OOAK Table Tennis Forum :: ITTF President, Adham Sharara, answers questions PART1

Yes it did come from there, but I also quoted someone that was quoting

... so i it might be hard to find the original... I'm sure Adham can confirm that it's authentic...

I've just googled for the quote, and found it quoted at about.com as well:
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=28733&nav=messages&webtag=ab-tabletennis

We'll have to wait for Adham to come here to confirm... I'll certainly check the source better next time I quote something :oops:

...I wish sport and its rules were as black and white as you would like them to be...

Adham

...you will not imagine how many experts inside the ITTF struggled to get the right wording. ...

Hi Adham,

There was a lot of answers you provided to a lot of posts in your last log on so understandably you missed a question I posed. So I will re-pose it.

Do you think it would benefit ITTF events, if like many other sports, they introduced a "3rd Umpire" or as others call it a "Video Referee". I think this would have a lot of merit as TT, like in cricket, can have things happen at such a pace it can be hard for the human eye to catch. Being able to make a decision based on slow motion replay makes sense. What do you think?

I actually think it would be great to have some sort of system like this for all TT events as any dispute where the tournament ref is called in will have video evidence of what took place and the ref is not just relying on what he's told.

I appreciate there would be a cost to this, but technology cost is becoming so cheap that it may be viable. Or is this idea just too crazy LOL?

Another, sort of rule, question.

I know that when it's time for big competitions, FIFA often gathers the umpires and tells them what they should be extra aware of, such as pulling shirts, taking a dive and stuff like this. I know that Ice Hockey does the same.

Now, my question is, does ITTF also gathers the umpires and tell them to be extra aware of fx the serve toss, the time between points or any other stuff?

Adham: I saw the junior womens semi final on your website (I think it's great you can view table tennis there by the way).

What is your view on stamping. Mine is that it is not neccesssary in ANY shot let alone a push or a lift and should be an automatic loss of point. I see it as a clear attempt to put your opponent off and to be totally unsporting.

I think it looks awful for this sport when tactics like this are condoned, especially at this level (for condoned read allowed - all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing). I lost interest in football when diving came in to the game and this would not encourage me to recommend table tennis to anyone as a sport. I wouldn't want any kids of mine to follow that example and would stop them playing if they did.

On the serve issue I would have to agree with smart guy. The people who are throwing it back are most likely doing it to gain an advantage. Players of that skill level should have the neccesary hand eye co-ordination to throw it near vertical. I think it needs a tighter application of the existing rule. I.e a simple instruction to umpires to enforce the rule should suffice.

Hi Adham,

In regards to the rule that a player is not allowed to change bat during a match, are you able to explain good reason for keeping this rule? There has been some discussion on the forum and some don't see any great advantage to anyone by not being able to change your bat. There may be some complication with testing of bats now with the VOC testing, although it shouldn't be a big issue to be allowed 2 bats tested if a player wishes it, should it? At lower levels than pro, (and at pro for that matter) is this rule maintained purely due to history, or is there a valid reason for it.

Its noted that the ETTA actually allows a bat to be changed during a match. If a player must allow the umpire and opponent to see the bat when they change to it, what harm could come from deleting this rule?

This is the law if it helps with the discussion.
ETTA Laws (2008/9) 2.4.8 At the start of the match and whenever he changes his racket during a match a player shall show his opponent and the umpire the racket he is about to use and shall allow them to examine it.

The problem in returning service is not so much the quantity of spin, the problem is to know the and recognize the amount and type of spin. If you can see the point of contact, and if you can see the direction of the toss, then it's rather easy to know the amount and type of spin. This is why I keep insisting about the "intent" of the rule. The main intent is "a clear view for the receiver", as long as that is achieved, then the players are happy. As long as they can see the point of contact then it's OK for them.

