OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 03 Dec 2020, 20:11


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 This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 458 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 31  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 13:41 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
Actually Adham, one of the "crazy ideas" I had some time ago that didn't go any further because it was just between forum members, but you might like to tell me what you think. I thought on this issue of the serve toss that a way to standardise the toss to almost vertical might be to introduce a "serving apparatus". I think this would be in the form of a glove that had a spring loaded device built into it. The device would allow a height to be set for the toss with a minimum of 6 inches. This would mean for the umpire that all he had to wath for was a player tilting his hand too much to direct the ball off vertical or moving the hand during serve. The device could be designed such that no spin was generated when it was triggered. Obviously there would be a need for someone to design this and a triggering mechanism that perhaps used a movement of the thumb or something. The glove would obviously need to be light enough it did not disturb the player in play. Obviously another issue it would impinge upon is that the player may be restricted in changing the bat to his "free hand", but I'm not sure how many people do this. Is this something that would put paid to the idea do you think?


I am not sure a glove would work. But if we took your idea and modified it a bit, the spring gadget in the glove could be actually attached to the table (hanging below the end of the table). The player would take it to serve and then let go, it would hang under the table. The gadget would be as you describe it, a sort of spring thrower (like a pinball machine). I will discuss this possibility with some of the table manufacturers to see if they could produce some samples. I will get back to you, but this may take some time.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 13:46 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
SuperHappyFunSlider wrote:
Hi Adham,

bit of a crazy idea here from a young fella - but here goes.

I've seen in the last 5 years a big change in games that dwindled in popularity and coverage such as lawn bowls - and then have recently come to light herein Australia specifically because of "barefoot bowling" which is essentially where anyone rocks up, drinks, and basically almost a "party" style of bowling.

what would it take to start promoting table tennis as a party game? People really enjoy playing it in their basements, when they're with friends, what if we were to put it out there as the sort of thing for people to do when they're out, having a drink with friends? think of it like Disco ten pin bowling, with a bar.

I personally have mentioned this idea to some of my friends who don't play table tennis - and if it was to be put in the right atmosphere - they would be all for playing, and all for having a good time - all in all boosting the popularity of the sport.


You will not believe this, but I had the same idea several years ago in Canada. In my country we have a lot of tables in people's houses in the basement. It is cold in winter so many people would enjoy having exercise at home. I called it PPP - Ping Pong Party. It did not get off the ground because many people did not like me using the word Ping Pong, and similar to some reactions on this Forum, it seemed to get a negative connotation. perhaps we need to rethink the idea as a Neighborhood Event, some kind of local festivity? Perhaps more on the "health" theme? What do you think?

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 13:50 
Offline
Pimple Popper
Pimple Popper
User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 09:35
Posts: 924
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 50 times
absolutely, i'm really keen on it.

i'm on my local centre's committee - and they're up for the idea, i'm actually thinking of making it an event - as we have a particularly large centre, hooking up a band to the PA system, and having a local show on while throwin a "table tennis" party.

you cna also go through local gyms, if you're looking for the health avenue. i don't know about you, but the way I train with my robot is one hell of a workout.

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Extra
Yasaka Rakza PO 2.0mm
TSP Curl P-1R OX

"slappy slappy slappity slap"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 13:53 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
SuperHappyFunSlider wrote:
beer pong is a different game, just uses table tennis balls - that's all.

i'm not talking about changing it, it's all about changing hte attitude towards the sport. how do young people around my age get into things? by their friends. if they're enjoying something like this, it's naturally going to pull people into it.

As i said, compare it to disco bowling. that's extremely popular - and pulls people into real bowling inadvertedly.


I have to agree that we need a more social atmosphere to attract more players to our sport. Maybe not connected to drinking, but surely a kind of friendly league, or family matches, or just a variation with fun games, etc. Like I said in another post, I tried Ping Pong Party several years ago, but it got to many negative reactions from my peers. My idea was to target one neighborhood at a time, and create a sort of local network with people playing friendly round-robin games, doubles, etc. If any of you is willing to put a project together in this vein as an experiment, I would be willing to fund it. I would wish to start something like this in the USA or Australia on a trial basis. Ant takers?

