xiom Ice Cream AZXi FL
- FH ALC: Adidas P7 Max Red
- BH ZLC: Rasanter R53 2.0 Black


Posted By: smackman
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 9:55pm
Originally posted by AmiciSumus AmiciSumus wrote:

Why use money on this  ...  Why not ban all pimpled rubbers ?! Big smileTongueBig smile

So you still can't beat your Grandfather?



-------------
Ulmo Duality,Donic BlueGrip C2 red max ,Yinhe Super Kim Ox Black
NZ table tennis selector, third in the World (plate Doubles)I'm Listed on the ITTF website


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 10:27pm
Quote I can see how this would be an important rule for you and perhaps emotional. However, if we look at it dispassionately, then I think it's workable.

First, ITTF doesn't invent rules with amateur players in mind.  As far as they're concerned, we don't actually exist. To them, someone at (as an example) your level of play, is no different than the guys in the homeless shelter playing ping pong.  So we might be stuck with rules that make no sense to us because they were designed with us in mind.

Second, "as authorized" has some meaning for how some long pips are being sold.  Last year I posted a thread about some long pips that one of my club mates was (and still is) using.  The pips as  approved by ITTF had some grip, enough that a player could actual put spin on the ball.  However, the same manufacturer also sold a version that was UV treated and were *very* slick.  This second version is very much not "as approved", but people are using it anyway. That's clearly illegal and a test for it would be nice.

Third, you talked about natural wear and loss of friction on all rubbers. I think ITTF would need to set a tolerance for loss.  You gave an example of a rubber that, when new, has a friction of 50 when the legal limit is 50.  After an hour of use, the rubber is now 49 and no longer technically legal.  ITTF would have to argue that you should have bought at rubber that has a friction of 55 (if you change rubbers frequently) or even 60 (if you don't change rubbers frequently).  Their argument would be that they've set the minimum standard for friction and it's up to you to not go below it. If they really thought it was OK for the grip to go down to 49, then they wold have set the minimum standard at, for example, 45.

At the professional level, the pros do change rubbers frequently, so old or abused rubbers aren't really a problem for them.  And, as I said, they are all that ITTF cares about.  At the amateur level, I see rubbers that don't behave right all the time, because they're old or in some way deteriorated.  It leads to some weird or unexpected play, but we're only amateurs and I can't see anyone testing those rubbers.

As for whether ITTF is implementing these rules following the proper procedures: I don't know the ITTF political structure well enough to not what's allowed and what is not.  However, I do know that in most democratic governments (including our federal government and all 50 states), there are multiple ways to implement restrictions that seem like laws.  You can have actual laws passed by a legislature, you can have executive fiats by governors or the President, and you can have administrative rules that are created by bureaucrats.
RULES are just like laws. They say what they say and nothing else. Furthermore, the Board of Directors has not authority of making rules or enforcing rules that do not exist. Just because there is a friction limit for a new rubber in a regulation does not automatically create a rule that the rubber may not go below that friction after being used. The rule just is not there. If I was playing in ITTF sanctioned events, I would sue
 AS I'm not an ITTF member, I would not have standing in such lawsuit.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: AmiciSumus
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 10:29pm
So you still can't beat your Grandfather?

Haha ... Just tried to be "funny" but Perhaps you can be my Grandfather ?!  SmileTongue



-------------
Xiom Ice Cream AZXi FL
- FH ALC: Butterfly Dignics 2.1 Red
- BH ZLC: Butterfly Dignics 2.1 Black

Xiom Ice Cream AZXi FL
- FH ALC: Adidas P7 Max Red
- BH ZLC: Rasanter R53 2.0 Black


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 10:31pm
Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Can anyone show me the rule that requires a untreated rubber to maintain a certain amount of friction? I'm not talking about the regulation that a rubber must have x friction when being manufactored. I'm talking about any RULE that requires a rubber to maintain x amount of friction or x percent of it's original friction to be used in an event. What if a rubber is authorized with 50 micro newton friction and the limit is 50 micro newton. Now the rubber is used for 1 hour and now is 49 micro newton. Where is the rule that the rubber has to stay above that when it was used? As I said, EVERY rubber loses friction naturally and if "as authorized" means the original friction, then no used rubber would be legal for competition as a used rubber does not have it's original properties in as short time as a match. 
Any such rule that requires a certain amount of friction or % of the original friction?