Author:	adham [ 12 Dec 2008, 08:59 ]
Post subject:
haggisv wrote: Yes it did come from there, but I also quoted someone that was quoting ... so i it might be hard to find the original... I'm sure Adham can confirm that it's authentic... It does not seem like a direct quote, some of the words I do not usually use. The meaning was as follows: - If you are playing in an ITTF event there is racket control and everything is checked. - If you are playing in an event that does not have racket control, then of course you are playing within the confines of the "honour system" and your reference would be the ITTF's authorized racket covering list. - By no means can the ITTF legislate or create a policy for non-ITTF events as someone aptly put it. Adham

Author:	adham [ 12 Dec 2008, 09:05 ]
Post subject:
haggisv wrote: I've just googled for the quote, and found it quoted at about.com as well: http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=28733&nav=messages&webtag=ab-tabletennis We'll have to wait for Adham to come here to confirm... I'll certainly check the source better next time I quote something Tis is very strange, I never posted anything at About.com. I only recollect posting something similar at the German Forum, but the actual quote you posted sounds strange to me. It looks like someone added their own comments "with other words", I never say that. I say "In other words", so it may be my quote all right, but with an explanation by someone edited in. In any case, I explained the situation in a few posts here today. Adham

Author:	haggisv [ 12 Dec 2008, 09:52 ]
Post subject:
Thank you for explaining Adham!

Author:	Smartguy [ 12 Dec 2008, 09:56 ]
Post subject:
adham wrote: ...I wish sport and its rules were as black and white as you would like them to be... Adham Adham, I have not been talking about "sport and its rules" in general. I have been trying to draw attention to the fact, that in my view 1 particular service rule has not been fully implemented for very long time (circa 6 years). And to the fact, that this rule is clear and simple. You wrote earlier in this thread about the service rule: adham wrote: ...you will not imagine how many experts inside the ITTF struggled to get the right wording. ... So, experts, right wording. I am looking forward to the next ITTF event.

Author:	Smartguy [ 12 Dec 2008, 11:18 ]
Post subject:
Hi Adham. Maybe we should give the service rule a little break. I mean, of course, the discussion, not implementation. You wrote in German forum: http://forum.tt-news.de/showthread.php? ... ost1297389 "I have checked about the 25mN friction standard. You are absolutely right. It applies only to pimpled-rubber (long and short pimples), it odes not apply to Anti-spin." I didn't find a word about "minimum friction level" in the ITTF Handbook: http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html But in the Technical Leaflet T4 http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/pdf/ ... s_2007.pdf we can read: "1.4.4. Friction The minimum friction level is 25 mN. The rubber surface of the racket coverings should be uniform and without coating." No word here about "pimpled-rubber only"! Now let's take a closer look at the context. Important is it's structure: "1.4. The racket covering 1.4.1. Pimples ........................... 1.4.2 Ordinary pimpled rubber ............................ 1.4.3. Sandwich rubber ........................... 1.4.4. Friction The minimum friction level is 25 mN. The rubber surface of the racket coverings should be uniform and without coating." It's obvious for me, that "friction" here is meant to be a property of "the racket covering". It means, of all types of rubber. Not just a property of "pimpled-rubber"! This conclusion, if correct, contradicts clearly your statement. I would greatly appreciate it, if you could comment on this contradiction.

OOAK Table Tennis Forum https://ooakforum.com/

ITTF President, Adham Sharara, answers questions PART1 https://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4772	Page 17 of 31

Author:	RebornTTEvnglist [ 12 Dec 2008, 13:19 ]
Post subject:
Hi Adham, There was a lot of answers you provided to a lot of posts in your last log on so understandably you missed a question I posed. So I will re-pose it. Do you think it would benefit ITTF events, if like many other sports, they introduced a "3rd Umpire" or as others call it a "Video Referee". I think this would have a lot of merit as TT, like in cricket, can have things happen at such a pace it can be hard for the human eye to catch. Being able to make a decision based on slow motion replay makes sense. What do you think? I actually think it would be great to have some sort of system like this for all TT events as any dispute where the tournament ref is called in will have video evidence of what took place and the ref is not just relying on what he's told. I appreciate there would be a cost to this, but technology cost is becoming so cheap that it may be viable. Or is this idea just too crazy LOL?

Author:	antipip [ 14 Dec 2008, 18:57 ]
Post subject:
Adham: I saw the junior womens semi final on your website (I think it's great you can view table tennis there by the way). What is your view on stamping. Mine is that it is not neccesssary in ANY shot let alone a push or a lift and should be an automatic loss of point. I see it as a clear attempt to put your opponent off and to be totally unsporting. I think it looks awful for this sport when tactics like this are condoned, especially at this level (for condoned read allowed - all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing). I lost interest in football when diving came in to the game and this would not encourage me to recommend table tennis to anyone as a sport. I wouldn't want any kids of mine to follow that example and would stop them playing if they did. On the serve issue I would have to agree with smart guy. The people who are throwing it back are most likely doing it to gain an advantage. Players of that skill level should have the neccesary hand eye co-ordination to throw it near vertical. I think it needs a tighter application of the existing rule. I.e a simple instruction to umpires to enforce the rule should suffice.

