OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
Live Table Tennis Videos Table Tennis News Live OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 17 Jul 2018, 08:01


Don't want to see any advertising? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2018, 05:08 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 04 Mar 2018, 23:11
Posts: 11
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Blade: korbell
FH: hurricane 3 national blue
BH: bomb talent ox red
Hi there,

I am curious as to how an opponent or umpire could challenge a pimple that is listed on the LARC but that has lost some of its friction or is less friction than what would normally be seen, can you be stopped from playing? Or as its listed and not modified can you play on? Has anyone been stopped before using a listed pimple that has lost its friction?

Thanks

Pimpleking


Top
 Profile  
 


Don't want to see this advertisement? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!

PostPosted: 18 Mar 2018, 09:40 
Offline
I am Legend
I am Legend
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 18:21
Posts: 5985
Location: Queensland
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 100 times
Blade: Nittaku Acoustic
FH: Double Crappiness H8
BH: Donic Bluefire JP03
Wasn't there some crap commercial friction testing device ittf had years ago when frictionless got banned?

_________________
Shih Tzu

NEW RUBBER MASS INDEX || OLD RUBBER MASS INDEX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2018, 13:03 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 31905
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1619 times
Been thanked: 1097 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dornenglanz OX
I don't think there is an official device, just a few gadgets they're trying out.

For any tournament or competition that you and I might play it, it's really going to be up to the umpire, or referee if there is one.
Their opinion on whether the rubber is modified, or if the wear and tear is beyond what they think is reasonable, is the final decision.

These are the applicable rules:
2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

2.4.7.1 Slight deviations from continuity of surface or uniformity of colour due to accidental damage or wear may be allowed provided that they do not significantly change the characteristics of the surface.

So it's their interpretation that's law for the event, our opinion does not matter.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2018, 22:51 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 09:24
Posts: 446
Location: Universe
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 36 times


Umpires have now got an explicit Guidance from ITTF. The guidance is goes as follows
-- IT is a player's responsibility to keep up his rubber in proper condition. Player may not use pimples that does not comply with the friction limit, that is far lower friction than the standard COF= 0.5 (unduly slick pimples).

An Italian engineer and tt-goods manufacturer Mr. Covini has now offered a low-cost, portable device to implement the ITTF guidance in every event, both internationally and domestically.
Mr. Covini is now trying to win an ITTF recognition as an "approved testing device."
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32031


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2018, 22:55 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 04 Mar 2018, 23:11
Posts: 11
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Blade: korbell
FH: hurricane 3 national blue
BH: bomb talent ox red
This is what I thought really, another question is for some Chinese or Asian brands of pimples, there are different sizes of pimples available (some of them are over sized and therefore illegal I know), but for example 388D you can find in say 1.6mm, 1.9mm, and like 2.5mm .............so the 1.9mm is bigger than normal but still complies to all the rules and is not modified, its just produced bigger, is this safe to use? A friend of mine told me of a case of him using 388d in 1.9mm and the pips are longer and wider, and some desperate to prove him wrong guy went and bought a sheet of the same 388d but in the 1.6mm and deemed his to be therefore illegal. I am really confused with this, if brands are producing different thicknesses or versions.......but the brand and model is the same.......I can't see the player at fault at all unless the pimple is oversized or fails the ratio test, or it is clearly modified.

I just want to clarify I am posting about standard pimples here with zero modification, just produced in different sizes. The ITTF Larc list doesn't state which size is the original or the one they approved, so assuming the size is under 2mm (after glue etc), and the ratio and other aspects are correct.

My other question is regards to the pimple friction such as if the necks of the pimple are extremely grippy and the surface are rough and almost frictionless, is this legal? I believe it is as the covering is still uniform, there are even short pimples like uranus by yinhe where the surface is pretty slippy but the sides are grippy, or even look at tsp super spin pips. I want to know my rights when I play against people moaning.

Pimpleking


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2018, 09:22 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 31905
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1619 times
Been thanked: 1097 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dornenglanz OX
pimpleking wrote:
This is what I thought really, another question is for some Chinese or Asian brands of pimples, there are different sizes of pimples available (some of them are over sized and therefore illegal I know), but for example 388D you can find in say 1.6mm, 1.9mm, and like 2.5mm .............so the 1.9mm is bigger than normal but still complies to all the rules and is not modified, its just produced bigger, is this safe to use? A friend of mine told me of a case of him using 388d in 1.9mm and the pips are longer and wider, and some desperate to prove him wrong guy went and bought a sheet of the same 388d but in the 1.6mm and deemed his to be therefore illegal. I am really confused with this, if brands are producing different thicknesses or versions.......but the brand and model is the same.......I can't see the player at fault at all unless the pimple is oversized or fails the ratio test, or it is clearly modified.