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 14:05 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
adham wrote:
...Yes, obviously there is a contradiction between the current practice and the rule of the law. ...

As you know, it would also be impossible to judge that the ball was thrown 16 cm exactly ...
Can we say that a ball that was thrown up 14 cm is an illegal service? Theoretically YES. Practically NO.

If you review ALL the posts in this thread about the subject you will see what I mean.

Adham


Hi Adham.

If someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't see, what you mean. :)

I find the idea, that something can be legal and illegal at the same time, very interesting. This approach could be very useful for a lot of people! But I'm afraid, being legal and illegal at the same time is impossible.

Now to your 14 cm example. 14 cm is illegal, because it is less, than 16 cm. Also even 15,9999 cm is illegal. Another example: 4,00000001 mm thick rubber is illegal, because more, than 4 mm is illegal.

Of course, there is a practical problem: precision of measurements. The devices available can not show 4,00000001 mm. That's why illegality of that illegal rubber can not be uncovered, and player can play with that rubber. But 4,3 mm can be reliably uncovered by the devices, that ITTF use, and the racket wouldn't pass the test.

And now the next, very important step. If the umpire knows, that the racket is illegal and allows the player to play with it, that doesn't make the racket legal. Then, I'm afraid, the umpire acts illegally. And if an ITTF official allowed 4,3 mm for everybody, although the devices have only 0,02 mm tolerance, he would also act illegally, IMO.

For the same reason, it would be illegal of an ITTF official to announce, the player may throw up the ball only 14 cm, in my opinion. Because even the ITTF president has no right to change the laws of table tennis.

If the umpire can see the ball thrown up less, than 16 cm, he must call the service fault.

And if the umpire can see the ball thrown otherwise, than "near vertically upwards" he must call the service fault, too.

The laws of table tennis are very clear about it:

"2.06.06.03 Whenever there is a clear failure to comply with the requirements for a good service, no warning shall be given and the receiver shall score a point".
(http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html)

The only exception allowed is the following:
"2.06.07 Exceptionally, the umpire may relax the requirements for a good service where he is satisfied that compliance is prevented by physical disability."

We can clearly see: not if the ITTF president or other officials or players don't like the rule. Exeptions are only for disable players legal.

Adham, can you agree, that the current practice can be seen as illegal if, in your own words, "there is a contradiction between the current practice and the rule of the law"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 14:41 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 26 Nov 2008, 18:10
Posts: 466
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Choi,
Totally agree with u. I am aware u r only joking. Since the event I mentioned 3 yrs ago, me and my buddies never booze b4 game. Only once in while and only a glass each after the game.

_________________
My TT kits:
1. Xiom Jazz: 729 Faster 2.2mm, H3 neo 2.2mm
2. Clipper wood: Andro Roxon 450 2.2mm, H3 prov(2.2mm)
3. Btty Viscaria: Gambler SS , and Outlaw.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 15:08 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
Smartguy wrote:
adham wrote:
...Yes, obviously there is a contradiction between the current practice and the rule of the law. ...

As you know, it would also be impossible to judge that the ball was thrown 16 cm exactly ...
Can we say that a ball that was thrown up 14 cm is an illegal service? Theoretically YES. Practically NO.

If you review ALL the posts in this thread about the subject you will see what I mean.

Adham


Hi Adham.

If someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't see, what you mean. :)

I find the idea, that something can be legal and illegal at the same time, very interesting. This approach could be very useful for a lot of people! But I'm afraid, being legal and illegal at the same time is impossible.

Now to your 14 cm example. 14 cm is illegal, because it is less, than 16 cm. Also even 15,9999 cm is illegal. Another example: 4,00000001 mm thick rubber is illegal, because more, than 4 mm is illegal.

Of course, there is a practical problem: precision of measurements. The devices available can not show 4,00000001 mm. That's why illegality of that illegal rubber can not be uncovered, and player can play with that rubber. But 4,3 mm can be reliably uncovered by the devices, that ITTF use, and the racket wouldn't pass the test.

