Why can't we have interchangeable sponge and rubbers top sheets?

[SlowPower]

There are many ox pimples out rubbers you can also get with different sponges.
All have the same number, so i assume the topsheet is approved for its own.
Sponge verwion: How can you tell if the sponge is the one glued in the factory or by the user?

You cant.
A friend of mine who is also chief referee does glue his own sponge to his pimples out rubbers and says its ok with the rules.

 

[Gtsnake]

There are many ox pimples out rubbers you can also get with different sponges.
All have the same number, so i assume the topsheet is approved for its own.
Sponge verwion: How can you tell if the sponge is the one glued in the factory or by the user?

You cant.
A friend of mine who is also chief referee does glue his own sponge to his pimples out rubbers and says its ok with the rules.

Where can he find just the sponge? I've never seen just sponges for sale without a top sheet.

 

[SlowPower]

Same topic came up in a german forum 2009.
They asked ittf official and he stated via e-mail:

Odd Gustavsen bestätigte auf Emailanfrage, dass
"ITTF only authorises the top sheet, not the sponge. The Law 2.4.3. governs the use of sponge."


But the discussion also pointed out, that ittf planned to change the approvements to include sponges from 2010 on.
I dont know if this process has ever been changed, as the larc never lists sponges.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Same topic came up in a german forum 2009.
They asked ittf official and he stated via e-mail:

Odd Gustavsen bestätigte auf Emailanfrage, dass
"ITTF only authorises the top sheet, not the sponge. The Law 2.4.3. governs the use of sponge."


But the discussion also pointed out, that ittf planned to change the approvements to include sponges from 2010 on.
I dont know if this process has ever been changed, as the larc never lists sponges.

nope, its still unapproved.

so far it is only top sheet (mainly focus on the pip structure etc).
sponge is not part of the database.

and having said that, there (racket control at tournaments) has no equipment to check if the pips matches the database. They only really just check the registration number.

there is a lot of planning on ITTF side, some makes sense, but a lot of them is an implementation issue. Just like reduce wood in blade that was put to vote at the most recent agm. No blade maker could do it yet.

 

[SlowPower]

@Stuart Marquis
Are you playing international matches? Wow!

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

I would then say that a player peeling apart a topsheet and a sponge and then recombining the top sheet with a different sponge is an example of a "physical treatment" because it has created a structural change to the covering...

and say if someone has the time, energy and sanity to even do it, chances of the topsheet and/or sponge will be breakable is so high. Quality of "bonding" is a total separate topic all together.

its a pointless debate, since no one will do it.

ITTF rules isn't bullet proof.

Few months ago, out of curiosity, I raised a valid (very possible) example with a top referee (served as deputy referee at the previous Olympics) and she basically said, well, if the rules isn't clear enough or covers something new, she would send it onto the rules and regulations committee and they will normally sort it out.

The example i used was - since currently rulings allow for a racket of any shape/size. So say, I make a thor hammer racket.
Put 2 racket covering on any of the 5 (hit-able) sides, thus leaving 3 being plain wood (anti spin effect).
And when the ball hit the plain wood part, will it be a legal contact or not (similar to the edge of the current 2 surface blades).

She said, based on the current ruling it is allowed (anything on the playing hand is allowed - including edge of racket) and not allowed (contact needs to be on racket covering). But if it becomes a problem, they will very likely address it to make it more clearer and she feels, the antispin / wood effect will no longer be allowed if it is a deliberate tactic.

 

[lodro]

H3 neo is just a factory tuned H3, so it has the same topsheet!

The why is the neo top rubber less sticky than the standard H3
If only the sponge is tuned it should not affect the topsheet

 

[lodro]

I agree that much of what we’ve said in this thread demonstrates that our positions on the matter are quite similar…but that just makes it all the more bizarre that you’ve chosen to latch onto this relatively minor and inconsequential error on my part and make such a big deal about it!

That is the trolls job, they just can't leave it. 😂

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

<yawn>
Enjoy your going in circles & back peddling
I am not falling for your games again
You (& TonysTabllTennis & most others) initially did not even know the difference between a rule & regulation until I had to point that out 3 times & now you are back peddling & talking about common sense . That is hilarious

haha
yeah, I don't know the differences haha
comedy central on ttd

Time to do some real table tennis now with my heavily boosted hurricane🏓

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

If only the sponge is tuned it should not affect the topsheet

Just saw this as I had to unhide ignoring content.

Tor general knowledge, boosting sponge will affect topsheet.
The light boosting of NEO, i'm not sure how much it would but boosting affect topsheet is pretty much standard.

But I think it is also important to understand that many Chinese rubbers makers have non-organic rubber (NEO H3) and organic rubber (H3).

As I said before, LARC is on pip structure, and the color code of the topsheet.
The rest, DHS for example is able to mix and match greatly (ie pairing with 20# sponge, 22#sponge, using different materials, using different specs for sponge and topsheet)