OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Is there really a problem with the word „ban“?

I use a pop-up dictionary “WordWeb”, this is how they define “ban”: “Prohibit especially by legal means or social pressure” etc.

Weren’t 38mm ball and other things prohibited by legal means? Yes, they were.

Although I believe, speed glue ban and frictionless pimples ban were made not only for fake reasons (non-existing “health issues” and “need to uncover treated rubbers”), but also illegally in sense of ITTF Constitution.

I must be honest and say that I don't think this is parsing words, even though English isn't my native language. There is a difference between banning something and establishing new rules, even if the difference sometimes is very small, like it was with the frictionless rubbers. With the glues on the other hand, I think that speed glue have never really been with in the rules made by the ITTF, but it have still been accepted as a part of the game before, but not any longer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule about changing the rubbers characteristics have been around for some time, right? And we all know that speed glue did this.

Now, Adham, my question to you is about the new upcoming authorisations/approvals you are discussing, for blades and sponges. Now, I can understand why you want this made for blades, as there are rules to be followed with them, amongst other the 85% wood rule. When it comes to sponges, I'm not really sure why you would need to authorise them, what rules are there that concerns the sponge, except for the thickness, which could/should be the players responsibility? Also, the thickness rule would be hard to use as the reason for the authorisation, since the rule is about the combination, so a sponge that might be fine along with a thin top sheet might not be with in the rules with a thicker top sheet. or, will the approval/authorisation be for the combination?

Also, with the blades, I've found a blade that I love, in fact, I love is so much so I have bought 3 of it. My question is, when you will start this authorisation process, if a blade pass and gets authorisation, will this go for the "old" models of the blade as well or will I be forced to replace my beloved blade/s?

And finally, my latest objection on this, back to sponges here, you have stated that the ITTF makes rules for the world class players, while amateur players are free to follow what ever rules they like and they should rather deal with their NA's then be dealing with the ITTF with any complaints. Now, how many pro's are there that actually buy sponge and top sheet separately? My guess is, none, as these guys are sponsored and if the want one top sheet with a different sponge, then they will get this from their sponsor. The way I see it, this rule is made for the ones you claim you don't make the rules for. Or, have I missed something here?

I am afraid, this is not correct, if you mean this rule: “2.4.7 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.”.

This rule 2.4.7 was adopted 2008. Speed glue was banned 4 years earlier: 2004.

its plays no role whether its a ban or whether the ittf changed the rules to get rid of rubbers, the outcome is the same. its just a distraction that is getting very tiresome.

Care to translate that? According to a google search "homar" is a derogatory term that refers to someone of very limited intelligence and/or an a*ss

@mynamenotbob - the second half means "..teaches the donkey/ass", i`ll try to figure out what is meant with "etekrar"..

@adham - another question: in your email to my friend you clearly stated that the sponge issue was only of "academic nature" since there will be a change in 2010. in this forum however you state that the ittf "experts" are only trying to implement this in a trial stage, hereby you are trying to suggest that everything is being thought out through thouroughly before a decision is made.

both statements cannot be correct. either the decision to make this change has been made (as suggested in your email) without knowing how this will be achieved or the decision (yes/no) will be based on what the outcome of these "trials" are, this version however is in direct conflict with your email answer.

Thanks Haggisv, I appreciate your reminder. You are absolutely right. But since we are on the "ban" issue, it would be greatly appreciated if you would ban me from this forum for answering too many questions. Do you have such a rule? If not, I beg you to make one and ban me as soon as you can. It would be a great relief, man.

The manufacturers who follow the rules have asked that blades be authorized by the ITTF to ensure that all blades carrying the ITTF logo are according to our rules.

Ban means to prohibit. The ITTF does not prohibit anything.

This is the text of the proposition regarding speed glue from 2004:

"BOD - 05 Proposed by Japan
"It should be prohibited that players are to use glue containing organic solvents by the following steps."
STEP ONE
1. Prohibit to use the glue containing the liquid organic solvents in the playing venue
2. Prohibit to set up a gluing room in the playing venue
3. Above 1 and 2 will take effect from 1st September, 2004
STEP TWO
1. Player to use the liquid volatile organic solvents should be prohibited
2. Take effect from 1st September, 2005"

http://www.englishtabletennis.org.uk/nl ... &NLID=3153

As you can see, the word “prohibit” is used 4 times there.

I think, this can put an end to the distracting from the main issue discussion about the word “ban”.

Hi Adham,

This is the first post I have made on this thread, even though I have been reading it with great interest from the beginning. i would like to thank you for taking the time to answer all the questions here and clarifying some rules for us.

The concern I have with the latest rule changes is they seem to be more geared towards manufacturers than players. The frictionless ban has caused many LP players to buy and try many different LP rubbers, resulting in good profits for the manufacturers. The same can be said with the speed glue ban, where manufacturers are allowed to "tune" their rubbers but the end-user is not allowed to do this.
The same applies to approving blades ... the manufacturers will ultimately benefit from this.

Concerning the blades. I can not see how having a logo on the blade will stop the end user from tampering with the blade to make it the way they want.
If players want to cheat they will find a way to cheat, irrespective of what the "manufacturers who follow the rules" do or don't do.

So this is my suggestion:
Rather than spend a lot of money on ENEZ or such machines or even new ones in the future, why doesn't the ITTF pass a rule that all players at ITTF events must bring their blades to the officials with no rubbers on them, and the rubbers they want to use still wrapped in their original uncut packaging. The ITTF could then employ a few staff to glue the rubbers on the blade after checking that both the rubbers and the blades meet ITTF requirements.
Voila... the problem is resolved. There could be a special mark on the rubber and the blade that would reveal any tampering once the rubbers were glued.

This would solve nearly all the current problems with cheaters. The rackets will still be quickly inspected before each match to make sure they have been tampered with.

This would be simple and cost effective. You could probably get volunteers to do this as they would be able to meet the players when they bring their rackets to be glued, and would be glad to do it for nothing.

EDIT:
The plastic packaging that comes with the rubbers could have a special seal from the manufacturer so that the officials know it hasn't been tampered with. If manufacturers are really that concerned, let them carry the cost of ensuring the rubbers are original, rather than the table tennis community at large.

It's a good idea and being looked at. It is rather human resource intensive, but could be done at the top ITTF events and at the Olympics where human resources and volunteers are readily available. I will pass on your suggestions to the group of experts looking into this matter.

Thank you for providing a positive input to the issue and for providing constructive criticism with suggestions for a solution. It is much appreciated.

when i read the proposal i thought it was too absurd for words, thats why i didnt comment on it. adhams response is mind boggling, but not surprising, it just would be the next absurd rule, the absurdest by far.

are you actually aware what you are talking about?

it would mean that every player would need to play with a brand new rubber. if this rule is enforced on national level, as all others, this would mean all players would need to buy new rubbers at each tournament. hooray for the industray, not so hooray for your wallet.

but what takes the cake is the idea that a total stranger is supposed to fix my bat! are you for real? has it struck anyone that the amount of glue, even if voc free, etc. plays a vital role??

this is getting more and more ridiculous by the minute, why not attach a camera on the players head 1 week in advance before a tournament, then the ittf "control center" can monitor the players activity. could you kindly look into this too adham?