It would be reasonable to assume they will implement a testing methodology to determine a number of metrics which will in turn determine whether or not a rubber is violating the rule and those metrics and associated violating thresholds will be published as a new specific rule in conjunction with the testing methodology.

Also, you may want to read this -->  https://www.britannica.com/science/friction" rel="nofollow - https://www.britannica.com/science/friction

Once that is implemented, you may need to start playing with new rubbers, which are legal according to the new rule set regarding friction. I wouldn't mind what you used, though, I love beating a cheater or a sook but even better when it's both at once.
A rule has to be created that determine on how much percent a rubbers properties may change from use or what friction has to be retained. If they make a rule that requires a rubber to have a certain friction remaining when being used, then that rule would be valid and everyone would have to abide. However, there is no such rule at this point. The only body that creates rules is the AGM. If they don't pass such rules, there is no minimum friction requirement for an untreated, uniform rubber.
It is a scientific fact that properties of rubber changes constantly when being used. If a rubber has x friction when new,  it is pretty safe to say that after let's say 5 hours of use if you would measure the friction, it would be less than when it was new and no longer as authorized.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/21/2019 at 11:35pm
So regulations don't apply unless there's a specific rule regarding it?  From the https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/04/2019ITTFHandbook.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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 https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Table_Tennis/Documents/Rules/USATT-Rules-20170612.pdf?la=en&hash=C45B2FAB3A6574C468D77C69384549783E7E11A1" rel="nofollow - 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. 




Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/22/2019 at 2:51am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Can anyone show me the rule that requires a untreated rubber to maintain a certain amount of friction? I'm not talking about the regulation that a rubber must have x friction when being manufactored. I'm talking about any RULE that requires a rubber to maintain x amount of friction or x percent of it's original friction to be used in an event. What if a rubber is authorized with 50 micro newton friction and the limit is 50 micro newton. Now the rubber is used for 1 hour and now is 49 micro newton. Where is the rule that the rubber has to stay above that when it was used? As I said, EVERY rubber loses friction naturally and if "as authorized" means the original friction, then no used rubber would be legal for competition as a used rubber does not have it's original properties in as short time as a match. 
Any such rule that requires a certain amount of friction or % of the original friction?

It would be reasonable to assume they will implement a testing methodology to determine a number of metrics which will in turn determine whether or not a rubber is violating the rule and those metrics and associated violating thresholds will be published as a new specific rule in conjunction with the testing methodology.

Also, you may want to read this -->  https://www.britannica.com/science/friction" rel="nofollow - https://www.britannica.com/science/friction

Once that is implemented, you may need to start playing with new rubbers, which are legal according to the new rule set regarding friction. I wouldn't mind what you used, though, I love beating a cheater or a sook but even better when it's both at once.
A rule has to be created that determine on how much percent a rubbers properties may change from use or what friction has to be retained. If they make a rule that requires a rubber to have a certain friction remaining when being used, then that rule would be valid and everyone would have to abide. However, there is no such rule at this point. The only body that creates rules is the AGM. If they don't pass such rules, there is no minimum friction requirement for an untreated, uniform rubber.
It is a scientific fact that properties of rubber changes constantly when being used. If a rubber has x friction when new,  it is pretty safe to say that after let's say 5 hours of use if you would measure the friction, it would be less than when it was new and no longer as authorized.

No, there only needs to be a threshold of legality. And they will amend the current rule set to reflect this.

If rubber changes over time, I highly doubt manufacturers would release rubbers on the threshold of what is legal and if they did then more power to them. They may have the opportunity to release competition rubbers which are at the lowest possible metric for friction and also release training rubbers, which may start with more friction.

I am looking forward to the future of table tennis because of these new rules and testing. It shows that they have identified a rampant problem of cheating and cheaters and are taking steps to eliminate it. My club has  already pledged they will invest in the testing equipment.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/22/2019 at 7:04am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

So regulations don't apply unless there's a specific rule regarding it?  From the https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/04/2019ITTFHandbook.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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 https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Table_Tennis/Documents/Rules/USATT-Rules-20170612.pdf?la=en&hash=C45B2FAB3A6574C468D77C69384549783E7E11A1" rel="nofollow - 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/22/2019 at 7:07am
Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Can anyone show me the rule that requires a untreated rubber to maintain a certain amount of friction? I'm not talking about the regulation that a rubber must have x friction when being manufactored. I'm talking about any RULE that requires a rubber to maintain x amount of friction or x percent of it's original friction to be used in an event. What if a rubber is authorized with 50 micro newton friction and the limit is 50 micro newton. Now the rubber is used for 1 hour and now is 49 micro newton. Where is the rule that the rubber has to stay above that when it was used? As I said, EVERY rubber loses friction naturally and if "as authorized" means the original friction, then no used rubber would be legal for competition as a used rubber does not have it's original properties in as short time as a match. 
Any such rule that requires a certain amount of friction or % of the original friction?

