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 15 Aug 2018, 14:56


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  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 07:04 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
I am the one who did this presentation and was pointed to it being discussed here. As there is no problem to answer your questions and comments, I will do so posting by posting. Slide numbers refer to the numbers bottom right of the slides.
In case more technical questions arise after these answers, I will be happy to come back and take them.

Starting with this one:

Baal wrote:
JimTh wrote:
I have already played with 4 plastic balls (all brand new, all ITTF approved, all 3-star 40+) - only one of them (when dropped the same height) bounced about the same as my celluloid ball. So in this (at least) this info is (at least) inaccurate. At worst, a deliberate misrepresentation.

I agree. I have played many Chinese seamed balls now, closer to 16, including DHS, Joola, and Nittaku. None has bounced as high as any celluloid ball we used as a comparison. Not even one.

That may quite well be, because a bounce "as high" is claimed nowhere. The tolerances are given on page 9 and the only thing ITTF says that these tolerances are the same for c-balls and p-balls. Therefore, you can have a difference of 2cm of bounce height (even 2.8 until Jan 1,2016).
Even worse, the equipment described for the bounce test in our Technical Leaflet T3 (see http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/T3 ... _final.pdf , page 3) is not prescribed there for fun. Our lab tests have shown that as soon as you do not use a specified surface or you use a manual ball release, the variation in your results approaches a level which invalidates any observation - much as I understand the motivation to test the bounce in a personal setup.

Quote:
A higher percentage of plastic balls were clearly not round. My experience therefore contradicts his claim to the contrary.
This, however, is not quite a matter of experience. Roundness is a property which is measurable and is adressed even by two different lab tests in the approval procedure: Measuring the difference between maximum and minimum diameter on the same ball, and measuring the "veer" (rolling performance). Now, out of the >100 balls tested in approval, not one has failed the rolling performance and the biggest max-min difference of any brand is at 75% of the tolerance, which in turn is already reduced from celluloid. This is where we say: No work left.

Quote:
Second, while some have said that the most recent approved seamless balls may actually play better than Chinese seamed balls, and they have a better bounce, the statement that "the sound improved due to testers‘ feedbacks and there is no longer a significant sound difference from celluloid" is simply not true for that class of seamless balls.
I cannot prove this one to you by numbers, of course, but I would not have written it if my own experience had not been exactly the contrary of yours. When comparing the approved seamless XuShaofa ball to a set of c-balls, neither me nor participants in several workshops nor any of my club mates could confirm they recognize a difference.

Quote:
Finally, he simply did not address the issue of durability that people report for seamed Chinese balls. That is the elephant in the room.
This issue is addressed on pages 13-15, describing how the professionals' feedback entered the final development stages of the p-ball.

Quote:
Given the history (like who owns certain patents0 and what we know already about these balls, I will assume deliberate misrepresentation(s) until proven otherwise.
... which is hopefully done now in answering your comment. (In order to decrease it to an issue of at most different opinions on certain aspects.)


Top
 Profile  
 


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

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 07:39 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Retriever wrote:
I love the Orwellian way that the presentation ignores:
1. How the poly ball was originally justified.
Newspeak is a fascinating language, but I'm not practising it too much. I came into office in May 2013 and not before, and therefore the presentation is focused on issues having arrived since then. One of these is suppliers confirming the increasing regulatory difficulties with c-balls. So on my page 16, I focused on that. But this does not preclude other reasons for the p-ball project.
Quote:
2. How the size, only for the poly ball, was increased without being voted for at any publicly recorded level.

The polyball size tolerance (!) is laid out in the Technical Leaflet T3, which is a public document (see my posting before), and the composition of the T3 is decided by the Board of Directors, which is responsible to the AGM, so the National Associations, their clubs and ultimately the players. Any proposals to achieve more public involvement but preserving the majority principle will surely be welcome.
Quote:
3. The patent issue (held by the wife of an ITTF Equipment committee member, letter by the TT manufacturer body etc).
This is because the EqC is not in charge of dealing with legal issues. The presentation is about technical issues and their immediate surroundings. I, personally, simply do not care about any patents.
Quote:
4. How any further information / quibbles / serious questions will be dealt with by email.

