OOAK Table Tennis Forum

As far as I know there are 3 reasons why a rubber is removed from the LARC

1. Manufacturer did not pay the renewal fees (Or is it total re-certification ?)
2. Manufacturer deviated from the approved specifications (significantly and in many case deliberately such as submitting a rough top pip to get approved but later on making pip tops like glass with minimal friction.....I have seen this but as a chopper I don't like it but I am sure many blockers love it)
3. Rules or regulations have changed such as the Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulaton or Pip Density Reduction Regulation or Frictionless Limit change etc

So I understand item 2 for the most part but item 1 above is confusing. I understand the initial cost of testing the rubber & charging for it but does ITTF really need the money to continue to keep a rubber on LARC ? Many large manufacturers may afford this but how about small manufactureres ?

What % of ITTF's revenue is from renewals ? Would it make sense to leave older rubbers on the list , unless there is a deliberate violation of specifications, in which case it may be OK to impose a hefty fine for recertification ?

I know, these issues may have been rehashed 100 time in forums but just revisiting.

On a related note I am still quite confused about ITTF certification & national affiliate certification of rubbers. I see logos like JTTAA or CTTA etc on rubbers and I have no idea what this really means because I was told that you can use a USATT or CTTA certiified rubber (without ITTF logo) in a 5 star event in Australia, for example. Is this true ? I am not talking about lower level events, whish is a total mess, especially if you throw in the existence of zero chemical testing to skew the ratings databases (not to mention the original intended reason as claimed by ITTF, for speed-glue & booster bans. which is health)

RUBBER INFLATION EVERLASTING
ITTF Approval Fees yearly income some 1,26 milliones USD. 1600 rubber items sanctioned for play by ITTF/. Money? money, money ...