Currently not approved anymore rubbers?

[plunder]

The YASAKA Mark V and Mark V GPS are on sale at a local retailer. These popular classic models doht bear a LARC number on the rubber sheets. I doht see any licensed approval code.

Does anyone know for sure if one can still buy them for use in official matches?

 

[cytivrat]

You can always check it on ittf website. And yes, they are valid:

 

[haggisv]

If they're on the ITTF LARC (which are they!), then they're still approved. The LARC still has plenty of rubbers without the numbers, so these are still perfectly legal. Eventually all rubbers will have a number, but this will probably take a few more years.
You can find the LARC here.

 

[plunder]

Well good that i have asked. And sorry however, this topique be still on-going until we have official confirmation (e.g. from an ITTF official) regarding what is what. The printed retailer's brochure advertised those marked down YASAKA rubbers with "JETZT ZUGREIFEN! Die Zulassung dieser Beläge läuft zum Ende der Saison aus."

@haggisv I wouldn't agree with your assessment/interpretation of the current situation. I read somewhere else on the internets or was it chatgpt that from this 2024 year on all "legal", i.e. so-called approved rubbers must bear their LARC number on the rubber sheets. Yes for this to happen the production of the rubbers needs to be adjusted: new moulds, which costs time and money. This change of production/moulds can be seen, for example, on the Yinhe Mercury2 2023 production vs 2024 production, both rubbers which i own.
Also it is safe to assume that the company XYZ needs to pay a re-curring annual or whatnot fee (let's call it "license fee") to the ITTF in order to keep the approval status ("license") valid/active/nonexpired for all the XYZ rubbers which bear the LARC number.

My interpretation of the LARC url is: appearing in the list just means that the company XYZ once submitted their rubber (a long time ago) to the ITTF, of course, with the intent of getting an approval, and they might have even gotten the approval for it, but, after some time of non-renewal, the approval's status expired and the LARC number got withdrawn/canceled/whatever. So the LARC url serves exactly this purpose: to check whether a XYZ rubber is still, currently, approved or not. To be currently approved (i.e. with a non-expired license), the rubber must have a LARC number, AND the LARC number has to be embossed in the rubber sheet, AND the current date must be before the expiry date. That's my interpretation.

We should get absolute/official confirmation on this topique, and then list all popular rubbers (e.g. classic rubbers) which are "not legal" anymore, starting this season or next season.

 

[haggisv]

The LARC is the official ITTF list of authorized rubbers. A rubber does not appear on the list unless the ITTF has authorised it. If it's going to be removed, the LARC lists which rubbers are going to be removed, which won't happen till the next LARC is released (every 6 months). Umpires and referees use this same list.
To me this means if it's on the LARC, it's authorized. What else would be the point of having a LARC?

 

[\_Kairos_/]

Given that the Mark V is still - at least in Japan - a best-selling rubber, i. e. in the Top 10 for ages (way ahead of Butterfly's Sriver and therefore a money maker for Yasaka!), I find it somewhat unlikely to think that Yasaka would stop producing the Mark V and in the process lose the ITTF approval for it.
I find it more likely that the specific dealer decided for whatever reason to not carry the Mark V (or perhaps Yasaka in general) anymore.
If Butterfly still produces the Sriver than it is very safe to assume that Yasaka will continue to produce the Mark V as well (not too sure about all the "derivates" such as the GPS, HPS etc. though).
What dealer gave this info in the first place? Contra, Spinfactory, ML...?

 

[plunder]

It is Contra.

And yes, the brands are FREE to continue to produce and sell their bestselling classics. This doesn't mean that those old-timer rubbers are still approved for official matches. You guys comment based on speculations/assumptions, i comment based on www infos (which i had read by the side of my eye).

Btw it is actually pointless to ask the dealer OR the company XYZ (huge company with 99.9% ignorants) about it. The only reliable and most uptodate information would come from the licensing department of ITTF, but again, it's difficult to reach someone there (huge company).