And now the next, very important step. If the umpire knows, that the racket is illegal and allows the player to play with it, that doesn't make the racket legal. Then, I'm afraid, the umpire acts illegally. And if an ITTF official allowed 4,3 mm for everybody, although the devices have only 0,02 mm tolerance, he would also act illegally, IMO.

For the same reason, it would be illegal of an ITTF official to announce, the player may throw up the ball only 14 cm, in my opinion. Because even the ITTF president has no right to change the laws of table tennis.

If the umpire can see the ball thrown up less, than 16 cm, he must call the service fault.

And if the umpire can see the ball thrown otherwise, than "near vertically upwards" he must call the service fault, too.

The laws of table tennis are very clear about it:

"2.06.06.03 Whenever there is a clear failure to comply with the requirements for a good service, no warning shall be given and the receiver shall score a point".
(http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html)

The only exception allowed is the following:
"2.06.07 Exceptionally, the umpire may relax the requirements for a good service where he is satisfied that compliance is prevented by physical disability."

We can clearly see: not if the ITTF president or other officials or players don't like the rule. Exeptions are only for disable players legal.

Adham, can you agree, that the current practice can be seen as illegal if, in your own words, "there is a contradiction between the current practice and the rule of the law"?


As ITTF President I never interfere with anything to do with implementation of the Rules. I am just describing to you the common practice. You wish to see rules as "Legal" or "Illegal". To you 15.99 cm is illegal. As I said before, theoretically it is illegal, but practically who can measure it. So it comes down to a question of "judgment", referring to the original "intent" of the rule, and of course practicality. This applies to any rule. This is why there is something called "conventional wisdom", which develops in a natural way. There are many elements to the service rule as it is written today. Some elements are more important than others when you refer back to the intent of the rule and the objective of the rule. The most important part of the current service rule is "visibility" for the receiver. On this item there should be no tolerance, if the umpire judges that the ball was hidden at any time, then he should call a fault. On other elements conventional wisdom led the umpires and the players to find certain comfort zones, such as the "nearly vertical". Of course if we apply the rule strictly, then the ball should be as close to the vertical as possible. However, the reality is that the umpires allow the players to throw the ball up between 45% and the vertical (90%). This is the current practice. I neither condone it nor condemn it. It's the current practice, that's all. I do not have any complaints from the rule's makers, nor from the rule's implementers. However, if this does become an issue, due process will be followed through the ITTF's URC. If this particular element of the rule needs to be enforced more strictly because it is felt that it does not meet the original intent of the rule, then a proposition can be made to that effect, or even simpler, the ITTF's URC can instruct the International Umpires accordingly.

A very wise response was made by the ITTF's URC indicating that umpires are asked to request from the players a sample throw and the umpire would then advise the players in advance of the match what is and what is not acceptable. This is a very wise move.

It is never a question of having something that is "legal" and illegal" at the same time. It's a question of what is tolerated and what is not, based on the original intent of the rule. It was me who introduced the notion of "clear space" between the server and receiver (I would gladly send you the original PPT presentations) and the main focus was on creating an "open" serve with the ball visible at all times to the receiver. The written rule was tweaked several times to cover some unexpected variations, but at the end the current text was adopted.

We also had several proposals regarding the throw at the service (over the head, 50 cm, etc.), but none were passed by the AGM. So, it seems that the AGM, the International Umpires and the players are content with the status quo.

I am just stating facts, and the current practical application of the rule. I do not ask you to agree, and I respect your opinion that ALL rules, regardless of importance, should be implemented strictly to the letter. I respect your view.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 19:08 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 18:46
Posts: 5
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
adham wrote:
Berenger wrote:
adham wrote:
Berenger wrote:
adham wrote:

Dear Adham,

I'm Laurent Bérenger, I produced boosters for many brands and member of FIT.

The ITTF seems to be in war against boosters an other chemical stuff. From my knowledge, and you confirmed it (point 1 of your answer), there is no rule against placing a sponge if this sponge, boosed or not, doesn't modify the charachteristics of the topsheet.

but I'm surprised by your answer "post factory". According to my knowledge, once again, I don't see any rule witch prohibit a player removing sponge from the topsheet and past this original and not modified topsheet with another or with the same sponge (boosted or not).

Also, when topsheet and sponge are selling separately, is there any rule witch prohibit to boost the sponge before gluing it on the approved and not modified topsheet?

These last 2 cases, the topsheet keeps originals characteristics (nb of pimples by cm² , thickness, elasticity, pimple size, logo size and so on...)

The ITTF shouldn't be on war against boosters because not illegal if palyers or manufacturers respect differents steps for, finally have the same topsheet as approved.

Anybody can use a car if he doesn't drive too quick. Anybody can use a booster if he doens't modify the topsheet.

I'm looking formard to your answer,

very friendly yours,

Laurent Bérenger

(sorry for my english, I hope I'm clear enough!)


Thanks for your post. First, the ITTF is not at war about anything. But before I answer your question, please answer me one question so that I better understand: "If the booster has no effect on the top sheet, then why use a booster at all?"

I also suggest that you read carefully the section of ITTF rules regarding the Racket (2.4). The composition of the racket is very clear. There is no allowance for any additives. Boosters would be considered an additive, by the current rules.

Adham


Dear Adham,

A booster has an effect on the sponge of course... We can get better effect when a booster is used on a complete rubber because it stretch the topsheet too (illegal), but a streched sponge (alone) gives more "speed"... I guess you know that the same topsheet on different sponge gives differents results...

Second on the handbook (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html) ITTF explains that a racket covering is a layer of a rubber and cellular rubber (summary). But what is a rubber?? The technical leaflet (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/pdf/ ... s_2007.pdf) gives thes definitions as "any any material that can be stretched at room temperature to twice its original length, and that, after being held in the stretched state for one minute, retracts within one further minute to less than 1.5 times its original length."

so the sponge could be any material (booster included) if the final result can be stretched at room temperature to twice its original length, and that, after being held in the stretched state for one minute, retracts within one further minute to less than 1.5 times its original length....

Also, you told me that you don't allow any additive. Why did you confirlmed that manufacturers can do it? Remember:

haggisv wrote:

1. Lets assume we have a VOC-free poison-free booster. The factory glues an ITTF approved topsheet onto a sponge. Now the factory uses a booster on the SPONGE ONLY. Now according to all evidence I've seen, the ONLY effect that the booster has on the TOPSHEET is that it stretches it, which according to you is legal when done in the factory (within ITTF set limits). Sponges are already made with the use of chemical, and are also glued to the topsheet using VOC-based chemical, so the booster is simply part of this factory process. The rubber is aired properly before sold to the public. Legal rubber or not?

2. Lets assume we have a VOC-free poison-free booster. The factory uses a booster on the sponge, BEFORE it's glued onto an ITTF approved topsheet. The rubber is aired properly before sold to the public. Legal rubber or not?


And you answered:
1. Legal (at factory, no VOCs, no poison, properly aired, stretched within limits).
2. Legal (same as above, if I understood correctly)

you just justify that a players can remove the sponge from the topsheet to do it because of "post factory". Witch law prohibit that and talk about "post factory"?

So once again witch law prohibit somebody to remove the sponge from the topsheet, tune the sponge with any material if this material is still or become cellular rubber as described on the technical leaflet and handbook an re-glue on the topsheet witch is exactly as approved?

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Laurent Bérenger


Your question was very clear and my answer was very clear. "Additive" means to "ADD". Post factory this is illegal. At the factory, if the process of making the sponge follows the ITTF directives and the actual sponge leaves the factory free of VOCs, free of any poison, and the sponge itself will not alter the characteristics of any other component of the racket, and only the components as listed in 2.4 exist, then it would be OK. Anything else is not legal. This is very clear and according to our current rules. In fact, you should read "post-factory" as "post-production". This also applies to VOCs.

By the way, why are you corresponding with me in the Forum, I only come here occasionally. You can correspond directly with me at my private e-mail which you have and it is always my pleasure to answer you as I always do and also to meet you whenever possible. Please feel free to write to me directly.

Adham


Dear Adham

As suggested by speedplay, could we continue on this forum because a lot of players are concerned by this matter?

In fact my question was clear but you didn't answer... Additive on the factory step is legal because the sponge leaves the factory VOC free (so why advice aring the rubber for 72 hours??), free of poison (don't see any rule about it but I agree), and because the sponge itsel doesn't modify the top sheet and made by components listed on 2.4 (and because a rubber is any material with an minimum of elasticity, it is more difficult to break this law than follow it). OK! I get it!

But my question was: witch rule prohibits doing it post-production?? I really don't see it.. Please let me know witch chapter on the hanbook allows manufacturers to do it and prohibits it after the production step.

Also, topsheet can be sold alone. Witch rule prohibits to apply a cellular material boosted and VOC free??

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Best regards,

Laurent Bérenger


Adham wrote:
Ok, I understand your question. The answer is rule 2.4. I actually answered this question already in detail in a previous post. I will just summarize here:

1. At factory level: The factory can do what it wants to produce the equipment, as long as when they are done, the equipment is according to ITTF rules. The production regulations are according to the rules for factories in that country. At the end of the production, and when ready to leave the factory, the equipment (in this case a racket covering) must be composed of only the elements and components that are listed in item 2.4 of the TT Laws. So if during the production VOC was used, as long as at the end of the production there is no more VOC, then it's OK. This applies to any other element during production. This is what we mean that it is OK during production, as long as when it leaves the factory it meets ITTF rules. This is why the ITTF makes tests on equipment we take from the general market. The glue (adhesive) is allowed according to our rule. We ask the factories to air the racket coverings after gluing the two parts together for at least 72 hours before packing. Some VOCs are still trapped, so we advise the players as well to air the racket covering before using to make absolutely sure that no VOCs are present.

2. At post-factory level (player, distributor, reseller, etc.): Any alteration (other than wear and tear) of the racket covering is illegal. Any additive (booster, tuner, oil, etc.) is illegal. This is Rule 2.4 (composition of the racket). Any action that alters the characteristics of the equipment after approval is illegal (rule 2.4.7).

These are the facts according to our current rule. If one day the rule is changed, then the process will also change. What is illegal today may become legal tomorrow and vice-versa.

I hope I have answered your question this time.

Adham


Regarding your point 2 it is ok, I get it.

For the point 2:

a. You didn't give me the rule witch allow a factory to apply there own boosted sponge and not the player (even if topsheet is sold separatelly).

b. rule 2.4, composition of the racket. A rubber is any material with minimum of elasticity (technical leaflet about rubbers). So boosted or not with or without additive, physical stretching, Christmas lights, or tattoo “I love my mother” whatever the is composition If this final single material is elastic enough, it is a rubber (rubber technical leaflet)

c. point 2.4.7: the final result on the topsheet (at the production or after the production is the same...) is the same topsheet (same nb of pimples by cm², same size of logo, pimples, same distance between each pimles, same tack, elasticity, gloss, thickness...)

For me it is clear, all your rules approve any boosting of the sponge if it doesn't effect the charchteristics of the topsheet... Why not approve a complete racket covering??

Best regards,

Laurent Bérenger


Last edited by Berenger on 18 Dec 2008, 19:19, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 19:18 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 18:46
Posts: 5
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
adham wrote:

I hate to say it, but probably because we trust (or should trust) the factories more in their handling of substances that may contain VOCs or harmful materials. They are better equipped than a 13 your old kid. My "personal" opinion is that if the ITTF gets into the business of approving boosters (or such substances) that are VOC-free, poison-free, and are made ecologically safe from natural substances, then why not allow it at all levels. But you have to understand our skepticism. We tested 5 so-called "safe" VOC-free boosters on the market and found VOCs in all of them, and poison in 2 of them. The distributors were convinced that these were totally safe. When we sent them the lab results, I believe at least 4 of the distributors stopped selling the boosters. So we are still at the early stage to be able to recognize totally safe boosters, but I am sure the day will come. But I am also sure that it may not be needed after all because of the expected progress in the new generation of rubbers and sponge.
My vision is that at ITTF-level events we would have refined racket testing that would detect low levels of VOC, would detect any alterations to the rubber and imposes strict controls on thickness of the racket covering. When this is safely in place, we could allow anything as long as the racket passes the test. But our main concern is putting in the hands of children substances that could cause them harm.

I'm glad you understand, of course I do not expect you to agree, but understanding the ITTF's position is already a positive step for me.

Adham


I'm sorry again but I have to react an explain from the producer side.

At first, VOC free for ITTF was a vapour pressure even or above 0,3 mbar (temperature??). The equipment comitte was surprised that the pressure change with the temperature... Finally the temperature it and produced boosters with a vapour pressure under 0,3 mbar.

Zagreb 2007, no approval anymore and e-Nez is the judge... Some boosters had problem with it and I produced under the limit...

In 2005 I had a correspondance with Mr Lineros to explain him that the prohibition of VOC is not the prohibition of dangerous compounds. If product is not volatile you avoid the risk by inhalation, but VOC can be dangerous for skins, eyes, dangerous by inhalation... I offerd him to prohibit dangerous compounds, you can obtain a list or information on the webside of the World Health Organization... But ITTF was focused on VOC with no resluts (VOC free can contain dangerous compounds, new rule in Guangzhou to avoid boosters...)

Also I don't see, any rules about "poison"...

Last thing, let me explain why, water based glue is a VOC but doesn't contain VOC... Let's see the composition:

- water (Volatile compound)
- tacking, sticking resin (Oraganic compounds, solid so not volatile)
- thickness resin (Organic compound)

Water during the evaporation step, will bring part organic compounds in the air...

You can check it with RAE device... e-Nez doens't react with each product separated but if you shake it to produce the water-based glue, this glue react...

Why this glue doesn't gives VOC on a racket? the difference with "usual" table tennis solvent is the water based glue is rejected by the sponge and doesn't penetrate into the cellular rubber, so after the drying time, the is no voc anymore... But sponge drinks teh usual solvent and keeps it as long as it can...


Best regards,

Laurent


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2008, 19:20 
Offline
Count Darkula
Count Darkula
User avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:07
Posts: 17501
Location: Dark side of Australia!!
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 291 times
Blade: Bty Gergely T5000
FH: TSP Regalis Blue Max
BH: Tibhar Grass Dtecs
adham wrote:
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
Actually Adham, one of the "crazy ideas" I had some time ago that didn't go any further because it was just between forum members, but you might like to tell me what you think. I thought on this issue of the serve toss that a way to standardise the toss to almost vertical might be to introduce a "serving apparatus". I think this would be in the form of a glove that had a spring loaded device built into it. The device would allow a height to be set for the toss with a minimum of 6 inches. This would mean for the umpire that all he had to wath for was a player tilting his hand too much to direct the ball off vertical or moving the hand during serve. The device could be designed such that no spin was generated when it was triggered. Obviously there would be a need for someone to design this and a triggering mechanism that perhaps used a movement of the thumb or something. The glove would obviously need to be light enough it did not disturb the player in play. Obviously another issue it would impinge upon is that the player may be restricted in changing the bat to his "free hand", but I'm not sure how many people do this. Is this something that would put paid to the idea do you think?


I am not sure a glove would work. But if we took your idea and modified it a bit, the spring gadget in the glove could be actually attached to the table (hanging below the end of the table). The player would take it to serve and then let go, it would hang under the table. The gadget would be as you describe it, a sort of spring thrower (like a pinball machine). I will discuss this possibility with some of the table manufacturers to see if they could produce some samples. I will get back to you, but this may take some time.


I like your adaptation on my idea. It would certainly stop any arguments about serve height, direction and spin in its tracks! I think such a device shouldn't be all that difficult to construct, and not that hard to retro fit to a table either. Would solve a lot of issues, don't you think?

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! :twisted: Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 05:54 
Offline
Mind Gamer Extraordinaire
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 01:25
Posts: 477
Location: Leuven, Belgium
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
adham wrote:
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
Actually Adham, one of the "crazy ideas" I had some time ago that didn't go any further because it was just between forum members, but you might like to tell me what you think. I thought on this issue of the serve toss that a way to standardise the toss to almost vertical might be to introduce a "serving apparatus". I think this would be in the form of a glove that had a spring loaded device built into it. The device would allow a height to be set for the toss with a minimum of 6 inches. This would mean for the umpire that all he had to wath for was a player tilting his hand too much to direct the ball off vertical or moving the hand during serve. The device could be designed such that no spin was generated when it was triggered. Obviously there would be a need for someone to design this and a triggering mechanism that perhaps used a movement of the thumb or something. The glove would obviously need to be light enough it did not disturb the player in play. Obviously another issue it would impinge upon is that the player may be restricted in changing the bat to his "free hand", but I'm not sure how many people do this. Is this something that would put paid to the idea do you think?


I am not sure a glove would work. But if we took your idea and modified it a bit, the spring gadget in the glove could be actually attached to the table (hanging below the end of the table). The player would take it to serve and then let go, it would hang under the table. The gadget would be as you describe it, a sort of spring thrower (like a pinball machine). I will discuss this possibility with some of the table manufacturers to see if they could produce some samples. I will get back to you, but this may take some time.


I like your adaptation on my idea. It would certainly stop any arguments about serve height, direction and spin in its tracks! I think such a device shouldn't be all that difficult to construct, and not that hard to retro fit to a table either. Would solve a lot of issues, don't you think?



I strongly disagree with this measure. Mechanically enforcing the rules because players refuse to follow them? If this gets real, I'm quitting the game...

_________________
Ask me about:

Tibhar IV-S - Donic Defplay SensoV3 - BTY Tackiness D/C - BTY Feint Soft - Meteor 813


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 06:45 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
Jasper wrote:
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
adham wrote:
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
Actually Adham, one of the "crazy ideas" I had some time ago that didn't go any further because it was just between forum members, but you might like to tell me what you think. I thought on this issue of the serve toss that a way to standardise the toss to almost vertical might be to introduce a "serving apparatus". I think this would be in the form of a glove that had a spring loaded device built into it. The device would allow a height to be set for the toss with a minimum of 6 inches. This would mean for the umpire that all he had to wath for was a player tilting his hand too much to direct the ball off vertical or moving the hand during serve. The device could be designed such that no spin was generated when it was triggered. Obviously there would be a need for someone to design this and a triggering mechanism that perhaps used a movement of the thumb or something. The glove would obviously need to be light enough it did not disturb the player in play. Obviously another issue it would impinge upon is that the player may be restricted in changing the bat to his "free hand", but I'm not sure how many people do this. Is this something that would put paid to the idea do you think?


I am not sure a glove would work. But if we took your idea and modified it a bit, the spring gadget in the glove could be actually attached to the table (hanging below the end of the table). The player would take it to serve and then let go, it would hang under the table. The gadget would be as you describe it, a sort of spring thrower (like a pinball machine). I will discuss this possibility with some of the table manufacturers to see if they could produce some samples. I will get back to you, but this may take some time.


I like your adaptation on my idea. It would certainly stop any arguments about serve height, direction and spin in its tracks! I think such a device shouldn't be all that difficult to construct, and not that hard to retro fit to a table either. Would solve a lot of issues, don't you think?



I strongly disagree with this measure. Mechanically enforcing the rules because players refuse to follow them? If this gets real, I'm quitting the game...


Take it easy, don't get excited. These are all just ideas. We even called them "crazy ideas". What about the Tee in Golf? What about bouncing the ball on the ground and as it descends from its highest point then it is struck? what about throwing the ball up with the same hand that is holding the racket? what about rolling the ball on the surface of the table and as it comes off the table you strike it? what about 2 bounces on your side first before it goes over the net? what about a no-serve zone 50 cm immediately behind the net? What about projecting the ball up with the thumb as you would flip a coin?

