OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Does this mean that something is wrong with the rubber, some ITTF requirements are violated?

The ITTF banned frictionless long pips like 10+ years ago. This rubber is a frictionless long pip (feels totally smooth, just about zero grip on it) and does not meet the minimum friction requirement the ittf arbitrarily made.

_________________
SOULSPIN CUSTOM BLADES
Fh: Spinny rubber
Bh: Not so spinny rubber...

'

Friction rules only concerns pimple out rubbers, not smoth rubbers (like anti).

_________________
My blog: Def-attack's attempts to find balance between defence/attack | Serving techniques and strategy section

I understand, but why players permit play frictionless anti but not frictionless long pips? If ban long pips why not anti also? Both frictionless!!!

Vadim wrote:


Just another example of "interesting" ITTF rules. The Technical leaflet regarding rubbers, T4, which is what the manufacturers have to comply with, has a rule regarding the minimum kinetic friction for pimples out rubbers but not for pimples in rubbers. Note that according to the rules this minimum friction rule is only for manufacturers, not racket control at tournaments, T9. However the ITTF has recently put out a tender for inexpensive friction measuring devices for use at racket control.

Here is the ITTF equipment page which, after some news items (boostering!) has the tender, lists of approved equipment, technical leaflets etc.:
https://www.ittf.com/equipment/

A similar situation holds with boosting rubbers - it is not illegal for manufacturers to sell rubbers that are boosted, but it is illegal for rubbers to be boosted afterwards by players.

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

When frictionless pips were banned frictionless anti did not exist. It was developed by Dr N in response to the pips ban. Frictionless anti is still not as widely manufactured or used, and maybe not enough complaints about it (yet) to prompt another new rule. Perhaps also it does not achieve the same level of disruption as frictionless pips? I have no experience since have not used either.

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

Very quixotic the ITTF allows frictionless antis (at least for now!) but banned frictionless pips Never/dont' use either.

,

The next episode : The ITTF is now trying to track down the illegal boosting of inverted rubbers, so , so damaging to the sport but they have not started yet because they will be soon offering requests for bids on devices .... hahaha,...

Why hasn't the ITTF started to request for bids on devices that ban the illegal boosting of rubbers ???

mmmmm,..... some pros might not be too happy,... ...... one friend of mine asked a pro to stick his rubbers - he had run out of glue - . When he gave the bat back, he could not control his setup for a week !!!!!!! .... this is a true story, my friend does not lie ,.... the pro was from Portugal,.... he played in the super division here ....... that is REALLY the dark side of tt,...not the pips in the amateur world or even in the pro tour as the final games are always played by inverted players .

So many lies in the pro sport , be it tt, soccer,rugby,... whatever,...

The first frictionless antis were developed as an answer to the ban of the friction pips and were way to fast and absolutely uncontrollable. Over time they have improved much and are now much slower and have better control. However, they are still more difficult to control than the frictionless pips and in particular attacking is much more difficult. With other words, the now banned frictionless pips were much easier to play with for the average guy.

_________________
Equipment:
Stiga 2000 All '76, FH: DHS H3 Neo 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer ABS2 2.3

Very true !!!!!! and also, by playing with FL pips the average player was able to beat opponents that on paper had a better level ......it required less skill ,.... the new antis are not a joke , you need to train a lot to master the technique and attacking is far more difficult than with pips ,....

I have sometimes wondered why, even now more than 10 years after the pips ban, there is still only two relatively small manufacturers producing frictionless anti, whereas frictionless pips were also produced by many of the larger manufacturers prior to the ban. Perhaps the control issue you mention is a main reason? Also their durability is an issue I think? The reluctance of the major manufacturers is interesting.

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

10 years ago, there was also only 1 REAL manufacturer of frictionless pimple Dr Neubauer and "producing frictionless pimples" was his main earnings (in term of sales)
Most others producers (Tibhar, TSP, Donic, ...) have each other 1 (or 2) frictionnless pimple (Grass Devil, Bamboo, Piranja, ...) but selling such kind of rubber is not their main activity.

It's not interesting for a society to developp such king of rubber if it represents only 0,01% of earnings.

It's for me the reason that only now 2 firms Dr Neubauer and DMS (you have also at the begining Joola because they were sponsor of Amelie Solja)

_________________
Blade : Darker Speed 90
FH : Butterfly Tenergy 64 1,7mm
BH : Tibhar Grass D Tecs 0x