No Change, Stagnation
The aim is very genuine, the aim is to promote table tennis to make a better sport; a natural reaction is to oppose change but without change we will never move forward.
Did we once really play to 21 points and have five services each?

I really object to statements like this...why does our sport need to change regarding serves... Just because other changes were finally accepted, does not mean there is any value in this change.
I can't figure out the motivation behind this change, and it's not clearly identified...

Lose the Point and Serve, a Possible Change to the Laws of Table Tennis?
By: Ian Marshall, ITTF Publications Editor

Egils Purinsh, the Referee at the Balkan Championships Photo By: Courtesy of Egils Purinsh

09/25/2011

The recent Baltic Championships staged in the Latvian town of Dobele on Saturday 17th and Sunday 18th September 2011 were conducted, as always, under the rules and regulations of the International Table Tennis Federation.

However, prior to the event, it was agreed by all parties to introduce a variation to the regulations pertaining to the service.

Instead of players having two services each and from 10-all alternating, the player who lost the previous point had the next service; an innovative move...

In the meantime I'm going to try to track down Ian Marshall "ITTF Publications Editor" and ask him why the hell he only posted half a story.

I really object to statements like this...why does our sport need to change regarding serves... Just because other changes were finally accepted, does not mean there is any value in this change.
I can't figure out the motivation behind this change, and it's not clearly identified...

Seems like change for changes sake. How does this progress the game really?

I think it is change for the sake of change. The ITTF sells all these BS changes by using words like "development" and "bringing the sport forward." They operate under the philosophy that if you throw enough $#*+ against the wall, some of it will stick.

So, in less time than it takes to write a doctoral thesis, the results are in!

I had three replies: from the ITTF Media Manager, the writer of the story, and from the umpire who conducted the survey at the end of the tournament. Included was the questionnaire issued to players, coaches, umpires and spectators, plus the results of the surveys together with comments. Unfortunately, one is a .doc file and the other a .pdf, neither of which I can add as an attachment. (If anyone has any bright ideas about what I need to do, please let me know.)

The questionnaire reads
As the Baltic Table Tennis Championships, which took place on September 17-18, 2011, in Dobele, for the first time has been played in accordance with the experimental rule proposed by TTF of Latvia to study and discuss the change the service rule in terms of Law 2.13.3. “The next server of the rally is the player, who has lost the point in the previous rally” we would like ask you to express your assessment about the usefulness of such changes in the table tennis laws.

Respondents were able to record their age, country, "Relationship with table tennis" (player, etc.) and then asked, "Do you support such changes in table tennis laws?"

The results came in as follows:
Definitely yes: 0
Yes: 6
Maybe: 8
I don't know: 0
Probably no: 6
No: 5
Definitely no: 9

Which means 14 to some degree in favour, and 20 against including 9 strongly against. Interestingly, of the 6 yeses, 2 were umpires, 1 spectator, and 3 players.

Respondents were asked to comment on their choices. Comments ranged across a variety of things, many of which people in our forum are already highlighting. A number suggested that one tournament was not enough time to reach a conclusion.

If I can find out an appropriate format for attaching the raw data, you can see for yourselves. Suggestions please.

From what I've read, those who are against the rule, find it (1) useless, (2) much harder to play, (3) much harder to play against a lower leveled player or (4) making the game less tactical - probably due to the loss of the serve that prepares a third ball attack or a certain rally.

Those who are in favor, think that (1) it is easier to umpire, (2) it is more exciting for the crowd and (3) it makes all players more equal.

Oh yes, and there is at least one pip hater among the players...

I think it is again another rule to make the game more simple for the crowd, but makes the game less tactical and technical (it makes the service useless).