Hello from ITTF President

[adham]

Zitat von Footsteps

So you tell me you (the ITTF) did not even consider that. Adham, i'm sorry. what are "you" (the ITTF) gonna do now? Change the rules AGAIN? Don't forget frictionless short pips then this time. Oh and duck. People will tear you appart, methaphorically speaking.

Think first, then act.
If you want to enforce a minimum friction Level, why dont you go ahead and check ALL the racket coverings on the market for that criteria? What kind of company are you running over there? How can such a slipup even happen? It's simply embarrassing.

Take it easy my friend. One step at a time. I am having a lot of problems actually understanding exactly your points, but I wil try my best to respond:

Zitat von Footsteps

Adham you did not even answer the question.

Why minimum friction? What is the official reasoning? I don't ask for your oppinion. To my understanding someone suggested a minimum friction for racket coverings and it was agreed upon. Why? Because it's more sexy?

Why 4mm thickness? Does not sound sexy to me, 6mm sounds more sexy.
The reason briefly that a minimum friction level was introduced is in order to avoid post-treated pimpled rubbers (coated pimples). At first this was done by the players directly, then it spread to the distributers, therefore, the Board of Directors of the ITTF asked the Equipment Committee to study the matter and make a recommendation. It was finally decided to establish a minimum friction level in order to set a limit on how far low friction should go, and also to set a standard so that the manufacturers can follow. Why 25mN and not another number? because the experts felt that this is a reasonable level. Just like at one time the experts also felt that 4mm was a reasonable thickness.

Zitat von Footsteps

From my perspective its not a matter on what is done. It's how it is done.
And the execution on your part (the ITTF) could not be poorer. An oppinion that i do not have exclusively this time but one that i share with my good old imaginary friend and personal idol Timo Boll, who's voice should carry some weight and even rock your chair if necessary.

Granted, the decision and application of the decision are too separate things. The decision was made, but I agree with you that the application may not have been done in the best possible way. We are learning from this experience and I am sure that we will do better next time. In the meantime, we would like to see the effects of the application of the rule. Regarding Timo Ball, I assume you are referring to boosters and tuners and their illegality and the racket control. I have the highest respect for Timo Ball, even though I doubt he knows about Nano technology either; but your idol made some very sensible comments, but also some naiive comments. He is right, the ITTF must be strict and not allow any illegal racket. Absolutely right. He even experienced first hand the ITTF being very strict and disqualifying Crisan. Even if Crisan was not doing anything on purpose, he actually did play with an illegal racket. The ITTF is trying to improve its methods, step by step. The naiive comment is that many players, including Timo, say that the ITTF can not make any rule without first establishing how to control the rule. Imagine if the IOC must wait until it knows how to police every drug that is possibly performance enhancing?? There would be no doping control. Experienced people know that you set a rule because of a principle. Then you will always have to improve your detection methods. This is in all walks of life the same. The IOC discovers a doping infraction sometimes more than 2 years after the fact. Are they also incompetent then?

Zitat von Footsteps

Also Adham, im sorry and this is not an offence but i slowly grow doubts about your competence. ...
Acrylate is already used in Blades. It can be incorporated into so called rubbers to. Nanogate technology would allow to produce Rubbers that are as plain as a mirror or ice or whatever you think has a perfectly even surface. So a minimum friction rule is a splendit idea. It has nothing to do with pimples though...

My competence: You can think as you wish. I am definitely not an expert in every single field of the ITTF and table tennis. I am trying my best to explain rationally and to answer questions. I am doing the best I can, but I can't be expected to know every detail about everything, especially Nano Technology.

Zitat von Footsteps

Antispin or an other name Antitop rubbers have been designed to have as little friction as possible. Long Pimples Out can never, will never and were never as even, polished and therefore frictionless as Antis. the reason is the behaviour of the ball on impact, causing the pimples to move and present several sharp edges and other uneven contact that causes friction.

Perhaps the wisdom of applying the minimum friction to pimples is as you described it. Perhaps there was never the intent to remove the Anti rubbers. Each person in the ITTF eventually makes their decision based on their own thinking, and I cannot know exactly what each person was thinking. It seems to me that the main concern was the treatment of long pimpled rubbers. This is what I recall as the main argument.

Zitat von Footsteps

To even debate that is really, really shocking to me. It shows a profound lack of understanding what the problem is.

Nothing should shock you. We are free to debate what we want. And you are free to ignore our ignorant debates if you don't like them. But let us breathe man, let us discuss and debate, even if shocking to you. I am here not only to answer questions, but also to ask some questions to get a better understanding. If this shocks you, I'm sorry. It does not seem to shock others, and surely I am not shocked. I like debates. Why not? Take it easy.

I'm very glad that many players adapted to new equipment. This is what I have been recommending all along (read all the posts if you have the patience, but beware the dreadful debates). I am very happy. I don't understand your question, what should the ITTF do now? What do you mean? We are very happy that the players found new equipment and are still playing. This is great.

Zitat von Footsteps

Think first, then act.
If you want to enforce a minimum friction Level, why dont you go ahead and check ALL the racket coverings on the market for that criteria? What kind of company are you running over there? How can such a slipup even happen? It's simply embarrassing.

I am not sure what is embarrassing? and what slip up? and I am not sure if you are sarcastic or if you are asking if we checked every racket. I am sorry, I just don't exactly understand some parts of your comments.


As I said, if you produce a racket covering as you describe it that meets the ITTF rules, then fine. But from my limited knowledge as an Engineer, I would think that such a smooth surface would be very difficult to use for its intended purpose. But if someone were to use it and if it met the ITTF regulations, then why not.

Thanks for your input, and relax a bit, we all want what's best for our sport.

[Mighty]

Zitat von adham

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ALL pimples should be banned or should not be banned?

No problem, with so many questions and answers it's really easy to get confused about who said what and why. I'll try to make the point clear. I wrote:

Zitat von Mighty

@Adham

Let me tell you, why I think, that ban of all pimples and antis is possible.

From my experience, 80-90% of all players in Germany play with inverted rubbers on both sides. The best players don't have serious problems when playing against pimples and antis. But these best players are only a small minority.

The majority of players with inverted rubbers do have serious problems. The most of them have only 1 practice session and 1 competition a week. They simply 1)don't have enough time to learn how to play against all the types of rubber and particularly against all possible combinations, and 2) don't have all these pimples and antis players in their clubs. I think, if asked, they would support a ban of all pimples and antis.

That's why I think, that the proposition may and even should come from the German Federation (DTTB). Of course, if they are willing to listen to the majority of players.

I also think, that the situation in Germany is not quite different from situations in other countries. If so, the proposition would be adopted by the necessary majority at AGM.

Here I mean: yes, pimples out and antis should be banned and I also explain why. You probably understood this point, because you answered:

Zitat von adham

...But for heaven's sake, we have top players in the world using pimples. ...

Then I answered your argument about some top players, making the next point:

Zitat von Mighty

OK, "we have top players in the world using pimples". But let us take a closer look at the other side.

There are more, than 600 000 TT club members in Germany alone. More, than 400 000 play in teams.

More, than 350 000, I guess, have serious problems playing against "not inverted" for reasons I have already mentioned in my previous post.

Do they count? I hope, yes. And in the whole TT World there are probably millions.

I hope, players using pimples can understand that.

If it is still not clear enough, please, tell me that and I will try it again.

[adham]

Zitat von Mighty

No problem, with so many questions and answers it's really easy to get confused about who said what and why. I'll try to make the point clear. I wrote:



Here I mean: yes, pimples out and antis should be banned and I also explain why. You probably understood this point, because you answered:



Then I answered your argument about some top players, making the next point:



If it is still not clear enough, please, tell me that and I will try it again.

OK, now it is clear. You wish to ban all pimples and Antis. I don't think that this will ever happen. It is too extreme. The low-friction level established by the ITTF was to have a reference in order to catch treated rubber. The intent was NOT to eliminate ALL low friction LPs, but to set a standard to prevent post-factory treatment. So LP still exist and some low friction rubbers still exist. This is the character of our sport. In any case, I doubt very much that we would ever ban ALL pimples and all Antis.

I take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year and may you be fortunate enough so that all pimples and antis stay away from your path.

Adham

[Mighty]

Zitat von adham

OK, now it is clear. You wish to ban all pimples and Antis. ...

OK, but I'm afraid you have missed the main point.

Let me explain it and thank you for giving me another opportunity to quote myself.

Zitat von Mighty

...From my experience, 80-90% of all players in Germany play with inverted rubbers on both sides. The best players don't have serious problems when playing against pimples and antis. But these best players are only a small minority.

The majority of players with inverted rubbers do have serious problems. The most of them have only 1 practice session and 1 competition a week. They simply 1)don't have enough time to learn how to play against all the types of rubber and particularly against all possible combinations, and 2) don't have all these pimples and antis players in their clubs. I think, if asked, they would support a ban of all pimples and antis. ...

No, I don't have any scientific evidence about the problem.

It is just a strong feeling I have got about the majority of players from my experience.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

[adham]

No, I don't have any scientific evidence about the problem.

It is just a strong feeling I have got about the majority of players from my experience.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Adham

[Büffelschnitt]

Zitat von adham

and may you be fortunate enough so that all pimples and antis stay away from your path.
Adham

They better cross my path.

[Mighty]

Zitat von adham

... As you know, post treatment of rubber is illegal (to treat a rubber after it leaves the factory). The ITTF noticed a lot of post-treatments by players and also by distributors. The Board of Directors asked the Equipment Committee to find a solution. After some testing and some analysis the Equipment Committee established the minimum friction level of 25mN to detect and make illegal such rubbers. ...

@Adham

In my humble opinion, establishing "the minimum friction level" by the Board of Directors is illegal. Even if it was designed "to detect and make illegal" post treatment of rubber. The latter is still questionable to me, but let us concentrate on the main point.

Only Annual General Meeting (AGM) has the right to establish the minimum friction level, not the Board of Directors. This is the central point. If AGM had made the decision (75% majority of all the 205 National Associations required), it would be legal, but AGM didn't do that. What we actually have, is a decision of the Board of Directors only.

Now let me explain, why AGM only has the right to establish the minimum friction level, not the Board of Directors.

According to ITTF Constitution in the ITTF Handbook, "Amendments to the Constitution and the Laws of Table Tennis shall be made only at a General Meeting" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html, 1.20.03).

And establishing the minimum friction level is in fact an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis. ("The Laws of Table Tennis" are described in the Chapter 2 of the ITTF Handbook.)

I said "in fact", because in "The Laws of Table Tennis" there is no mention of "friction level" at all. We can only find it in the Technical Leaflet T4: "Friction for pimples out. The minimum friction level is 25 mN" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/p...ings_2007+.pdf).

Let me explain why establishing the minimum friction level is in fact an amendment to "The Laws of Table Tennis".

The description of the table tennis racket is given in the Chapter 2.04 of "The Laws of Table Tennis". There is no word there about any friction level of rubbers. That clearly means, that any friction level is legal. That's why all the "frictionless pimples" were authorised by ITTF and had ITTF Logo. A change from "any friction level" to "certain friction level" is an amendment to "The Laws of Table Tennis". And this amendment is exactly, what the Board of Directors has no right to do, but has actually done in violation of the Constitution of the ITTF. To me - clearly illegal, regardless of where this amendment was placed.

I would greatly appreciate your comment on that.

[adham]

Zitat von Mighty

Only Annual General Meeting (AGM) has the right to establish the minimum friction level, not the Board of Directors.
...
According to ITTF Constitution in the ITTF Handbook, "Amendments to the Constitution and the Laws of Table Tennis shall be made only at a General Meeting" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html, 1.20.03).
...
And establishing the minimum friction level is in fact an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis. ("The Laws of Table Tennis" are described in the Chapter 2 of the ITTF Handbook.)

I said "in fact", because in "The Laws of Table Tennis" there is no mention of "friction level" at all. We can only find it in the Technical Leaflet T4:...).

Let me explain why establishing the minimum friction level is in fact an amendment to "The Laws of Table Tennis".

...
The description of the table tennis racket is given in the Chapter 2.04 of "The Laws of Table Tennis". There is no word there about any friction level of rubbers. That clearly means, that any friction level is legal. ...

And this amendment is exactly, what the Board of Directors has no right to do, but has actually done in violation of the Constitution of the ITTF. To me - clearly illegal, regardless of where this amendment was placed.

The responsibility to modify a Technical Leaflet (TL) belongs to the Board of Directors. The Minimum Friction level of 25mN was the recommendation made to the BoD for insertion in the TL. This is a responsibility of the BoD and not the AGM. This is at the same level as the "Glossiness Standards" and other such standards. In fact the purpose of the TL is precisely to avoid going to the AGM with such matters. We have I believe 9 Technical leaflets that deal with various subjects (Racket = TL-4, Racket testing = TL-9), etc.

Also, the BoD acts on behalf of the AGM in matters within its jurisdiction. Finally, all reports of all ITTF Committees (with 2 or 3 exceptions) are approved by the AGM, including the reports of the Equipment Committee, which are presented to the AGM.

You should also note that the BoD is responsible for all matters regarding Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the ITTF Handbook. This includes International Competitions, and Equipment at International Competitions.

As I always said, this minimum friction level standard was established for ITTF events. The national associations are free to adopt it or not (if it would appear in the Las of TT, then all would have to follow). Most national associations follow the ITTF standards and rules, with some modifications, but some don't. For example, the English TTA applies some of the ITTF regulations only to a certain level. In this particular case they do NOT follow the minimum friction level rule in the lower leagues. They are free to do so.

I hope this explanation answers your question.

Adham

[Mighty]

Zitat von adham

The responsibility to modify a Technical Leaflet (TL) belongs to the Board of Directors. The Minimum Friction level of 25mN was the recommendation made to the BoD for insertion in the TL. This is a responsibility of the BoD and not the AGM. This is at the same level as the "Glossiness Standards" and other such standards. In fact the purpose of the TL is precisely to avoid going to the AGM with such matters. We have I believe 9 Technical leaflets that deal with various subjects (Racket = TL-4, Racket testing = TL-9), etc. ...

In my humble opinion, the main point is not, what the Board of Directors may do. I can imagine, that they may do a lot of things. But it is not the main point.

The main point is, that establishing "the minimum friction level" is something, that the Board of Directors must not do.

Establishing the minimum friction level is in fact an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis

But according to ITTF Constitution in the ITTF Handbook, "Amendments to the Constitution and the Laws of Table Tennis shall be made only at a General Meeting" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html, 1.20.03). That means, the Board of Directors must not make an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis.

I said, establishing the minimum friction level was "in fact" an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis, because in The Laws of Table Tennis there is no mention of "friction level" at all. We can only find it in the Technical Leaflet T4, since the Board of Directors placed it there a few months ago: "Friction for pimples out. The minimum friction level is 25 mN" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/p...ings_2007+.pdf).

Very important: the description of the table tennis racket is given in the Chapter 2.04 of "The Laws of Table Tennis". There is no word there about any friction level of rubbers. That clearly means, that any friction level is legal. That's why all the "frictionless pimples" were authorised by ITTF and had ITTF Logo.

A change from "any friction level" to "certain friction level" is an amendment to "The Laws of Table Tennis". And this amendment is exactly, what the Board of Directors has no right to do, but has actually done in violation of the Constitution of the ITTF. To me - clearly illegal, regardless of where this amendment was placed.

[adham]

Zitat von Mighty

In my humble opinion, the main point is not, what the Board of Directors may do. I can imagine, that they may do a lot of things. But it is not the main point.

The main point is, that establishing "the minimum friction level" is something, that the Board of Directors must not do.

Establishing the minimum friction level is in fact an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis

But according to ITTF Constitution in the ITTF Handbook, "Amendments to the Constitution and the Laws of Table Tennis shall be made only at a General Meeting" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html, 1.20.03). That means, the Board of Directors must not make an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis.

I said, establishing the minimum friction level was "in fact" an amendment to The Laws of Table Tennis, because in The Laws of Table Tennis there is no mention of "friction level" at all. We can only find it in the Technical Leaflet T4, since the Board of Directors placed it there a few months ago: "Friction for pimples out. The minimum friction level is 25 mN" (http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/p...ings_2007+.pdf).

Very important: the description of the table tennis racket is given in the Chapter 2.04 of "The Laws of Table Tennis". There is no word there about any friction level of rubbers. That clearly means, that any friction level is legal. That's why all the "frictionless pimples" were authorised by ITTF and had ITTF Logo.

A change from "any friction level" to "certain friction level" is an amendment to "The Laws of Table Tennis". And this amendment is exactly, what the Board of Directors has no right to do, but has actually done in violation of the Constitution of the ITTF. To me - clearly illegal, regardless of where this amendment was placed.

OK, let me be very clear "You are wrong". The decision regarding the minimum friction level was made to be included in the Technical Leaflet, which constitutes the detailed regulations of the ITTF for the subject and are the directives to be followed by manufacturers. The TL is approved by the BoD as many other decisions of this kind such as gloss, aspect ratio, etc. It is in the right place, it is according to rule 2.4.7 passed by the AGM, it is NOT in contradiction to the Laws of TT, and it is legal. You may not agree, but these are the facts. In addition, as I mentioned before, all decisions made by the BoD and all reports submitted by the Equipment Committee are approved by the AGM. So, please give it a rest, we will never agree on this point. I Chair both the ITTF AGM (without a vote) and the ITTF BoD (with deciding vote), so if you wish to challenge this decision please do so through your National Association and follow the due process. Thanks.

Adham