It would be reasonable to assume they will implement a testing methodology to determine a number of metrics which will in turn determine whether or not a rubber is violating the rule and those metrics and associated violating thresholds will be published as a new specific rule in conjunction with the testing methodology.

Also, you may want to read this -->  https://www.britannica.com/science/friction" rel="nofollow - https://www.britannica.com/science/friction

Once that is implemented, you may need to start playing with new rubbers, which are legal according to the new rule set regarding friction. I wouldn't mind what you used, though, I love beating a cheater or a sook but even better when it's both at once.
A rule has to be created that determine on how much percent a rubbers properties may change from use or what friction has to be retained. If they make a rule that requires a rubber to have a certain friction remaining when being used, then that rule would be valid and everyone would have to abide. However, there is no such rule at this point. The only body that creates rules is the AGM. If they don't pass such rules, there is no minimum friction requirement for an untreated, uniform rubber.
It is a scientific fact that properties of rubber changes constantly when being used. If a rubber has x friction when new,  it is pretty safe to say that after let's say 5 hours of use if you would measure the friction, it would be less than when it was new and no longer as authorized.

No, there only needs to be a threshold of legality. And they will amend the current rule set to reflect this.

If rubber changes over time, I highly doubt manufacturers would release rubbers on the threshold of what is legal and if they did then more power to them. They may have the opportunity to release competition rubbers which are at the lowest possible metric for friction and also release training rubbers, which may start with more friction.

I am looking forward to the future of table tennis because of these new rules and testing. It shows that they have identified a rampant problem of cheating and cheaters and are taking steps to eliminate it. My club has  already pledged they will invest in the testing equipment.
So, with other words, you think that the ITTF can just make shit up no matter if there is a rule to support it or not.. 


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: cole_ely
Date 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.


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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 https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/04/2019ITTFHandbook.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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 https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Table_Tennis/Documents/Rules/USATT-Rules-20170612.pdf?la=en&hash=C45B2FAB3A6574C468D77C69384549783E7E11A1" rel="nofollow - 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).


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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 https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/04/2019ITTFHandbook.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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 https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Table_Tennis/Documents/Rules/USATT-Rules-20170612.pdf?la=en&hash=C45B2FAB3A6574C468D77C69384549783E7E11A1" rel="nofollow - 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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 https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/04/2019ITTFHandbook.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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 https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Table_Tennis/Documents/Rules/USATT-Rules-20170612.pdf?la=en&hash=C45B2FAB3A6574C468D77C69384549783E7E11A1" rel="nofollow - 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 http://www.ittf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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 https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/04/2019ITTFHandbook.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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 https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Table_Tennis/Documents/Rules/USATT-Rules-20170612.pdf?la=en&hash=C45B2FAB3A6574C468D77C69384549783E7E11A1" rel="nofollow - 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 http://www.ittf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: mjamja
Date 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


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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!!

https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules" rel="nofollow - https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules

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!


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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!!

https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules" rel="nofollow - https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules

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.


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date 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. 


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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!!

https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules" rel="nofollow - https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules

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


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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!!

https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules" rel="nofollow - https://cornilleau-tabletennis.com.au/official-ittf-table-tennis-rules

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?  


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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).


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.  


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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.  


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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. 


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:00pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

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.

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.


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:08pm
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

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

The issue is that it describes a test for a rule that does not exist.

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

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?
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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/23/2019 at 3:11pm
Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

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.

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.

-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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.

-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date 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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - General Information .


Posted By: Twiddler
Date 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.



Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 7:52am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper 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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 7:57am
Originally posted by Twiddler 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: Twiddler
Date 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?


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 8:03am
Originally posted by Twiddler 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


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 8:07am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by purpletiesto purpletiesto wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

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.

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? 


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 8:28am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper 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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 9:15am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper 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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 10:18am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper 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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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?


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 12:16pm
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:

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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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.

-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 12:27pm
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:

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 https://www.ittf.com/equipment/" rel="nofollow - Equipment page and click on the link titled https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/07/EqNews1.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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.  


Posted By: ZingyDNA
Date 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? Wink  
Originally posted by Pushblocker 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.
 
 


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper 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


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 1:12pm
Originally posted by ZingyDNA 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? Wink  
Originally posted by Pushblocker 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


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date 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


Posted By: ghostzen
Date 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. 









Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by ghostzen 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


Posted By: ZingyDNA
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker 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 LOL


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by ZingyDNA ZingyDNA wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker 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 LOL
They do test for it in the authorization process.  From the http://www.ittf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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.



Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by ZingyDNA ZingyDNA wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker 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 LOL

They do test for it in the authorization process.  From the http://www.ittf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf" rel="nofollow - 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..

-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker 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.


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/24/2019 at 11:24pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 7:02am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker 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!


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 8:53am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker 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.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 9:02am
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker 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.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: purpletiesto
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 10:07am
Let's never let this thread die.


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

...
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.
We agree that a treated rubber is no longer "as authorized".  And there's no doubt that the rubber is in constant change; I do not disagree.  Where we disagree is that I'm saying that a rubber, in addition to not having been treated by the consumer, is "as authorized" if it meets the minimum specs. defined by the ITTF.  Now if a manufacturer produces a rubber that has a coefficient of kinetic friction between rubber/ball that is exactly 0.5 (the minimum spec), if I were the consumer, I would be very upset with the manufacturer as one session will probably make it out of spec.  But that's an issue for the manufacturer to solve.  I would imagine the vast majority of rubbers fall well within spec.  When the rubber is submitted to racket control (long after it was authorized), what specifications do they use to determine legality? ... They use the specifications defined in the leaflets... the same specifications they used when the rubber was authorized.


Posted By: Pushblocker
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 12:14pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

We agree that a treated rubber is no longer "as authorized".  And there's no doubt that the rubber is in constant change; I do not disagree.  Where we disagree is that I'm saying that a rubber, in addition to not having been treated by the consumer, is "as authorized" if it meets the minimum specs. defined by the ITTF.  Now if a manufacturer produces a rubber that has a coefficient of kinetic friction between rubber/ball that is exactly 0.5 (the minimum spec), if I were the consumer, I would be very upset with the manufacturer as one session will probably make it out of spec.  But that's an issue for the manufacturer to solve.  I would imagine the vast majority of rubbers fall well within spec.  When the rubber is submitted to racket control (long after it was authorized), what specifications do they use to determine legality? ... They use the specifications defined in the leaflets... the same specifications they used when the rubber was authorized.
If that is what it should mean, then they should put appropriate wording into the rules. It's not there right now. The BoD has CIRCUMVENTED the AGM and they should not. This should follow the proper process outlined in the Bylaws to amend rules.
It is not in any way against the equipment regulations if a rubber has exactly the minimum amount of friction. They are not doing anything against that regulation if it does. If the rules would really cover natural wear, that rubber would become illegal the moment it is played. I'm certain that this is not what the rules mean. Of course, that's what the BoD wants it to mean. 
The entire issue is, as I pointed out, that the proper process to amend the rules has been circumvented by the BoD and it should not. The AGM should have a say in things like that.. As I said, I won't have any complaints if this is brought up and passes a vote at the AGM with the needed 2/3 majority.
It's like President Trump issuing an executive order to remove all undocumented immigrants. Well, they are here and they don't have any documentation and therefore we deport them all. Imagine the public outcry if he would do that. However, if the targeted group of such circumvention of the rules are long pips blockers, nobody seems to give a flying f.


-------------
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand


Posted By: 1dennistt
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 1:28pm
If they are going down this path, what is to stop them from changing the rules every year?  Much like what they did with the tuner/boosters.  Tightening the rules until they get the desired results?  Then it becomes a issue of how much are we willing to pay for the equipment to certify and people to test things at local tournaments.  I think I see a business opportunity here, Racket Control Services for $$.  Everyone pays!  LOL

If this is going to be a thing, it needs to be applied to pips and smooth surfaces alike.  Don't try to address one side of the coin and not the other.  This doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I'd like it to be fair to all players, and not just target one minority of our membership.  Disapprove

Each rubber will have to have specifications for friction, Mark V, Hurricane, Tenergy, Super Anti, Feint Long II, all of them.  Oh and the test procedure must be specified for each rubber type.  Just mail out a booklet with the values, both max and min, or how much change is permissible from the standard value.   


-------------
Donic Waldner World Champion 1989 ZLC (Inner), Donic BlueStorm Pro (Red) Max, ????? (Black) 1.8 mm)


Posted By: mykonos96
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 2:09pm
Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

If they are going down this path, what is to stop them from changing the rules every year?  Much like what they did with the tuner/boosters.  Tightening the rules until they get the desired results?  Then it becomes a issue of how much are we willing to pay for the equipment to certify and people to test things at local tournaments.  I think I see a business opportunity here, Racket Control Services for $$.  Everyone pays!  LOL

If this is going to be a thing, it needs to be applied to pips and smooth surfaces alike.  Don't try to address one side of the coin and not the other.  This doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I'd like it to be fair to all players, and not just target one minority of our membership.  Disapprove

Each rubber will have to have specifications for friction, Mark V, Hurricane, Tenergy, Super Anti, Feint Long II, all of them.  Oh and the test procedure must be specified for each rubber type.  Just mail out a booklet with the values, both max and min, or how much change is permissible from the standard value.   

How you would test the friction of a rubber in a humid venue?


Posted By: benfb
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 2:26pm
Originally posted by mykonos96 mykonos96 wrote:

How you would test the friction of a rubber in a humid venue?
That's a really good, and somewhat funny, point.  The reason I stopped using Tenergy on the forehand was because it loses its grip so dramatically in humid conditions.  At that point, it's clearly not playing according to its approved characteristics.  Hey, does humid conditions count as treating a rubber?LOL


Posted By: 1dennistt
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 2:32pm
Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

Originally posted by mykonos96 mykonos96 wrote:

How you would test the friction of a rubber in a humid venue?
That's a really good, and somewhat funny, point.  The reason I stopped using Tenergy on the forehand was because it loses its grip so dramatically in humid conditions.  At that point, it's clearly not playing according to its approved characteristics.  Hey, does humid conditions count as treating a rubber?LOL

Same reason I stopped using Donic Bluefire M2, the continual effort to keep the grip in humid conditions was just too much after a while.  Now I'll have to come up with another reason why I'm not playing my best.  


-------------
Donic Waldner World Champion 1989 ZLC (Inner), Donic BlueStorm Pro (Red) Max, ????? (Black) 1.8 mm)


Posted By: pongfugrasshopper
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 2:54pm
Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

...
Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:


If this is going to be a thing, it needs to be applied to pips and smooth surfaces alike.  Don't try to address one side of the coin and not the other.  This doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I'd like it to be fair to all players, and not just target one minority of our membership.  Disapprove
I agree.  It should be applied equally to pips and smooth alike
Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

Each rubber will have to have specifications for friction, Mark V, Hurricane, Tenergy, Super Anti, Feint Long II, all of them.  Oh and the test procedure must be specified for each rubber type.  Just mail out a booklet with the values, both max and min, or how much change is permissible from the standard value. 
Why?  Only specification that matters is the coefficient of kinetic friction, current minimum is set at 0.50.  Most likely that's the number they would test for at racket control if this ever does become a thing.


Posted By: liulin04
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 3:35pm
Just leave it to ITTF to find another way to screw the Chinese players, if any is even affected at all...  ITTF should just shut down

-------------
http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35056&PN=14&title=feedback-liulin04" rel="nofollow - My Feedbacks


Posted By: benfb
Date Posted: 07/25/2019 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by liulin04 liulin04 wrote:

Just leave it to ITTF to find another way to screw the Chinese players, if any is even affected at all...  ITTF should just shut down
Wait! How does this hurt the Chinese players? May impression that frictionless rubbers are far more common in Europe and Russia. I've never even heard of a Chinese pushblocker.

Generally speaking, I always find it strange when people start claiming prejudice against Chinese players in some rule change or another.  In the first place, I have yet to see any rule impacting Chinese players more than their western counterparts.  And, in the second place, I doubt ITTF has any real interest in hurting Chinese play anyway.  

I will grant that ITTF makes many strange and questionable decisions, but I don't think being paranoid about their intentions is helpful.  I'd be more worried about graft, such as the charges against Adam S, the previous president.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net