I have offered this slide for a quite surprising reason ;) : Because my intention is to answer as many of such questions as possible. Or in the worst case, tell you that we cannot answer it for some specific reason.

Quote:
Has anyone tried the email shown in the presentation?
Yes. Dozens of ball manufacturers, suppliers and people just having questions. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 07:56 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
mynamenotbob wrote:
The best part is when they gloss over the unnecessary .6mm ball size increase by calling it a change in "diameter specification" then paying it off with the line "ITTF does not change any rule but improves the requirements." ROTFLMAO

That line has Adham's classic doubletalk imprint all over it.

Adham did not write one single line of this presentation. I did it for a workshop of the German association and then simply translated it. But I am learning from this comment that I should explain the difference between the rule and the specification.
The "rule" is ITTF Law 2.3 "The Ball" which says: "The ball shall be spherical, with a diameter of 40mm." This demand, not covering any fractions of millimetres, did not change.
The "specification" is the tolerance in 1/100 mm applied to execute the rule in practise. This spec changed as described on my page 12. It is an improvement, firstly -which I hope everyone can agree- because the tolerance range is simply much smaller now; it was cut down to 60% of what it was before. And secondly -which can be discussed, but is what I recognised as ITTF's opinion- because a ball less than 40.00 mm on average was never the intention. So ITTF took the opportunity to change that when a new material was introduced anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 07:59 
Offline
LP Collector
LP Collector
User avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2012, 06:57
Posts: 1974
Location: Hampshire, UK
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 258 times
Blade: Tibhar Defence Pus
FH: Bluefire M1 1.8
BH: Hellfire OX
Torsten wrote:
I am the one who did this presentation and was pointed to it being discussed here. As there is no problem to answer your questions and comments, I will do so posting by posting.


Welcome Torsten - it's great to have you as a part of the forum - I hope you'll stick around after helping us understand yours (and the ITTF's) perspective on balls.


Quote:
That may quite well be, because a bounce "as high" is claimed nowhere. The tolerances are given on page 9 and the only thing ITTF says that these tolerances are the same for c-balls and p-balls. Therefore, you can have a difference of 2cm of bounce height (even 2.8 until Jan 1,2016).


That makes perfect sense. In that a c-ball (nice abbreviation) might be on one end of the tolerance and a p-ball might be on the other, which would result in one bouncing higher than the other. Indeed we might find if we compared the bounce of various brands of c-balls that there might be a measurable difference.

Quote:
Our lab tests have shown that as soon as you do not use a specified surface or you use a manual ball release, the variation in your results approaches a level which invalidates any observation


I can understand the thinking behind this. A predictable, mechanical bounce test will surely introduce fewer elements of variation than a manual drop - there's no doubt here. However we're not talking about a handful of results. Pretty much every person who has tested or played with a p-ball has reported a noticable difference in bounce height. This is statistically significant, and has a degree of statistical significance which would seem to outweigh the chance polarisation of tolerances. Additionally, the people who use the p-balls aren't operating in lab conditions, with a ball bouncing machine - they're playing table tennis. And these are the people who matter. So I for one am not yet happy with this response.

Quote:
Now, out of the >100 balls tested in approval, not one has failed the rolling performance and the biggest max-min difference of any brand is at 75% of the tolerance, which in turn is already reduced from celluloid. This is where we say: No work left.


It would be useful to know from what batches and manufacturers these tests were done. If you really used as few as 'somewhat more than 100' (which seems astonishingly low), perhaps you'd be so good as to allow us 'beta-testers' of the new ball to send you an unopened 3 pack of our preferred brand of ball, and have you repeat the test. As serious players of the sport, I think it's fair to assume that we have a decent understanding of the behaviour of a spherical object, and are able to discern noteworthy differences in behaviour. Maybe your >100 batch passed the test. In the field, we're finding a different result.

