OOAK Table Tennis Forum

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:


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.

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.

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.

This issue is addressed on pages 13-15, describing how the professionals' feedback entered the final development stages of the p-ball.

... 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.)

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.

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.
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.

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.

Yes. Dozens of ball manufacturers, suppliers and people just having questions.

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.

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.




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.



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.



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.



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.

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

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

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



I think we can all agree on this.



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



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.

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

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.

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:

Torsten responded:


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:

Torsten responded:


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:

Torsten responded:


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:


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:

Torsten responded:


Thanks for that feed back.

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

@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

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:

Torsten responded:


Retriever:


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:

Torsten responded:


Retriever:


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:


Retriever:


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:

Torsten responded:

Retriever:


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

Hello Torsten,
Welcome to the forum!

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

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.

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

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.