Search results

But you're missing the point; whether rubber cleaner is prohibited by 2.4.7 has no bearing on whether boosting by players is prohibited by 2.4.7. Rule 2.4.7 is poorly written, but one thing that isn't in doubt from the wording is that post manufacture boosting by players is prohibited.

Booster is a chemical. Rule 2.4.7 prohibits a player from applying a chemical treatment to a racket covering. There's nothing here to interpret; it's a clear and straight-forward instruction.

I agree that the justification for the rule might be dubious, but that's a separate issue. The fact remains that the rule exists, and there is no way that anyone can reasonably argue that 2.4.7 doesn't prohibit the use of boosters by players.

No, I don't think so...because I don't think that rubber cleaner would be found to contravene rule 2.4.7....but I absolutely do think that post-manufacture boosting of racket coverings by players contravenes 2.4.7.

I'm not implying that at all. What you're suggesting here would be a breach of rule 2.4.7. What you must do when the original booster wears-off is either continue to play with the rubber as it is, or alternatively buy a new one. If you apply booster yourself in an attempt to restore the rubber...

Whether or not using rubber cleaner contravenes 2.4.7 has no bearing on whether using booster does. You can't justify rule breaking by pointing to other instances of (potential) rule-breaking; two wrongs don't make a right.

I've never said that professionals weren't also breaking the rules. Contravening rule 2.4.7 runs through the sport at all levels. The rule should definitely be looked at and refined in order to make it more enforceable...but as things stand at the moment if you're breaking the rule then you're...

I hear what you're saying...but the fact remains that if you are breaking/ignoring the rules then you are breaking/ignoring the rules, irrespective of your reasoning as to why you're breaking/ignoring the rules.

I think you're getting a bit "lost in the weeds" here. Rule 2.4.7 clearly prohibits players from boosting racket coverings on account of such action being a "chemical treatment" of the racket covering. I agree that rule 2.4.7 is poorly worded...but only in the sense that its vagueness could be...

Yes, I can come up with a 'line' for you. Table tennis operates on the basis that the governing body produces a list of authorised racket coverings (LARC). For this list to have any meaning, there must also be rules that prohibit the modification of racket coverings after they have gone through...

If they don't know the rule then they don't know something I know, though! Based on the comment longrange made, it seemed a reasonable assumption he/she was ignorant of the rule. Enforceability of the rule is a separate issue to whether or not it is a rule, but my hope would be that most players...

The line has to be drawn somewhere and that will inevitably result in certain types of actions being acceptable and others being unacceptable. That's not double-standards, it's just an inevitable consequence of having an organised sport with a set of rules. If you genuinely think that wiping a...

I never said that. What I said was "I would like to think most table tennis players can understand that there is a clear and qualitative difference between (a) using a rubber cleaner to restore the rubbers original playing characteristics, and (b) using some form of treatment to change the...

Yes, based purely on the rule wording they might be...but 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 understand that there is a clear and qualitative...

Yes this is equally as bad, and both are equally illegal under rule 2.4.7: 2.4.7 The racket covering shall be used without any chemical, physical or other treatment Tuning/boosting is illegal on the basis of it being a chemical treatment. Making LP's more slippery than they were designed to be...

The money issue is separate from the issue of whether on not the rules of Table Tennis are simple and a straight-forward. Having an approved list of rubbers does make abiding by the rules more simplistic, because it requires ZERO interpretation of the rules on the part of the player. A Table...

But Table Tennis rules on rubbers a beautifully clear as well. In fact, we have it even better than having beautifully clear rules...because the governing body literally produces a list of rubbers that we're allowed to use. We have absolutely no need to study the ITTF rulebook and get our tape...

What you're saying here ties in with the article that NextLevel referenced in post number 117 on this thread. That article states: "In the late 1980’s/early 1990s, China was slow to adjust to changing technique, sticking too long with most pips-out style games while the rest of the world was...

I would genuinely love for you to explain what my wider forum activity has got to do with the discussion going on in this thread! Why can't you just engage with the points I'm actually making in this thread rather than keep trying to divert attention away from my comments and towards the fact...

Can you give some examples here? I'm unclear as to how rules changes could be said to specifically target a country, rather than target a style of play.