Author:	RebornTTEvnglist [ 14 Dec 2008, 22:41 ]
Post subject:
Hi Adham, In regards to the rule that a player is not allowed to change bat during a match, are you able to explain good reason for keeping this rule? There has been some discussion on the forum and some don't see any great advantage to anyone by not being able to change your bat. There may be some complication with testing of bats now with the VOC testing, although it shouldn't be a big issue to be allowed 2 bats tested if a player wishes it, should it? At lower levels than pro, (and at pro for that matter) is this rule maintained purely due to history, or is there a valid reason for it. Its noted that the ETTA actually allows a bat to be changed during a match. If a player must allow the umpire and opponent to see the bat when they change to it, what harm could come from deleting this rule?

Author:	antipip [ 14 Dec 2008, 23:30 ]
Post subject:
This is the law if it helps with the discussion. ETTA Laws (2008/9) 2.4.8 At the start of the match and whenever he changes his racket during a match a player shall show his opponent and the umpire the racket he is about to use and shall allow them to examine it.

Author:	adham [ 15 Dec 2008, 05:55 ]
Post subject:
RebornTTEvnglist wrote: Hi Adham, There was a lot of answers you provided to a lot of posts in your last log on so understandably you missed a question I posed. So I will re-pose it. Do you think it would benefit ITTF events, if like many other sports, they introduced a "3rd Umpire" or as others call it a "Video Referee". I think this would have a lot of merit as TT, like in cricket, can have things happen at such a pace it can be hard for the human eye to catch. Being able to make a decision based on slow motion replay makes sense. What do you think? I actually think it would be great to have some sort of system like this for all TT events as any dispute where the tournament ref is called in will have video evidence of what took place and the ref is not just relying on what he's told. I appreciate there would be a cost to this, but technology cost is becoming so cheap that it may be viable. Or is this idea just too crazy LOL? Yes, this is being considered. In fact, in Beijing Olympics because a point was disputed, the players could actually see the instant replay on the large screen and see for themselves. But a good system would need several cameras at each table covering from several angles. What may seem legal from one angle, may seem illegal from the other angle. However, it is not a priority to install this type of system because it is very costly and we only have rare occasions at ITTF events of controversial points. In the entire Olympic Games we only had 2 incidents, one was solved quickly with the players agreeing and one took a lot time to solve and the players were never in agreement. In this case your proposal would have helped. Eventually it is my goal to have such a system in place. Perhaps we could start just with the show-court table. In cricket or American Football where such systems are in place, they only have one field, we sometimes use 16 tables at a time. But perhaps for the show-court (TV) table, we could do it. Adham

Author:	adham [ 15 Dec 2008, 05:57 ]
Post subject:
speedplay wrote: Another, sort of rule, question. I know that when it's time for big competitions, FIFA often gathers the umpires and tells them what they should be extra aware of, such as pulling shirts, taking a dive and stuff like this. I know that Ice Hockey does the same. Now, my question is, does ITTF also gathers the umpires and tell them to be extra aware of fx the serve toss, the time between points or any other stuff? Yes, for sure, at all top ITTF events the Referee has a meeting with the Umpires to set the tone. Basically to get some consistency in the umpiring. Adham

Author:	adham [ 15 Dec 2008, 06:06 ]
Post subject:
antipip wrote: Adham: I saw the junior womens semi final on your website (I think it's great you can view table tennis there by the way). What is your view on stamping. Mine is that it is not neccesssary in ANY shot let alone a push or a lift and should be an automatic loss of point. I see it as a clear attempt to put your opponent off and to be totally unsporting. I think it looks awful for this sport when tactics like this are condoned, especially at this level (for condoned read allowed - all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing). I lost interest in football when diving came in to the game and this would not encourage me to recommend table tennis to anyone as a sport. I wouldn't want any kids of mine to follow that example and would stop them playing if they did. On the serve issue I would have to agree with smart guy. The people who are throwing it back are most likely doing it to gain an advantage. Players of that skill level should have the neccesary hand eye co-ordination to throw it near vertical. I think it needs a tighter application of the existing rule. I.e a simple instruction to umpires to enforce the rule should suffice. Stomping used to be a tactic when both sides of the racket were the same colour. The players used to be able to distinguish each side by the "sound" each side made when the ball was struck. So some clever players would stomp their foot to camouflage the sound and trick the opponent. Now the players rely on the colour of the rubber to distinguish between the two sides, so stomping is no longer an effective tactic and it has become more part of the technique of some players, especially when serving. The top players are not bothered by it and we never received any complaints. Yes, those that throw the ball back are trying to get an advantage, but in fact the advantage is visible. The problem in returning service is not so much the quantity of spin, the problem is to know the and recognize the amount and type of spin. If you can see the point of contact, and if you can see the direction of the toss, then it's rather easy to know the amount and type of spin. This is why I keep insisting about the "intent" of the rule. The main intent is "a clear view for the receiver", as long as that is achieved, then the players are happy. As long as they can see the point of contact then it's OK for them. The first year of the new service rule was the toughest. Once both the players and umpires found a common comfort zone and the objective of a "clear view" was achieved, then it's OK. Of course, as you said and smart guy said, eventually I would like to see a consistent and exact application of the rule. Adham

Author:	adham [ 15 Dec 2008, 06:20 ]
Post subject:
RebornTTEvnglist wrote: Hi Adham, In regards to the rule that a player is not allowed to change bat during a match, are you able to explain good reason for keeping this rule? There has been some discussion on the forum and some don't see any great advantage to anyone by not being able to change your bat. There may be some complication with testing of bats now with the VOC testing, although it shouldn't be a big issue to be allowed 2 bats tested if a player wishes it, should it? At lower levels than pro, (and at pro for that matter) is this rule maintained purely due to history, or is there a valid reason for it. Its noted that the ETTA actually allows a bat to be changed during a match. If a player must allow the umpire and opponent to see the bat when they change to it, what harm could come from deleting this rule? I remember when some players used to show up at the table with 10 different rackets and changing every few points ! But that was then. Now, we do have the rule of using only one racket because of racket testing. This was imposed when we started with the Draeger Test to detect illegal glues. So, the fear was that a player gets one racket tested and then uses another one half way through the match or so. Now the problem is even worse because we test the racket for VOC presence, thickness, flatness, etc. So once the racket is tested, that is racket that must be used, unless damaged (as per our rules). Perhaps 2 rackets could be allowed and rather well controlled. But if we allow 2, then someone will ask for 3, and so on. So far, the one racket rule works very well. Actually, at the German Open, one famopus player tested 2 rackets before the match. One passed and one failed. By some unintentional error, he ended up using the illegal racket. he was tested after the match, failed the test, and disqualified. So, perhaps it's wiser to stick to the one racket rule to avoid even more such problems. Adham

Author:	adham [ 15 Dec 2008, 06:23 ]
Post subject:
antipip wrote: This is the law if it helps with the discussion. ETTA Laws (2008/9) 2.4.8 At the start of the match and whenever he changes his racket during a match a player shall show his opponent and the umpire the racket he is about to use and shall allow them to examine it. Yes, this is the old ITTF rule, the ETTA decided to keep it for ETTA events. At the international level the one-racket rule was adopted after the introduction of racket testing. I think 2 rackets should be OK. If a player changes a racket during a match, then this racket must be tested after the match. I guess the one-racket rule avoids extra complications. Adham

Page 17 of 31	All times are UTC + 9:30 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Glueless [ 15 Dec 2008, 16:51 ]
Post subject:
adham wrote: The problem in returning service is not so much the quantity of spin, the problem is to know the and recognize the amount and type of spin. If you can see the point of contact, and if you can see the direction of the toss, then it's rather easy to know the amount and type of spin. This is why I keep insisting about the "intent" of the rule. The main intent is "a clear view for the receiver", as long as that is achieved, then the players are happy. As long as they can see the point of contact then it's OK for them. This would eliminate the need for the 'nearly vertical' portion of the rule. If I understand correctly, as long as I toss the ball at least 15cm in the vertical and do it so that the toss and contact point are perfectly visible to my opponent, then I have met the 'intent' of the rule and the angle at which I toss the ball is irrelevant. I'm more confused now than ever.