Quote:
When comparing the approved seamless XuShaofa ball to a set of c-balls, neither me nor participants in several workshops nor any of my club mates could confirm they recognize a difference.


This again puzzles me. Members of this forum are devoted and experienced table-tennis players (as doubtless are you and your testers). We hit many thousands of balls a year (or even more frequently), and have done for dozens of years. We know what hitting a c-ball sounds like. Speaking purely from my own experience, I noticed *immediately* when a pair of players on the adjoining table switched from a standard Nittaku 3* to an approved p-ball 3* (I don't recall the manufacturer). Bear in mind that in our club we frequently play with balls from Nittaku, DHS, Gewo and DoubleFish, and sometimes use 3*, 1* or even generic training balls. We don't sense immediate differences between these brands. We do with the p-ball. We're not imagining it, we're not saying it (to use your expression) for fun. We're experiencing it for real... and for no surprise - the p-ball is made of a different material, and is a different size. Claiming it doesn't sound different seems like an (at best) disingenuous thing to say.

I very much look forward to your further engagement, and thank you very much for taking the time to get involved in our forum.

_________________
"When one eye is fixed upon your destination, there is only one eye left with which to find the Way."

Read my blog: "LordCope's Latest Learnings Log": http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24452


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 08:03 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
mynamenotbob wrote:
GMan4911 wrote:
mynamenotbob wrote:
This is a .5mm or .6mm ball size increase from what had been the standard size no matter how the ITTF tries to spin it, i.e. "It's still a 40mm ball, we didn't change the size, we just improved the specs."
There was no reason to rewrite the specs other than to sneak in a ball size increase during the confusion surrounding an unnecessary change in ball material. Diversion tactics are standard ITTF procedure.

I hope my previous posts could explain that
a) ITTF does not claim that the size tolerance didn't change
b) the fact of this change is not hidden (as it is in the public T3 and now also in the Q&A presentation)
c) at least I will try to keep this style of public communication and explanation for any matters related to balls testing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 08:06 
Offline
LP Collector
LP Collector
User avatar

Joined: 01 Aug 2012, 06:57
Posts: 1974
Location: Hampshire, UK
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 258 times
Blade: Tibhar Defence Pus
FH: Bluefire M1 1.8
BH: Hellfire OX
Torsten wrote:
I should explain the difference between the rule and the specification.


I think we understand the difference, but your clarification is useful - thanks.

Quote:
The "rule" is ITTF Law 2.3 "The Ball" which says: "The ball shall be spherical, with a diameter of 40mm." This demand, not covering any fractions of millimetres, did not change.


I think we can all agree on this.

Quote:
The "specification" is the tolerance in 1/100 mm applied to execute the rule in practise. This spec changed as described on my page 12. It is an improvement, firstly -which I hope everyone can agree- because the tolerance range is simply much smaller now;


I think we can also agree that a tighter tolerance, resulting in less variance between balls produced is a good thing.

Quote:
a ball less than 40.00 mm on average was never the intention. So ITTF took the opportunity to change that when a new material was introduced anyway.


This, I think, is the crux. You haven't just changed the tolerance specification, you've moved it. The results is a much bigger ball. So much bigger that it can be detected with the naked eye, and so much bigger that the suffix '+' has been used. What most players seem to resent is that the practical effect of your tolerance improvement is to increase the size of the ball to a substantial degree. And this, of course, has an equally substantial impact on the way the ball plays.

_________________
"When one eye is fixed upon your destination, there is only one eye left with which to find the Way."

Read my blog: "LordCope's Latest Learnings Log": http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24452


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 08:13 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
mynamenotbob wrote:
What about how current plastic balls people purchase and get used to playing now will become illegal in 2016 due to weight?