This topique is far from over.

 

[\_Kairos_/]

Well, Contra currently has the Mark V rubbers on regular sale, which they often have...

However:

The printed retailer's brochure advertised those marked down YASAKA rubbers with "JETZT ZUGREIFEN! Die Zulassung dieser Beläge läuft zum Ende der Saison aus."

... refers to all the Hallmark rubbers in the brochure, which are going to be discontinued and therefore lose their ITTF approval. The Mark V rubbers are not affected and will continue to be produced.
Case closed for me.

 

[Taute]

Well good that i have asked. And sorry however, this topique be still on-going until we have official confirmation (e.g. from an ITTF official) regarding what is what. The printed retailer's brochure advertised those marked down YASAKA rubbers with "JETZT ZUGREIFEN! Die Zulassung dieser Beläge läuft zum Ende der Saison aus."

@haggisv I wouldn't agree with your assessment/interpretation of the current situation. I read somewhere else on the internets or was it chatgpt that from this 2024 year on all "legal", i.e. so-called approved rubbers must bear their LARC number on the rubber sheets. Yes for this to happen the production of the rubbers needs to be adjusted: new moulds, which costs time and money. This change of production/moulds can be seen, for example, on the Yinhe Mercury2 2023 production vs 2024 production, both rubbers which i own.
Also it is safe to assume that the company XYZ needs to pay a re-curring annual or whatnot fee (let's call it "license fee") to the ITTF in order to keep the approval status ("license") valid/active/nonexpired for all the XYZ rubbers which bear the LARC number.

My interpretation of the LARC url is: appearing in the list just means that the company XYZ once submitted their rubber (a long time ago) to the ITTF, of course, with the intent of getting an approval, and they might have even gotten the approval for it, but, after some time of non-renewal, the approval's status expired and the LARC number got withdrawn/canceled/whatever. So the LARC url serves exactly this purpose: to check whether a XYZ rubber is still, currently, approved or not. To be currently approved (i.e. with a non-expired license), the rubber must have a LARC number, AND the LARC number has to be embossed in the rubber sheet, AND the current date must be before the expiry date. That's my interpretation.

We should get absolute/official confirmation on this topique, and then list all popular rubbers (e.g. classic rubbers) which are "not legal" anymore, starting this season or next season.

Very correct answer. All new rubbers (newly manufactured) require an ITTF number, rubbers that have been included in the LARC for a long time may not have one.
ITTF Quality Programme For Rocket Coverings everything is written very clearly: "The racket covering which is listed in the LARC is authorised for the period given in the header of the website. " Than (4.2.): "If we don´t get any message that one of your products should be withdrawn, we will send you a mail to confirm that all products should stay authorised end of the year. Afterward we will send the invoice about the authorisation fee for the coming year. After we received your payment all products will stay on our lists. "
In other words: if the production of rubber started even 10 years ago, without any ITTF number, such rubber can be manufactured and used as long as the tax is paid: it will remain on the LARC .

 

[plunder]

okok, you got me haha.
You guys were right, indeed. But i was right too: the companies need to pay an annual fee for each rubber model to keep them approved/listed/authorised.
And it is (for the time being) sufficient for a rubber to simply be on the list, even without an assigned approval code in that list.

True so far.

I was wrong about YASAKA, sorry, i had misread/misunderstood the st*nky brochure. It is correct and true though that Yinhe Milky Way Milkyway had their rubbers on the LARC for years without any approval code up until 2023, then got/assigned an "Expires On" date, and then got an approval code ("LARC number" "ITTF number") assigned with which they modified the production mould from 2024 on. So now, their old rubbers like the Mercury2, do have an approval code listed in the LARC and it is embossed in the new production of the rubber.

Yinhe sets a good example.
Much better than Yasaka and Butterfly. 😛


... dang this thread makes me feel like an idi*t 🤪