OOAK Table Tennis Forum

igorponger wrote:


Show me the law of table tennis or rule for international play that supports this supposition.

Even Torsten is unable to locate the minutes of the 2019 AGM & BoD meetings. I have studied the latest version of the Laws and Rules that incorporate changes from those meetings, marked in yellow, and they do not contain any change to do with declaring a minimum friction for any sort of ITTF approved rubber that could then be used to fail them at racket control at tournaments.

Retriever, clearly out of touch with those within the ITTF, let alone those not within the ITTF.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74

An ‘excuse’ for what? No rule is being contravened. It’s not “a credible sign of an illegal treatment”. All rubbers lose friction with age. If the ITTF intends to dictate when I have to buy new equipment when what I have is legal I’ll give the game away.

_________________
2. S&T Black & White / Armstrong SH-I 1.8 / TSP Curl P3 Alpha R OX

Forcing to get new equipment because of the natural wear and tear will make many tt enthusiasts to stop playing for good ...

Others like me might stop playing in competitions and leagues and just play recreationally at the club ....Only when the manufacturers start losing a lot of money will the ITTF reconsider the regulation for pips ,...Igor just wants us to theorise or feel not so good about what is going on at the ittf... whatever it is, I don't care,....

The cunning players that circumvent stupid rules will still survive with the new regulations. Some smart guy will turn up with a brilliant undetectable idea so the pips work better and better,.... the same as illegal boosting ,.....

That's why I have said that cunning players who modify pips have their place in tt, I understand their choice despite cheating.The truth is that they cheat because of an unfair treatment with respect to inverted rubber players .

Because of the 40+ plastic ball, I think the aspect ratio, pip density and minimum friction levels should all be relaxed to compensate for a larger ball with less speed and less spin It's only fair.

The current 1.1 aspect ratio is for the tiny 38mm ball!

_________________



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

So, we see again the exchange of arguments in favour and against the legality of rubbers which have lost friction. (And I appreciate that the tone is factual.)

One might regret that it's only an agree to disagree, but I see this more positively: To me, it shows quite well that without a clear and enforceable regulation the uncertainty will never end. That is the main objective of the current tender: ITTF would like to see a credible, handy and affordable device which produces a figure on site in the playing area, where this result as such is undoubted. So, based on the outcome of the tender, friction limits for racket testing in the venue may be set.

@Retriever, I can confirm that this is not yet done: No friction limit was amended in the regulations during the ITTF meetings in Budapest 2019. Such limit would be part of the Technical Leaflet T9: "Racket Control" ( see https://www.ittf.com/equipment/ ), and this one was not changed in 2019. Recall however that the final decision on the legality of equipment is always with the Referee of the respective competition, and that National Associations may allow for extended racket tests for competitions under their auspices.

Of course, any future regulation made by ITTF for rubber friction might be deemed either too lenient or too strict, depending in which direction it will go. But achieving good compromises is the second issue. The first issue is to get a procedure that allows at all to reasonably consider friction regulations.

Hope this helps to illustrate more the intention of the friction device tender.

If so, I guess your group has submitted it as an application to the tender, so ITTF can review it together with the other applications. Thank you very much for your contribution.