Many crazy ideas, if I had time, I would list another 20 just on this item. Ideas keep us alive and going. Crazy ideas make us think different. Whose idea was it to run an electrical current through a single hair? Crazy stuff. But with a vacuum, voila! the light bulb. And who's idea was it to jump of a cliff with flapping wings. A few crazy ideas later, voila! The airplane.

So, keep the crazy ideas coming, don't quit playing, let's read about your own crazy idea.

Now, how about this crazy idea? Let's leave the service throw alone for now, it's not the most important issue of our sport. Crazy, eh? as we say in Canada.

Let's read about other crazy ideas. We have already modified a couple and one is already in practice, and another is through the system, keep them coming. In two days we were able to come up with some good stuff. Of course all crazy ideas will meet with resistance in the beginning, and no crazy idea is ever implemented as is, but it does let the creative juices flow, it does open new possibilities.

Come on, tell us your own crazy idea. I'm sure you have one.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 07:20 
Offline
Modern Chiseler.
Modern Chiseler.
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 11077
Location: USA
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 543 times
Blade: Grubba ALL+
FH: Marder 1mm
BH: Dornenglanz ox
Make players serve behind a service line three feet behind the table.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 07:54 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
speedplay wrote:
One thing I'm interested to hear about is how ITTF feel about countries who "import" players. Austria have Chen who came to Austria as a finished product, as far as I know, the Austrian system has very little to do with his success, or lack of. From what I've been told here, the entire USA womans tam in the last OG were "imported" Chinese players and often when I watch European Championship, especially with the ladies, there are a whole bunch of Chinese girls playing.

I've heard something about ITTF trying to eliminate this, but haven't since anything about it from official sources, so I would like to know how ITTF look at this.


A new eligibility rule was passed by the ITTF's Board of Directors (more than 50 members) in February 2008. Only 2 persons voted against it. You can check the rule out at the ITTF website, rule NO. 3.8 and 4.1.3:
http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html

These rules will have an effect on the long term, and perhaps it will be more difficult to "import" players in the future. We shall see.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Dec 2008, 14:20 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 10:22
Posts: 624
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times
adham wrote:
I respect your opinion that ALL rules, regardless of importance, should be implemented strictly to the letter.


I have never written here about "ALL rules". The subject is "The Laws Of Table Tennis" from the "ITTF Handbook". As for "importance", I have never referred to this notion regarding The Laws Of Table Tennis.

I'm pretty sure, that legally speaking, there is no such thing as "less important rule". Perhaps, you really need to understand that.

I am also sure, that the idea, that if a player follows certain rule, he may be allowed to break another one, is legally speaking absolutely wrong. I'm really sorry, if you don't understand that.

adham wrote:
You wish to see rules as "Legal" or "Illegal". To you 15.99 cm is illegal.


Have I ever talked here about an "illegal" rule? I don't think you really mean that.

As for 15.99 cm being illegal: yes, of course, less than 16 cm is illegal according to 2.06.02.

You have to see the difference between these two dimensions: 1)legality and 2)how certain values can be measured or evaluated.

Again, if an umpire can clearly see the ball being thrown up less than 16 cm, he must give the point to the opponent. The Laws Of Table Tennis are absolutely clear about it: "2.06.06.03 Whenever there is a clear failure to comply with the requirements for a good service, no warning shall be given and the receiver shall score a point.". The same applies to "near vertically".

Otherwise the umpire himself would act illegally. Or the referee, if he gave him such instructions.

And please pay close attention to the wording: "the requirements", not "some important requirements".


adham wrote:
As ITTF President I never interfere with anything to do with implementation of the Rules.


It is more important to me, whether you may interfere with implementation of the Rules. Of course, you have first to understand, that the current practice is in certain aspects illegal. Than you have to understand, that this illegal practice can be clearly seen match for match on TV.

Just imagine: a coach explains to his kids the service rule according to The Laws Of Table Tennis. And the next day they watch an ITTF Tournament on TV, where they can see the service rule clearly broken and players getting away with it. They can easily come to conclusion, that cheating works and is acceptable even on the high level.

Don't you think, it would be really bad for these kids and for Table Tennis?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 458 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 31  Next



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group