LOL! You're admitting that the characteristics of the rubber are changed by the sun and you're trying to claim a loophole by breaking down language used to express the rule in a bizarre fashion and claiming a meaning that was never intended by the author.

I don't need to ask an English Professor as I'm sufficiently well qualified in the English language to understand the true meaning of rule 2.04.07.01.

Your analogy should be tax evasion (which is a criminal offence) and not tax avoidance, which can be dodgy loophole that circumvents a rule but which is otherwise not illegal - albeit that loopholes are usually closed and often reversed retrospectively.

I really think that morality is the correct word to be used in this instance and if I felt the need to circumvent a rule in this fashion I'd be taking a hard look at myself.

Since they did manage to ban frictionless pips (but left anti lone, so go figure) - does it mean that such device to measure friction actually exist? Or it's all just a misnomer and it was not actually frictionless pips banned, but specific pip structures?

Of course, it's likely that such hypothetical device does not exist in portable form and can't be made available to every sanctioned tournament.

Finally, a couple of thoughts on 'outdoor' play:

* I visited FL couple of times, and you could not pay me enough to walk for 5 minutes in the sun (Orlando area in June), let alone play TT outside.

* Wouldn't such outdoor TT change your inverted rubber as well? I suspect you don't want that...

* So, given that 'outdoor' play is needed only to modify LP properties, I suspect outdoor play might amount to hitting a few balls in the morning (to satisfy legal loophole requirements) and then leaving paddle on the table pips up. Am I right?

With my style, I only use the inverted rubber to serve which is the only time in most rallies that it would face the sun.. In 99% of the cases, the inverted rubber is facing me and towards the floor. Watch some of my videos..
I have been 20+ years in Florida and the heat does not bother me that much.. I just hate the tropical heavy rain but the temp is fine.. I do wear a cap when playing outdoors to project shade onto my face and very strong sunscreen on the rest of my exposed body parts..
Leaving the racket on the table would be treating.. I never leave it.. I just use it to play and then put it back into the cover. I don't just play outdoors tt in the summer but wihter too.. Temp is perfect in winter.. 70's for the high and lots of sun..

Lol again. It is not clear at all I'd suggest to 99% of the population but you have the end result you want and have justified it in your mind by misinterpreting what is actually a pretty easy to understand rule.

I'll close on that because I'm pretty sure people must be getting bored of this now.

No matter how often you repeat it, the rule is written in clear english. Consult an expert on the english language if you doubt what I said.

I believe I am an expert in the English Language. It is my mother tongue. I matriculated in English with a distinction when I was in Western Australia as a youth and part of my degree was in English Language (and part in law). I'm a published author (in English) and writing in business and legal English has been a large part of my career for 40 years.

And you?

I was an English major at an American Ivy League university and am an attorney, and I completely agree with Pushblocker's interpretation. The rule clearly does not say (or even imply) that natural changes in the rubber due to wear and tear from indoor or outdoor play make the rubber illegal, and if I, as an attorney, ever had to defend someone accused of doing something illegal by playing in the sun, as a result of which their pips became a bit more frictionless, I'd have a very easy time showing that they didn't violate anything. Laws (and rules like this) have to be written clearly to make it unambiguous what is or isn't okay, and when they're not, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person being accused. I'd also reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, which is that when a rule is a ridiculous imposition that is the product of organizational corruption, like this one is, it's virtually a moral DUTY to find loopholes to expose the rule's unworkability and absurdity.

I was an English major at an American Ivy League university and am an attorney, and I completely agree with Pushblocker's interpretation. The rule clearly does not say (or even imply) that natural changes in the rubber due to wear and tear from indoor or outdoor play make the rubber illegal, and if I, as an attorney, ever had to defend someone accused of doing something illegal by playing in the sun, as a result of which their pips became a bit more frictionless, I'd have a very easy time showing that they didn't violate anything. Laws (and rules like this) have to be written clearly to make it unambiguous what is or isn't okay, and when they're not, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person being accused. I'd also reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, which is that when a rule is a ridiculous imposition that is the product of organizational corruption, like this one is, it's virtually a moral DUTY to find loopholes to expose the rule's unworkability and absurdity.

I disagree. There is no absolutely no ambiguity in "provided that they do not significantly change the characteristics of the surface" unless you want it to be there to suit your agenda.

If you have any doubts about what is intended then you can also refer to the ITTF handbook for match officials which says "The covering must be used as it has been authorised by ITTF". By Pushblocker's admission after "playing in the sun" magically one side of the racket is not as authorised by ITTF as the properties have been altered.

As an attorney in the land of OJ Simpson you might be capable of persuading others that the wording of the relevant rule is unworkable and absurd but that in my opinion would make you part of the problem and not the solution.

As amateur players I believe we have a duty to play within the spirit and guidance of the laws and I can never agree that setting out deliberately to circumvent the rules as you advocate - no matter how competitive you are or how badly you want to achieve your goals - is ever justified.

I'm sure that I'm never going to convince you on this so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the topic. And as Pushblocker is getting away with using a covering that is not as authorised by the ITTF I expect he will continue to be happy with what he is able to achieve with it.