No worries here. They will not become illegal. According to our requirements, all ball packages have a datecode reflecting their time of production. In the random testing programme, the tolerance limits applied by the ITTF lab will then depend on the date of ball production. If produced before January 1, 2016 --> wider limits, even if the test is later. If produced after January 1, 2016 --> original limits.
This means that approval is not withdrawn simply because we cross the date line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 08:17 
Offline
Bytes worse than his Bark
Bytes worse than his Bark
User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 12:25
Posts: 1184
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 272 times
Blade: OldNittaku Carbon
FH: Evolution FX-P max
BH: Tenergy 05 max
Hi Torsten,

Thank you for your reply to my comments on your presentation. I appreciate the time and effort that you have taken.

Retriever wrote:
Quote:
I love the Orwellian way that the presentation ignores:
1. How the poly ball was originally justified.

Torsten responded:
Quote:
Newspeak is a fascinating language, but I'm not practising it too much. I came into office in May 2013 and not before, and therefore the presentation is focused on issues having arrived since then. One of these is suppliers confirming the increasing regulatory difficulties with c-balls. So on my page 16, I focused on that. But this does not preclude other reasons for the p-ball project.


But surely you must be aware of the changes in the way that the changeover has been justified since the original unsubstantiated ban touted at the highest levels, the latest being to slow the game down and lessen spin.


Retriever wrote:
Quote:
2. How the size, only for the poly ball, was increased without being voted for at any publicly recorded level.

Torsten responded:
Quote:
The polyball size tolerance (!) is laid out in the Technical Leaflet T3, which is a public document (see my posting before), and the composition of the T3 is decided by the Board of Directors, which is responsible to the AGM, so the National Associations, their clubs and ultimately the players. Any proposals to achieve more public involvement but preserving the majority principle will surely be welcome.


The first that most of us heard was when the T3 was changed for polyball only. Why not celluloid as well. In another post here at OOAK I asked, as a thought experiment, what would have happened if the old Barna plastic ball had still been in production in 40mm form, with the same specifications as the celluloid ball. Interesting question I thought. Would it have been banned, or grandfathered in?
This also highlights a certain disconnect between the grass roots ie the millions of recreational or amateur players and the ITTF, not to mention the national TT body. It also seems that there is not much that an individual national TT body can do, if my national body is anything to go by.


Retriever wrote:
Quote:
3. The patent issue (held by the wife of an ITTF Equipment committee member, letter by the TT manufacturer body etc).

Torsten responded:
Quote:
This is because the EqC is not in charge of dealing with legal issues. The presentation is about technical issues and their immediate surroundings. I, personally, simply do not care about any patents.


But surely you must be aware of what is going on, since at one stage the TT manufacturers were so concerned about the situation that they wrote a letter to the ITTF saying that they were not prepared to proceed with manufacturing the plastic ball until the patent issue was resolved. Of course we grass roots players never heard the results of this in detail, except that polyballs became available in very small quantities. Didn't this delay the process of changeover? Wasn't the EqC concerned about this delay, given that there were dates when polyballs were mandated to be used in various ITTF conducted tournaments, and also the weight dispensation that is to be withdrawn from January 2016 I believe?


Retriever wrote:
4. How any further information / quibbles / serious questions will be dealt with by email.
Torsten responded:
Quote:
I have offered this slide for a quite surprising reason ;) : Because my intention is to answer as many of such questions as possible. Or in the worst case, tell you that we cannot answer it for some specific reason.


Again thank you for taking the time to respond in this forum, outside the usual lines of communication. I did try to raise my concerns with the polyball introduction with my national TT body, but as far as I know it didn't go anywhere. You must be aware that many people on this forum are concerned about many things that have been done by the ITTF. The polyball changeover is the latest, and it does seem that it has been done via the back door. I would have expected that there would have been an explicit resolution to be voted on by all national bodies at the equivalent of the ITTF AGM and that things would have been more transparent.


