Quote
.....and the racket surface has to be uniform
Unquote

It is obvious that this rule must be applied only to the top and this is the reason why ITTF will loose the trial against TTMaster.

Quote
.....It was reported that LP were treated rendering the top of the pimple and the side of the pimple at two different friction levels. This is illegal according to rule 2.4.
Unquote

This is partially true but the real reason of the treatment is another and is due to the modification of the consistency and the shape of the pimples using microwave oven for example.
Therefore what was reported was uncomplete and not precise. I am sorry but these are facts not opinions.

Quote
... This was for the purpose of having a reference and a standard in order to be able to detect post-factory treatment, but more important to give to the manufacturers a clear standard to follow.
Unquote

Disagree; the introduction of friction limit has been useful only to cancel all the frictionless rubbers. Now more than before the rubbers are treated. The main treatment consists in making the pimple softer and it is not relevant to change of friction.

I close the discussion forever from my side: I agree with the rule of friction for pimple-out rubbers but I don't agree about the theory of different level of frictions on the top and on the lateral surface that is normal and is not due to some artificial treatment durign the manufacturing or post-treatment; this is even "more true" when the top of the pimple is rough and not smooth (and there are a huge number of pimple out rubbers built in this way).

If I will be Losanna Court, I will condamn ITTF to pay a huge penalty to discourage this type of attitude by ITTF in future. The behavior of ITTF has been in TT Master case extremely unfair offending the sportive spirit of a lot of table-tennis players.
When Somebody makes mistakes must be punished and this is the case.

Cordially and with not changed respect
Eng. Luca Pancani

I have to disagree with your evaluation of this. Common sense would dictate that the "racket surface" MUST be considered to be the "playing surface", or anything that can be used to strike the ball in a normal sense. Because pips flex and bend, the sides of the pips are used as part of the shot, and they must therefore be considered to be part of the playing surface and so should have uniform friction when compared to the pip tops. Doesn't matter if you're a researcher - the pip sides are used when striking the ball, so they're part of the rubber playing surface.

Therefore TTMaster will lose.



I think we have to say that treating ANY rubber to modify its playing characteristics such that it becomes illegal (by the letter of ITTF law) is WRONG and CHEATING. So, putting your pips in a microwave, treating the pip tops to remove friction, and anything else, is CHEATING. If a player is found to be using these techniques, they should be banned.

So, applying this logic would say that manufacturers can't be allowed to produce equipment which is illegal out of the packet. And even worse - market that product on the basis of its illegality. TTMaster and Neubauer both produced frictionless pips, which directly break an existing ITTF law, and marketed them on the basis of this "feature". It's obvious that the ITTF would then have to either alter the existing laws of the game, or tell the companies involved to stop. If I was in the ITTF's position, I wouldn't be wanting to change my laws because an equipment manufacturer decided to break them. That sets a precident that says to the world - "ignore the rules, make what you want, and we'll cave in and change the rules for you".

Now, you raise an interesting point about pips with high friction on the tops and lower friction on the sides. But you can't apply that argument to stop the frictionless testing. All you do with that approach is tell the ITTF that more rubbers should be banned.

The treated Palios (made by Palio) do have the ITTF stamp. They banned the "blue package" Palios but allowed the "yellow package" Palios to remain homologated. I think Palio might now be making legal "blue package" Palios, further complicating things.

On the OX Anti, the ITTF logo is being used, the rubber is on the approved list, they know it's being sold as OX. They do nothing.

I guess the point I'm making is they selectively decide which companies they will enforce their rules against. They investigate/ban Insider because of one complaint, so how can they tolerate the Palio issue? Bigger, more influential company perhaps? Why aren't they addressing these other irregularities with equal vigor? Why are those rubbers still on the approved list?