OOAK Table Tennis Forum

If 'breaking the law' is equivalent to 'being immoral' (pretty sure one can have long discussion about THAT), then yes, doing 90 in 55 zone while in VA qualifies. Don't think it matters that it's legal in your state, you are not there. To make it incomprehensible for non-US folks: when National League club plays at American League ballpark, designated hitter rule is in effect, and vice versa. People seem to be OK with that...

Take pips out of the equation, a friend of mine here boosts inverted rubbers all over the place, and all of his students and teammates are welcome to share in his boosting activities. He even offers it as a service for a fee on his website. Why? Because the rules are BS, many people do it, and everyone knows it.
Look at the last item on the list: http://www.smashtt.com/membership/

Now, if bat doping was always (even mostly) detectable, and the resources were always (even usually) available...that's a different story. Then the rules make sense to ensure an level playing field. But instead the rules, as they are, are actually CREATING an unlevelled playing field...and that's what's truly immoral.

You're entitled to your opinion for sure, and I get where you are coming from. I have a different take which tends to be a bit soapboxy, so I apologize in advanced.

I dislike the word "morally" with regards to TT rules. My take is, if something cannot be regulated consistently either because it's not technically possible to determine the infraction or because there are no adequate resources to monitor for infractions, then the rule should not exist. Which, as shown by PB, such a rule does not exist.

If anything I find it more "morally" egregious to put in rules without the possibility of adequate regulation, because it places rule adherers at a disadvantage to rule breakers. Laws and rules do not determine morality, they determine policy, based on lots of factors which may or may not include a moral element. Besides, morality is a relative thing. For example, it's legal to buy, distribute and smoke marijuana in some states in the US, like Colorado. It is illegal in other states, like Virginia. Does the marijuana user go from a moral person to an immoral one when they enter Virginia? No.

Take pips out of the equation, a friend of mine here boosts inverted rubbers all over the place, and all of his students and teammates are welcome to share in his boosting activities. He even offers it as a service for a fee on his website. Why? Because the rules are BS, many people do it, and everyone knows it.
Look at the last item on the list: http://www.smashtt.com/membership/

Now, if bat doping was always (even mostly) detectable, and the resources were always (even usually) available...that's a different story. Then the rules make sense to ensure an level playing field. But instead the rules, as they are, are actually CREATING an unlevelled playing field...and that's what's truly immoral.

I played a pretty well known dude with very high ratings who played with the 20-year-old Sriver that had absolutely no spin left in it. So freaking what??? I'm not even sure he's done it on purpose. I play most of the time with Dornenglanz so I have to change it once a month or so. However, if I played with Talon and it stayed in one piece for five years and become dusty and frictionless in the process, why would I have a moral issue with this???

Ok about morality. If PB plays outdoor TT with his Giant Dragon Talon with the specific intent of reducing its friction then I would say that that is a moral question that probably only PB can answer, and it is up to him whether he is comfortable with that answer. We are all different in that regard. However from his comments it is not hard to connect the dots ...

You would only have a moral issue if you played a competitive match knowingly in breach of rule 2.4.7.1 which says "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."

I don't think it's very difficult to understand what this means and I suspect that people who claim otherwise are being disingenous or deliberately obtuse. The same could be said for the well known dude that you played with the 20 year old Sriver (although I'd have thought anyone playing at a high level with 20 year old Sriver would get battered but that's by the by).

I suppose it's not for any of us to tell other players how to set their moral compass but I can't see that avoiding responsibility by passing the blame onto the rules and thus becoming part of the problem is the answer.

Richard DeWitt used to play a 10 year old Mark V which was like anti. People have complained to referees and they allowed it as the rubber was still uniform. Of course, once the rubber has inconsistant friction or has damage making the playing surface inconsistant, the rubber can be disallowed. The rule in question only comes into play if the rubber is no longer uniform.

A 10 year old frictionless Sriver is 100% legal as long as it is iniform.

Well, playing outdoors TT is how I discovered the effect of playing outdoors in the sun affects the rubber... so, as I liked that effect, I decided to use all my pips for outdoors tt.. It is for me like discovering a legal tax loophole that allows me to pay less taxes without breaking any laws.. Of course I will use that tax loophole just like I will use the effects of outdoor tt in my favor..

With respect you are not quoting the rule correctly. The word "uniform" is only mentioned in the rule with regard to colour change (see above). So you are not correct to say that the rule only comes into play "if the rubber is no longer uniform" because if the characteristics of the surface are changed significantly the covering is illegal - as the rule clearly states.

2.04.07.01 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.

2.04.07 The covering material should be used as it has been authorised by the ITTF without any physical, chemical or other treatment, changing or modifying playing properties, friction, outlook, colour, structure, surface, etc.

I'd be interested to know what the sun does to the rubber to give it an effect that you like without the characteristics of the playing surface being altered? (i.e. the only way the loophole can be legal)

If I had a rubber which had been left in the sun, or something had happened to it to change its playing characteristics, such that it was different from its behaviour and specification as designed and approved, I would change rubber.

I've changed FH rubber (just a like-for-like replacement) when I accidentally spilled some glue on it; I've also changed BH rubber when I accidentally spilled some oil from some food I was eating onto the rubber which was on my desk.

I've been offered treated rubbers - I wouldn't consider using them.

I've even changed from 651 (without logo, slightly different pimple arrangement) to 651 (with logo), because I wasn't 100% certain that the earlier 651 was in the LARC, and I didn't have one to hand.

Plain and simple: I want at all times to be beyond reproach, and take the principle that I would prefer to change rubber, or not play, than to play with a covering that could, by any reasonable person, be considered to be in breach of the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law.

Leaving it in the sun could be considered treating. Playing tt outdoors is use and outdoors tt is even promoted by ITTF..

Sure. I think if I'd discovered that playing outdoors with a rubber made it nearly frictionless, I'd probably accept that that's a side-effect of playing outdoors, and since there this isn't really serious play, I might keep one setup for playing outside, and have another for playing inside. I can see that some might consider that overkill, but that's how I think about it.

Let's try this again.. Here is the exact wording of the rule:



The word "they" clearly refers to deviations of continuity..Therefore, the 2nd part of the phrase only applies if there ARE deviations.. If there are no deviations, the part regarding playing characteristics does not even come into play.. If you don't believe me, ask a professor of the english language. THEY clearly refers to the damage.. If it does not refer to damage, what does it refer to??

So, if this was written as a computer program, it would be like this:

IF DEVIATION DUE TO DAMAGE THEN
---IF DAMAGE CHANGES CHARACTERISTICS THEN
------ILLEGAL
---ELSE
------MAY BE ALLOWED
---END IF
ELSE
---LEGAL
END-IF

The other rule:



Clearly, outdoor table tennis is legal and promoted by the ITTF, so it is considered use, not treatment.





The sun hardens the rubber and harder rubber has less grip.. It's really that simple.. Hard rubber acts more like plastic than rubber.