Retriever wrote:
Quote:
Has anyone tried the email shown in the presentation?

Torsten responded:
Quote:
Yes. Dozens of ball manufacturers, suppliers and people just having questions. :)


Thanks for that feed back.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 08:36 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
@LordCope
At a first glance:
1. Thank you very much for the kind welcome and the fair comments to what I added to your discussion.
2. To address some of your questions:
- I agree, and it is my motivation for having taken this honorary office, that the most important thing in sports are the players. So, for example, I do not at all question the motivation for all of us players (me too) trying to check the ball properties ourselves. And I do not doubt the experience many players are reporting about different bounce heights. Surprisingly enough, I did the same with a c-ball and a p-ball of the same brand, just let them fall of my hand simultaneously several times, and: They were bouncing back equally. So, by "invalidating" I just wanted to say that there is apparently no chance to couple all our different observations with an approval decision, but the only chance is to leave it to lab examination.
- The roundness tests were done for all manufacturers, because it is a requirement for the approval. Now, your point about the number of tested balls is abolutely clear and in approval it is "just" 24 per manufacturer (which we do not keep as a secret, it is in the T3). Your wish to be a "beta-tester" ist reasonable, because it addresses the long run and the field experience of the ball quality. The good news is: You don't need to send these retail boxes; we do exactly this: Buying balls from retail anonymously and test it in a random testing programme - if necessary, several times in a row.
- As to the ball size, yes, the combined narrowing-shifting of the tolerance will lead to a factual size increase, because c-balls were observed to be smaller than 40.00 mm on average. But this, according to page 12 of my Q&A, was actually not intended to be kept as a secret. Otherwise the guys before me would not have used the label "40+", would they? I mean, if something should be sneaked it, you would not label it. ;)

So far for now.
Regards, Torsten


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 09:21 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Retriever wrote:
Hi Torsten,

Thank you for your reply to my comments on your presentation. I appreciate the time and effort that you have taken.

Retriever wrote:
Quote:
I love the Orwellian way that the presentation ignores:
1. How the poly ball was originally justified.

Torsten responded:
Quote:
Newspeak is a fascinating language, but I'm not practising it too much. I came into office in May 2013 and not before, and therefore the presentation is focused on issues having arrived since then. One of these is suppliers confirming the increasing regulatory difficulties with c-balls. So on my page 16, I focused on that. But this does not preclude other reasons for the p-ball project.


But surely you must be aware of the changes in the way that the changeover has been justified since the original unsubstantiated ban touted at the highest levels, the latest being to slow the game down and lessen spin.


I just cannot judge if it can be called a change. I am recognizing that several reasons have been given during some time, but IMHO from a logical point of view they do not exclude each other. So I focus on the immediate feedback I get from the stakeholders.

Retriever wrote:
Quote:
2. How the size, only for the poly ball, was increased without being voted for at any publicly recorded level.

Torsten responded:
Quote:
The polyball size tolerance (!) is laid out in the Technical Leaflet T3, which is a public document (see my posting before), and the composition of the T3 is decided by the Board of Directors, which is responsible to the AGM, so the National Associations, their clubs and ultimately the players. Any proposals to achieve more public involvement but preserving the majority principle will surely be welcome.


Retriever:
Quote:
The first that most of us heard was when the T3 was changed for polyball only. Why not celluloid as well. In another post here at OOAK I asked, as a thought experiment, what would have happened if the old Barna plastic ball had still been in production in 40mm form, with the same specifications as the celluloid ball. Interesting question I thought. Would it have been banned, or grandfathered in?

This also highlights a certain disconnect between the grass roots ie the millions of recreational or amateur players and the ITTF, not to mention the national TT body. It also seems that there is not much that an individual national TT body can do, if my national body is anything to go by.


