I found only the old text on the ITTF site: http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html .

Where can I find the new one?

Hi Adham its very good that you involve yourself in these forums

The question I want to ask is about service (I know their is a height min and ,from the palm and it must be seen etc)
but how strict are international umpires on a high serve going up and backwards a half metre or around 1-2 feet . Alot of club players start with the ball close to the table but as they are standing say left foot right at the table and thier right foot back at normal width (right handers) the ball is tossed by the left hand and goes up and over in a U shape. I never see umpires wory even at Open events here in NZ and I see this serve done all the time by watching many members vids here and from other forums (I havnt noticed such serves in the top levels).
Is it something umpires look at ?

ps Im not the best server as my hand is never perfectly flat (its hard to twist it flat) lol

I think I can answer that for you... Adham can correct me if I'm wrong The 'treatment' refers to any changes made to the rubbers after it's ITTF approval state. The manufacturer makes the rubber like it had been ITTF approved, and any modifications to the rubber after this are not allowed.

You are correct.

There is a nuance now with the two texts, one in Chapter 2 (Laws of TT) and one in Chapter 3 (International Competitions). In Chapter 2 the TT rule 2.4 says that you cannot alter the racket covering from how it came out of the factory, but you may not need to have the ITTF's logo on the rubber if this is not required in your area where you play. In Chapter 3, it's the same rule, but in addition you cannot use the racket cover in an ITTF event if it does not have the ITTf logo (authorization). This gives further flexibility for national associations to enforce the ITTF authorization (most do) or not. It does not change anything at ITTF events.

...This gives further flexibility for national associations to enforce the ITTF authorization (most do) or not.

As far as I know, every national association has always had absolute flexibility regarding ITTF rules. It has always been entirely up to them, to what extent they enforce ITTF rules on their national level.

Hence no rule change was necessary to give national associations "further flexibility", because they already had 100% of it.

You are right. Although this may have been obvious to you and me, it was not obvious to many others. Now it is clear.

You are right. Although this may have been obvious to you and me, it was not obvious to many others. Now it is clear.

It's good in the sense that now associations don't have to break from the official "Laws of Table Tennis" to allow low friction rubbers. Hopefully England and Sweden are just the start of a larger movement to allow all legal rubbers.

In the official "Laws of Table Tennis" you will not find a word about friction. Only in the Technical Leaflet 4.

In my opinion low friction rubbers are still legal, because they were illegally banned by the Board of Directors.

If I am right about that, no larger movement to allow low friction rubbers is necessary. Another option is this: if a player were disqualified at an ITTF event because of frictionless pimples and sued ITTF, I think he would win. I mean, if he played with a former legal rubber, like Super Block.

Yes, but the official "Laws of Table Tennis" previously said all rubbers must be "authorised by the ITTF." This is no longer a requirement. The new rule is simply:

2.4.7 The racket covering should shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment.

Of course, I agree with you that minimum friction rule is dubious, misguided and should be abandoned immediately for the good of the sport as a whole.

I think, we should differentiate between two things:

a. what does it mean on the national level (imho nothing has changed, national associations generally may do what they want on the national level) and if so

b. why the rule was changed.

I have not analysed it properly yet. Some people criticised the old version. They pointed out, that the requirement "The covering material should be used as it has been authorised by the ITTF..." was contradictory, because ITTF authorised only top sheet, not the whole covering. Hence applying tuner to the sponge could be seen as legal.