OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I suggest we discuss legality of propositions 7 and 13 to the BoD (pages 100 and 102: http://www.ittf.com/World_Events/wttc_2 ... nglish.pdf)

The proposition 7 looks like an attempt to me to legalize something illegal through a decision by the BoD the BoD has no right to make. Sounds complicated, but let us look into it.

The proposition 13 is so conspicuous! The rational has nothing to do with the proposition (let us recall the rule 2.4.7 from 2008, where an unrelated rational miraculously became a rule, although the proposition itself can impossibly have been passed, because the text is not in the rules, although they wrote "passed"). I suspect here an analogous attempt to smuggle something into the text of rules without proper voting. E.g. the BoD can not legally restrict bounce. I will go into details later, because I would like the forum members to look into the issues themselves first.

_________________



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

Proposition 7 sounds very fishy.

Proposition 13 is obviously showing the ITTF are going ahead with this silly maximum bounce test which is bound to be so floored due to the non-scientific nature of it that is must end in some kind of pain to someone surely.

The wordings of these things have become like reading parliamentary acts or contractual laws which unless you spend considerable time reading them over and over and thinking of the implications, it is likely to pass you by. Which is probably the intention of course, because its usually the proposers mind which stores to goal of the rule, and to anyone else its like a riddle. Of course, their crossing out and underlining in of parts to these things makes them even harder to read and comprehend.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! 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.

Good eye smartguy.

Prop 7 is a whole new rule set that can be backdoored by the ITTF into universal usage by national associations without a vote.

Prop 13 is the voodoo bounce test, plus a requirement to rip the rubber off your blade after the quarter finals and beyond. Blades will also undergo extra scrutiny.

_________________



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

Guys,

on second thought, to avoid discussing all cases where a rule was passed or changed illegally, I suggest we discuss each case on a separate thread. On this thread I would like just to present a list of cases and share some basic information about how rule changes are supposed to be (legally) made according to the ITTF Constitution.

So, first comes the list and a little bit later comes a theoretical explanation of mine. Then I suggest we discuss this theoretical part here, maybe I am all wrong about it (joking ). Here is my list:

1. Speed glue ban

2. Tuner ban (claimed, but non-existing in reality) (several clauses involved)

3. Minimum friction level

4. Another ball size increase ("Tolerances" for plastic balls")

5. Removing legal rubbers from LARC, if the manufacturers stop paying annual fees.

I also suggest that discussing legal issues we put aside our personal equipment preferences. It does not matter to me, e.g., that I do not like all the rubber types variety or that I need neither speed glue nor tuner. I have a "speed arm" and enjoy playing against pips, but I do not like it if someone sort of steals speed glue and pips from players and causes expenses, particularly concerning players in poor countries . So, let us not mix those different things up.

I think that's a great idea!

It would be really good if the thread started with a brief historic sequence of events that led the the decisions / actions, including public statements by the ITTF and other parties, so that we all have the facts at hand.

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

What does it cost to keep a particular kind of rubber on the LARC?

I once offered to pay to keep a particular (ITTF approved rubber) kind on the USATT approved list and you would have thought that I wanted to bring down the whole association.
tOD

My point is that once a rubber has been authorized it remains legal until it becomes illegal because of certain rule changes. But the issue deserves a separate thread. It does not seem reasonable to me to discuss everything here.

I agree, so I've create a new thread for it here:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22379

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

These are rules about rule changes, read it first (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html):

1.19 GENERAL MEETINGS
1.19.05 Voting
1.19.05.01 Each Association not in arrears shall have 1 vote.

1.19.05.02.01 changes to the Constitution [...] require a majority of 2/3 of the votes cast;

1.19.05.02.02 [...]changes to the Laws of Table Tennis require a 3/4 majority of the votes cast;

1.20.03 Amendments to the Constitution and the Laws of Table Tennis shall be made only at a General Meeting; amendments to other Regulations shall be made only at a meeting of the Board held immediately after the AGM.

1.20.02 Rule change propositions to be considered at an AGM or a Board meeting must reach the Secretariat not later than 3 months before the date of the meeting.

1.08.04 Every question at a Board meeting shall be decided by a simple majority of the votes cast; if there is an equality of votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote.

1.08.03 The Chairman at a Board meeting shall be the President, or, in his absence, the Deputy President; if both are absent the members present shall elect one of their members as Chairman for that meeting.

3.01.02.07 Detailed explanations and interpretations of regulations, including equipment specifications, shall be published as Technical Leaflets authorised by the Board of Directors and in Handbooks for Match Officials and Tournament Referees.

3.01.02 Applicability
3.01.02.01 Except as provided in 3.1.2.2, the Laws (Chapter 2) shall apply to World, Continental, Olympic and Paralympic title competitions, open tournaments and, unless otherwise agreed by the participating Associations, to international matches.

3.01.02.07 Detailed explanations and interpretations of regulations, including equipment specifications, shall be published as Technical Leaflets authorised by the Board of Directors and in Handbooks for Match Officials and Tournament Referees.

Note that Technical Leaflets can not beat the Laws of TT (Chapter 2). Neither can the BoD decisions.

We can also see that phrases like "the ITTF banned speed glue" do not clearly reflect the reality, because it was the BoD and the issue of changing the composition of racket is beyond their power. It was just an example, the speed glue ban deserves a separate thread as well. I also think, maybe we should not open too many threads on legality issues at once.

3.1.2.2 deals with testing new rule proposals:

"3.01.02.02 The Board of Directors shall have power to authorise the organiser of an open tournament to adopt experimental law variations specified by the Executive Committee."