No doubt that the distance between us grass players (I am playing the third lowest league in Germany) and a world sports federation is hard to bridge. But as far as I learned up to now, it is at least not normally made worse deliberately. The size tolerance increase is not the worst example: From my observations, the ITTF actually wanted to avoid confusing players, so it was decided not to change the spec for a material which is expected to disappear shortly, possibly making existing balls illegal.
I read your Barna example before and can only provide a feeling: It would be in, for the same reason: No confusion about old material which will probably be overrun by new material.

Retriever wrote:
Quote:
3. The patent issue (held by the wife of an ITTF Equipment committee member, letter by the TT manufacturer body etc).

Torsten responded:
Quote:
This is because the EqC is not in charge of dealing with legal issues. The presentation is about technical issues and their immediate surroundings. I, personally, simply do not care about any patents.


Retriever:
Quote:
But surely you must be aware of what is going on, since at one stage the TT manufacturers were so concerned about the situation that they wrote a letter to the ITTF saying that they were not prepared to proceed with manufacturing the plastic ball until the patent issue was resolved. Of course we grass roots players never heard the results of this in detail, except that polyballs became available in very small quantities. Didn't this delay the process of changeover? Wasn't the EqC concerned about this delay, given that there were dates when polyballs were mandated to be used in various ITTF conducted tournaments, and also the weight dispensation that is to be withdrawn from January 2016 I believe?


Of course the EqC and me personally closely watched the patent discussion. What I wanted to say is: It is nothing that touches the technical aspects of balls testing. The spec release until January 2016 was the immediate result of a coinciding suggestion of the Athletes Commission and the manufacturers for further improvements. It was aiming at material composition. Whether or not some manufacturers also were concerned about a delay caused by any patent discussions within their company - this, as the "technical guy", I will not judge.

Retriever wrote:
4. How any further information / quibbles / serious questions will be dealt with by email.
Torsten responded:
Quote:
I have offered this slide for a quite surprising reason ;) : Because my intention is to answer as many of such questions as possible. Or in the worst case, tell you that we cannot answer it for some specific reason.


Retriever:
Quote:
Again thank you for taking the time to respond in this forum, outside the usual lines of communication. I did try to raise my concerns with the polyball introduction with my national TT body, but as far as I know it didn't go anywhere. You must be aware that many people on this forum are concerned about many things that have been done by the ITTF. The polyball changeover is the latest, and it does seem that it has been done via the back door. I would have expected that there would have been an explicit resolution to be voted on by all national bodies at the equivalent of the ITTF AGM and that things would have been more transparent.


Yes I know, this back-door feeling is really hard to bridge. As I said, seriously: Any ideas can be useful how to still better combine the worldwide-majority principle with being as public as possible, not only in table tennis. And even if none works, then perhaps more players are convinced that it's not the goal of all the sports federations to "cheat" on them.

Retriever wrote:
Quote:
Has anyone tried the email shown in the presentation?

Torsten responded:
Quote:
Yes. Dozens of ball manufacturers, suppliers and people just having questions. :)

Retriever:
Quote:
Thanks for that feed back.


>> Thank you as well for the kind welcome and the fair questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 10:52 
Offline
Do you feel lucky (young) punk?
Do you feel lucky (young) punk?
User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 12:57
Posts: 5475
Location: USA
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 146 times
Hello Torsten,
Welcome to the forum! :up:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2014, 18:26 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 06 Aug 2014, 21:52
Posts: 1
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
larrythoman wrote:
Baal wrote:
Finally, I pray that Weener balls will prove to be the best. Such a great name!

Come to think about it, Weener was the German company that challenged the granting of the European patent to the wife of that ITTF official who filed those patents worldwide for TT balls not made from celluloid. The last I heard (2013), a lawyer hired by FIT thought that Weener would be successful in their challenge to that patent and the patent would be invalidated. I wonder what ever happened to that legal challenge.