I assume you're talking about the size of the pimple, not the sponge thickness, right?
If so, the ITTF approves only 1 type of sheet with a fixed pimple size. The manufacture is not allowed to produce another sheet with the ITTF logo with different pimple sizes. I agree with you though, that if the ITTF does not publish the pimple dimensions, we have no way of checking if our sheet is legal or not.
It's quite likely that Dawei does not actually produce that rubber in more than one size, but that it's modified 'post production' by someone else. I'm sure that's what Dawei would claim if they were caught by the ITTF anyway. :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2018, 18:27 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 04 Mar 2018, 23:11
Posts: 11
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Blade: korbell
FH: hurricane 3 national blue
BH: bomb talent ox red
haha I agree and yes I am referring to ox pips and size of the pips, I think the player can't be held responsible though and theres really no way for anyone to stop someone using an oversized pimple if it its within the legal dimensions and has the ittf logo and brand. There is various Chinese pimples and inverted rubbers on the LARC list that have different versions which are used in competitions, and I'm sure the topsheet has variations too. For example hurricane 3 has a national version, 388d is available in quattro and some other versions, the brand and label are exactly the same though. Unless an umpire had every sheet of rubber and pimple with them in a bag, and genuine versions at that which were the exact ones ITTF had their hands on, there really is no way to tell which was the original one approved by ITTF.

haggisv wrote:
pimpleking wrote:
This is what I thought really, another question is for some Chinese or Asian brands of pimples, there are different sizes of pimples available (some of them are over sized and therefore illegal I know), but for example 388D you can find in say 1.6mm, 1.9mm, and like 2.5mm .............so the 1.9mm is bigger than normal but still complies to all the rules and is not modified, its just produced bigger, is this safe to use? A friend of mine told me of a case of him using 388d in 1.9mm and the pips are longer and wider, and some desperate to prove him wrong guy went and bought a sheet of the same 388d but in the 1.6mm and deemed his to be therefore illegal. I am really confused with this, if brands are producing different thicknesses or versions.......but the brand and model is the same.......I can't see the player at fault at all unless the pimple is oversized or fails the ratio test, or it is clearly modified.

I assume you're talking about the size of the pimple, not the sponge thickness, right?
If so, the ITTF approves only 1 type of sheet with a fixed pimple size. The manufacture is not allowed to produce another sheet with the ITTF logo with different pimple sizes. I agree with you though, that if the ITTF does not publish the pimple dimensions, we have no way of checking if our sheet is legal or not.
It's quite likely that Dawei does not actually produce that rubber in more than one size, but that it's modified 'post production' by someone else. I'm sure that's what Dawei would claim if they were caught by the ITTF anyway. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2018, 09:12 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 31905
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1619 times
Been thanked: 1097 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dornenglanz OX
It is the player's responsibility to ensure their rubber is legal though, so we are held responsibly. It's a risk we take when we buy from an unknown supplier.

Some of the different versions you're referring to are due to different sponges, not topsheets. The manufacturer can release the same pimple (or inverted rubber) with a different sponge, and it will still be legal. That's how they get away with National versions, or the quattro as mentioned above.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 08:28 
Offline
None Shall Pass!
None Shall Pass!
User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 23:08
Posts: 2280
Location: Lakeland/Florida/USA
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Blade: Dr. Neubauer Firewall +
FH: DHS G888 1.8mm
BH: Dragon Talon NT OX
if you read the rules, the only rules that apply are the rule that a rubber may not be treated and the rule that the rubber may not be used if it is no longer uniform. If a rubber is uniform but has naturally lost friction from use, it is legal based on the wording of the rules. There is a regulation requiring a certain friction when the rubber is manufactored but there is no rule on how much friction a rubber must have remaining to be legal in a tournament as long as the rubber has not been treated. I had several attorney and judge friends look at the wording of the rules as written amd they confirm that the language in the rules does not make a pips rubber or any other rubber illegal if it is uniform and untreated.

_________________
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus with DHS G888 1.8 mm and Giant Dragon Dragon Talon OX National Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 10:37 
Offline
Bytes worse than his Bark
Bytes worse than his Bark
User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 12:25
Posts: 1164
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 261 times
Blade: OldNittaku Carbon
FH: Evolution FX-P max
BH: Tenergy 05 max
Lack of friction measurement for minimum legal friction pimples that may have lost friction by fair means or foul leads to more friction.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 11:22 
Offline
None Shall Pass!
None Shall Pass!
User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 23:08
Posts: 2280
Location: Lakeland/Florida/USA
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Blade: Dr. Neubauer Firewall +
FH: DHS G888 1.8mm
BH: Dragon Talon NT OX
igorponger wrote:


Umpires have now got an explicit Guidance from ITTF. The guidance is goes as follows
-- IT is a player's responsibility to keep up his rubber in proper condition. Player may not use pimples that does not comply with the friction limit, that is far lower friction than the standard COF= 0.5 (unduly slick pimples).

An Italian engineer and tt-goods manufacturer Mr. Covini has now offered a low-cost, portable device to implement the ITTF guidance in every event, both internationally and domestically.
Mr. Covini is now trying to win an ITTF recognition as an "approved testing device."
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32031

They are enforcing a rule that does not exist..
They are bypassing the AGM. The ITTF bylaws require all rule changes to be approved by the AGM. The BoD has no authority to direct referees to enforce a rule that does not exist. To legally enforce the rule, they need to pass a rule that says that a rubber's friction may not drop below x micronewton of friction when being used in a sanctioned event.. The AGM has to vote on that rule to pass it.

_________________
2010 Florida State Champion
Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus with DHS G888 1.8 mm and Giant Dragon Dragon Talon OX National Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2018, 02:57 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 09:24
Posts: 446
Location: Universe
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 36 times
Pushblocker wrote:
They are enforcing a rule that does not exist..
They are bypassing the AGM. The ITTF bylaws require all rule changes to be approved by the AGM. The BoD has no authority to direct referees to enforce a rule that does not exist. To legally enforce the rule, they need to pass a rule that says that a rubber's friction may y not drop below x micronewton of friction when being used in a sanctioned event.. The AGM has to vote on that rule to pass it.


Not exactly so. To start-up the 'pimples friction control' no more Rules needed, we only need some specific technical guidance to be entered in the T9 Leaflet of Racket Control, so as to teach umpires handling of the Frictiometer.
Take note here, any amendments to the ITTF Technical Leaflets have to be approved by BoD meeting, not by AGM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2018, 17:35 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 31905
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1619 times
Been thanked: 1097 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dornenglanz OX
igorponger wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
They are enforcing a rule that does not exist..
They are bypassing the AGM. The ITTF bylaws require all rule changes to be approved by the AGM. The BoD has no authority to direct referees to enforce a rule that does not exist. To legally enforce the rule, they need to pass a rule that says that a rubber's friction may y not drop below x micronewton of friction when being used in a sanctioned event.. The AGM has to vote on that rule to pass it.


Not exactly so. To start-up the 'pimples friction control' no more Rules needed, we only need some specific technical guidance to be entered in the T9 Leaflet of Racket Control, so as to teach umpires handling of the Frictiometer.
Take note here, any amendments to the ITTF Technical Leaflets have to be approved by BoD meeting, not by AGM.

I think Pushblocker's point is that there is no current rule regarding the friction limit, and the T9 Leaflet cannot amend or add rules that don't currently exist in the rules of table tennis.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2018, 18:22 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 08 May 2014, 02:57
Posts: 82
Location: UK
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Blade: Soulspin Basalt
FH: Victas 402 Limber
BH: GD Cropcircles OX
haggisv wrote:
igorponger wrote:
Pushblocker wrote:
They are enforcing a rule that does not exist..
They are bypassing the AGM. The ITTF bylaws require all rule changes to be approved by the AGM. The BoD has no authority to direct referees to enforce a rule that does not exist. To legally enforce the rule, they need to pass a rule that says that a rubber's friction may y not drop below x micronewton of friction when being used in a sanctioned event.. The AGM has to vote on that rule to pass it.


Not exactly so. To start-up the 'pimples friction control' no more Rules needed, we only need some specific technical guidance to be entered in the T9 Leaflet of Racket Control, so as to teach umpires handling of the Frictiometer.
Take note here, any amendments to the ITTF Technical Leaflets have to be approved by BoD meeting, not by AGM.

I think Pushblocker's point is that there is no current rule regarding the friction limit, and the T9 Leaflet cannot amend or add rules that don't currently exist in the rules of table tennis.


There must be a limit though, otherwise how do the ITTF know what to approve or not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2018, 07:35 
Offline
Bytes worse than his Bark
Bytes worse than his Bark
User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 12:25
Posts: 1164
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 261 times
Blade: OldNittaku Carbon
FH: Evolution FX-P max
BH: Tenergy 05 max
mikea wrote:
Quote:
There must be a limit though, otherwise how do the ITTF know what to approve or not?


As Pushblocker has said:
Quote:
There is a regulation requiring a certain friction when the rubber is manufactored but there is no rule on how much friction a rubber must have remaining to be legal in a tournament as long as the rubber has not been treated.


So the ITTF approves based on the samples sent by the manufacturer that must not have a friction less than a certain value. This is only when new.

As has been said, until a limit when used has been set, there is no way of enforcing a minimum friction except under other criteria such as having been treated or no longer being uniform.

Until a friction limit is set for rubbers to be used in an ITTF event, according to the rules of the ITTF, there is no minimum friction set for used rubbers, so any measurement of it is not able to be used to invalidate a rubber directly.

The grey area that Pushblocker exploits is that playing outside in sunlight is not treatment. Playing outside in sunlight is not treatment per se, but doing so with the intent of lowering the friction on rubbers, in my opinion, is. Intent cannot be used as part a rule so this would rule out any sort of outdoor play. Admittedly there are some areas where intent can be taken into account.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright 2012 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




Don't forget to 'LIKE' our forum on Facebook if you enjoy the content: