Search results

I doubt it will. It's not really about improving the situation, more about just recognising the current situation for what it is. Cheers!

Do you apply booster to your rubbers? If you do then I'm afraid to say you have been playing illegally.

I'm not trying to defend or justify the rule, though. All I'm saying is that the rule actually exists...and all I'm asking of you is that you acknowledge the existence of this rule and accept the fact that this rule prohibits the use of boosters by players. I'm not asking you to like the...

I'm a hobbyist blade builder. Most of mine are made to come in on the heavy side, but have heavier handles so that they don't actually feel as heavy as they are (in my experience it is the head "heavyness" that makes a blade feel heavy). The heaviest blade I've made in recent weeks came in at...

Why do you keep going on about 'the line' as if its some sort of fatal flaw in my position? You introduced this concept of 'the line' as a way of trying to get me to justify why it's should be acceptable for manufacturers to boost but not acceptable for players to boost....but my position has...

If think the act of leaving it in the car exposed to sunlight could be considered to be the 'treatment'. He left it in the car, and the sunlight interacted with the rubber in some way in order to change the playing characteristics of the rubber. I'm no scientist so I'm not sure what the action...

For me, this really gets to the heart of why I think your thinking on this is a bit muddled. The legality of something is not predicated upon whether there exists a means of demonstrating a violation. If a written rule prohibits a certain action, then that action is prohibited even if there is...

If people are trying to follow the rules for personal moral reasons - I used the term 'integrity' to describe these sorts of players in an earlier post - then their moral compass will mean that they will stop applying booster to their rubbers the moment that they realise it is contrary to 2.4.7...

But deeming boosting by players as illegal based on the wording of 2.4.7 is logically sound, because as you correctly point out, the rule as written is so all-encompassing as to deem any sort of treatment as illegal...and the treatment of boosting clearly and necessarily falls within that larger...

What implications on the lives of individuals and players, though? You've already pointed out that 2.4.7 in relation to boosting by players is unenforceable, meaning that no one is actually getting into trouble or being punished for breaking this rule. From what I can see, there are no...

But the salient point is that regardless of what sponge gets paired with the rubber top sheet, it is necessarily the totality of that pairing that constitutes the racket covering when it comes to pips-in rubbers...and since 2.4.7 prohibits after-manufacture treatment of the racket covering, then...

Potentially yes. Please refer to post number 238 where I touched upon this issue and wrote the following: "...in practice any rule enforcement process by a governing body will always go beyond the wording and introduce additional context etc. I would like to think most table tennis players can...

I can't see a red herring emoji on here...so I'm just going to have to say that that's a red herring argument instead.

The LARC is a list of approved racket coverings. When it comes to pips-in rubbers, a racket covering is always both a rubber and a sponge (since it is not legal to use pips-in rubber without a sponge), So, in the case of pips-in rubbers, the LARC is encompassing both the rubber and the sponge...

But the distinction between chemical or physical is not essential here....because rule 2.4.7 prohibits both physical and chemical treatment, as well as "other treatment". So you arguing that boosting isn't a chemical treatment doesn't successfully navigate 2.4.7, not unless you can also argue...

What I meant when I said "I can come up with a line for you" was that I could come up with a plausible argument as to why boosting by manufacturers could be seen as acceptable, but boosting by players wouldn't be acceptable. That argument was based around the existence of the LARC. At no point...

Rule 2.4.7 states "The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment". To successfully navigate rule 2.4.7 you would therefore have to be able to argue that you applying booster doesn't constitute any sort of treatment to the rubber at all. Good luck with that!

By "no one" who are you referring to exactly? From what I can see its only you and longrange that are arguing it out with me...but even then you've already acknowledged (in post number 279) that 2.4.7 does prohibit the use of boosters by players...and since that's the main point I've been making...

Actually I don't have to justify the "line". The purpose of my posts is only to point out that the line does in fact exist. I'm not here to say it should exist, only that it does exist! Do you acknowledge (as NextLevel eventually did in post number 279) that rule 2.4.7 does prohibit the use of...

It's silent on its use by manufacturers because the use of booster during the manufacturing process is not prohibited; only the post-manufacture boosting by players is prohibited! 100% agree the rule should be re-written to add further clarity...but that additional clarity is only needed to...