Larry

Dear Larry,

I think the mentioned patent is EP1924331 (B1), which is about celluloid free table tennis balls. The patent hoder is In Sook Yoo International Project Management - IPM. It has been granted on 25.04.2012 and had been opposed in 25.01.2013. The opposition procedure is still going on. The opposition procedures may take more than 5 year to get a final decision. In the end, the opposition board may decide to revoke the patent, may limit the scope of the protection of the patent, or even may decide that the patent is valid. The patent holder may further appeal the decision of the opposition board, which will delay the procedure.

Even if the European patent is revoked, it will not have a worldwide effect. Equivalent patents have already been granted in United States (US8105183 (B2)), Korea (KR101331035 (B1)), Japan (JP5078894 (B2)) and China (CN101272830 (B)). So, it has to be revoked also in national courts of these countries, which have the industry to manufacture TT balls. The other countries are patent free.

However, since there are many non-celluoid balls on the market, the manufacturers in Japan, Korea and China must be either manufacturing in a specification which does not fall in the scope of the patent or producing them under license of IPM.

You may check the scope of the protection and the legal status of those patents from the European Patent Office web site, http://worldwide.espacenet.com

Regards,

Asnb


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2014, 01:30 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 09:24
Posts: 467
Location: Universe
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 36 times
Thankfully,
Bulk supply of 50 grosses of DHS plastics ought to arrive our home Sporting Center next week at most late..

$0.8 a ball. Great happy bargain right from Shanghai factory,
Our coaching team's best admiration, --MultiBall drills is now becoming possible everyday for our minor younger groups.
Many 'thank you", darling China's Shanghai procurers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2014, 07:40 
Offline
Kim Is My Shadow
Kim Is My Shadow
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008, 09:04
Posts: 2158
Location: Lancashire
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 283 times
Blade: Magic: Wand
FH: Confusion
BH: Paranoia
Torsten wrote:
mynamenotbob wrote:
What about how current plastic balls people purchase and get used to playing now will become illegal in 2016 due to weight?

No worries here. They will not become illegal. According to our requirements, all ball packages have a datecode reflecting their time of production. In the random testing programme, the tolerance limits applied by the ITTF lab will then depend on the date of ball production. If produced before January 1, 2016 --> wider limits, even if the test is later. If produced after January 1, 2016 --> original limits.
This means that approval is not withdrawn simply because we cross the date line.


Thank you for clarifying this... to a degree. Approval will not be withdrawn, however, just to remove any doubts or room for misunderstanding, there is a world of difference between still authorised and suitable for use in ITTF tournements. So, please confirm if

1. all plastic balls produced pre January 2016 will be allowed to be used in ITTF tournements post January 2016 or
2. no plastic ball produced pre January 2016 will be allowed to be used in ITTF tournements post January 2016 or
3. Some plastic balls produced pre January 2016 will be allowed to be used in ITTF tournements post January 2016 - and if this option is true, how will we know which ones

This is important because where the ITTF lead, national association invariably follow.

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2014, 09:22 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
Debater wrote:
So, please confirm if ...


Those are right questions, but you need to understand who you are talking to. This guy is not a rules maker. The decisions what equipment is legal are made only by the AGM and the BoD, where according to the ITTF Constitution only AGM has right to change anything from the Chapter 2 of the ITTF Handbook. The BoD has only the right to explain and to interpret those rules and publish those explanations and interpretations in Technical Leaflets. Neither Torsten nor Adham nor any other person somehow affiliated with the ITTF have such rights.

What Thorsten has said already about that date contradicts the Technical Leaflet T3. As I said, the Technical Leaflet T3 has the priority over what some persons say. So if we look into the Technical Leaflet T3, we'll find out that those temporary specifications expire on 01.01.2016, which means the temporary "improved" balls become automatically illegal. This is if we are not going to molest the English language and specifically the word "temporary".

Of course, both "legal" and "illegal" terms are twisted in that context, because both final and temporary specifications for plastic balls are illegal, that is made in violation of the ITTF Constitution, since they are neither explanations nor interpretations of the existing rules, specifically the rule 2.03.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next


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



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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: