[Torsten von Bayern]

Adham,

thank you for sharing the AGM agenda with us. In reading the propositions paper I found Proposition 7 by the Rules Committee, which to me seems very helpful: No need any more, as an umpire acting without assistant, to tell players to change their service position just because I cannot see it all time, whereas I am sure that it is correct.

What is interesting, is that at the same time, the Rules Committee is asking the BoD in Resolution B for an experimental change of the service rule in such a way that both umpire and assistant umpire have to see the serve.

At a first glance these two steps seem to me to contradict each other. Will the experiment from Resolution B, aiming at a "stronger" service law, still be carried out if the AGM accepts Proposition 7 which is aiming at a "weaker" service law ? Or is it just a fall back option in case of AGM rejecting the proposition ?

I am asking, besides personal interest, in order to respond to a service rule discussion which is going on in another subforum. Can you imagine there was somebody saying, in view of Resolution B, that in the future an umpire, when officiating alone, will have to call "fault" if he or she sees the serve but is suspecting that the imaginary assistant umpire would not have been able to see the serve ??!

Anyway, I am now absolutely curiously looking forward to the Racket Control Workshop in Bremen this Saturday, which arised from the ITTF/DTTB coordination of what we started here in this thread in December 2008. My team is already planning next season's regional ENEZ testing and can't wait to get an impression about ELIZE.

TvB