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 21 Jul 2017, 19:58


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  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Author Message
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 07:38 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 54
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 29 times
As to the two last postings above: Not quite sure which answer exceeding those on pages 5 and 16 of my Q&A presentation is expected, so assumed these questions were actually already handeled. If, however, I missed something technical to answer, please remind me and I will do.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 12:20 
Offline
Bytes worse than his Bark
User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 12:25
Posts: 931
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 133 times
Blade: OldNittaku Carbon
FH: Evolution FX-P max
BH: Tenergy 05 max
Hi Torsten,

If a player is found to be breaking the rules, or even if there is a number of strikes policy for a particular breaking of the rules, it is public.

We amateur players are asking if a ball or any other manufacturer is found breaking the rules if their sanctioning is public in the same way, and if not, make it so.

For example there are rules regarding characteristics of balls. We players can count how many balls in a box are simply not round for example, and see in tournaments the horrible longevity of the DHS 40+ balls that have been used for another example, necessitating a clarification to umpires of what is to occur if a ball breaks in the middle of a rally, and the practice of issuing new balls every so many games.

It seems that no-one is accountable for the situation that there has been with the plastic balls, although it does seem to be getting better (the situation, not the accountability).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2017, 17:12 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 54
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 29 times
First I am glad to hear, again, that it is now getting better. In my view, one of the reasons for this is that accountability for quality deficiencies clearly lies with the manufacturers. And that they were aware of this and did not push it away. When the ITTF random testing of balls produced some failures, we could observe the information flow between the supplier affected and (if not OEM) his manufacturer. It could clearly be seen that this led to the improvements in design (rather than to denying responsibilities) which is now reflected in balls approved 2016 or later. Of course, those will also be randomly tested.

As to a complete disclosure of failed quality checks, I can only report that I do not see any tendency in ITTF's governing bodys to change this policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 07:18 
Offline
Bytes worse than his Bark
User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 12:25
Posts: 931
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 133 times
Blade: OldNittaku Carbon
FH: Evolution FX-P max
BH: Tenergy 05 max
Thank you yet again Torsten for explaining things as much as you are allowed.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Jul 2017, 06:12 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 13 Mar 2017, 02:44
Posts: 6
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 0 time
Blade: Xiom Hayabusa Z+
FH: Tenergy 05
BH: Tenergy 05
I have heard rumours, that most of the 40+ balls already approved, may be ceased to be approved in the nearest future (because allegedly they are not 100% non-celluoid). This is supposed to have something to do with the intro of balls like DHS D40+. Is it true?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 06:46 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 54
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 29 times
That is fully up to the manufacturers. We do not have indication by them that they plan to stop the approval of the 1st generation non-cell balls very shortly, but in the mid-term future we expect this to happen for economic reasons: If they feel they now have put an improved ball to the market, which may also be produced at lower cost due to more sophisticated material, then why should they continue forever with the older one.

The chemical argument I cannot confirm. Our own analysis (ca. 2 years ago with the 1st generation balls) does not indicate that the balls contain residuals of celluloid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 06:59 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 13 Mar 2017, 02:44
Posts: 6
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 0 time
Blade: Xiom Hayabusa Z+
FH: Tenergy 05
BH: Tenergy 05
Thanks. Actually, I haven't made myself clear - by approval I meant ITTF approval and I was wondering whether ITTF is planning to remove most of the poly balls from the ITTF approved balls list (because of the introduction of these 'new' gen balls like DHS D40+).

But judging from your post - these are just rumours, am I right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 07:58 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 19:52
Posts: 250
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 45 times
Blade: OSP Virtuoso +
FH: Xiom Ω V Asia Max
BH: Xiom Ω V Asia Max
d1244 wrote:
Thanks. Actually, I haven't made myself clear - by approval I meant ITTF approval and I was wondering whether ITTF is planning to remove most of the poly balls from the ITTF approved balls list (because of the introduction of these 'new' gen balls like DHS D40+).

But judging from your post - these are just rumours, am I right?

The way it works is, as long as the balls meet the required specs AND the manufacturer renews the fee to have it certified, then it will remain on the approved list. If either condition fails, the ball is removed from the approved list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 07:10 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 54
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Yes, GMan4911 is 100% correct.
And if a ball continues to meet the specs, this is tested randomly by "mystery shopping", i.e. we buy them from retail without any prior announcement and send them to the lab.

So, yes, it would just be a rumour that we (ITTF) are planning to remove approvals systematically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 07:34 
Offline
Secret Agent Double OX
Secret Agent Double OX
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 10664
Location: USA
Has thanked: 303 times
Been thanked: 395 times
Blade: Tibhar CO-S-3
FH: Dr. Neubauer Leopard
BH: D.TecS SPEZIAL OX
Torsten wrote:
Yes, GMan4911 is 100% correct.
And if a ball continues to meet the specs, this is tested randomly by "mystery shopping", i.e. we buy them from retail without any prior announcement and send them to the lab.

So, yes, it would just be a rumour that we (ITTF) are planning to remove approvals systematically.

Any news regarding orange balls?

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Homer J. Simpson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 00:52 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 54
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 29 times
Sorry to keep you waiting for three days just to tell you that the answer is Nope. :(
Which does not change our expectation that they will start in early 2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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: