Why do people say LP's should be banned?

[NextLevel]

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.

No it is not, Chemical is a universal term applying to just about anything. Even sweat is a chemical treatment. Things considered and not considered chemical treatments need to be specified. I clean my racket with my breath all the time. That is not a chemical treatment? Or using plastic sheets to cover the rubber which can enhance or reduce playing properties? Drying or freezing rubbers?

 

[NextLevel]

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.

It very well does. If cleaning my racket is prohibited by an interpretation of the rule, the rule is too broad to be taken seriously. It is like having a rule that says it is illegal for people to give birth to a child outside a medical facility. If that prevents people from giving birth at home like they have done for most of human history, then the rule is too restrictive to be taken seriously. Generous interpretation cannot save it.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

It prohibits it by players and is silent on its use by manufacturers. And this is because?

If the rule prohibiting this can be seen as a rejection of cleaning your own rubbers, it needs to be rewritten quite frankly.

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 cover-off things such as rubber cleaner etc. We need no further clarity on the use of booster by players since 2.4.7 is already clear on this.

 

[longrange]

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 then you will fall foul of rule 2.4.7 because you will be applying a chemical treatment to the rubber. There is no problem with continuing to play with a rubber when the manufacturers booster has worn-off because the wearing-off of a booster is clearly not you applying any sort of treatment to the racket covering.

You still have to justify the "line". Why boosting is ok by factory but not by players. To the moment you've been doing this circularly: "There's a rule in the rule book. Why is this rule? Because in the rule book." But it's not what I'm asking. You want to guilt trip people accusing them on cheating, but you don't justify the rule.

Let me help you. The prohibition of the speed glue was justified by one young player allegedly dying of sniffing glue. (I don't buy this, but let it slide for the argumen's sake). So, the ITTF decided to step in and protect the health of the youth not letting them inhaling VOC. (Corporations often fight a straw man to their benefit). Ok, what's the justification from the real world for banning boosters? Apart from the rubber cartel wanting money, that is.

 

[NextLevel]

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 cover-off things such as rubber cleaner etc. We need no further clarity on the use of booster by players since 2.4.7 is already clear on this.

If you agree the rule should be rewritten for clarity. And you keep focusing on what the rule bans that you find important, but not on all the things the rule also bams that you find unimportant, do you understand at least why no one can take you seriously?

 

[TritOnil189]

I keep seeing on many forums people that hate lp's and want them banned. They think that they have an unfair advantage and that they require no skill to use.

Personally I've played against many lp blockers and defenders and I've never had an issue.

So why do so many people hate them? Are they that bad that they can't understand what to do against them, or are they just stupid?

I honestly can't understand what's going on in their heads. It's standardised equipment, maybe I would understand it if it was boosting in the question or hiding serves, but to me this just seems ridiculous and lazy from their part and not wanting to practice and study about them.

personally i dont have a problem with them either

 

[longrange]

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.

Boosting rubber's sponge is not a chemical treatment, period. It's at most physicochemical process from the point of view of chemistry, because no conversion of substances occurs.

Oxidation of rubber's top sheet, for example, is a chemical process on the other hand.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

You still have to justify the "line". Why boosting is ok by factory but not by players. To the moment you've been doing this circularly: "There's a rule in the rule book. Why is this rule? Because in the rule book." But it's not what I'm asking. You want to guilt trip people accusing them on cheating, but you don't justify the rule.

Let me help you. The prohibition of the speed glue was justified by one young player allegedly dying of sniffing glue. (I don't buy this, but let it slide for the argumen's sake). So, the ITTF decided to step in and protect the health of the youth not letting them inhaling VOC. (Corporations often fight a straw man to their benefit). Ok, what's the justification from the real world for banning boosters? Apart from the rubber cartel wanting money, that is.

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 boosters by players, and that therefore if a player applies booster they are breaking rule 2.4.7?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

If you agree the rule should be rewritten for clarity. And you keep focusing on what the rule bans that you find important, but not on all the things the rule also bams that you find unimportant, do you understand at least why no one can take you seriously?

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 throughout our exchange, it would appear that of the two people that apparently don't take me seriously, one actually agrees with the main tenet of my position!

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Boosting rubber's sponge is not a chemical treatment, period. It's at most physicochemical process from the point of view of chemistry, because no conversion of substances occurs.

Oxidation of rubber's top sheet, for example, is a chemical process on the other hand.

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!

 

[longrange]

Yes, I can come up with a 'line' for you.

But when you are called out on your justifications

Actually I don't have to justify the "line".

...you don't have to.

The purpose of my posts is only to point out that the line does in fact exist.

I said that I don't see any reason for a line to exist to begin with and you said: see the beginning of this post.

 

[longrange]

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.

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!

And I'm saying you're incompetent to discuss these matters if you can't use correct terminology and correctly distinguish phenomena. And "chemical" vs "physical" is essential here, because if I can drag boosting under "physical treatment" umbrella, it'll reside there on par with cleaners and my sweat.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

But when you are called out on your justifications

...you don't have to.

I said that I don't see any reason for a line to exist to begin with and you said: see the beginning of this post.

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 have I ever tried to 'justify' the rule in any other sense than that.

 

[longrange]

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 have I ever tried to 'justify' the rule in any other sense than that.

And then you've been correctly pointed out that LARC has nothing to do with sponges, but you still insist. Do you remember we are talking about boosting sponges?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

And I'm saying you're incompetent to discuss these matters if you can't use correct terminology and correctly distinguish phenomena. And "chemical" vs "physical" is essential here, because if I can drag boosting under "physical treatment" umbrella, it'll reside there on par with cleaners and my sweat.

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 that it isn't a physical treatment either, nor any other form of treatment. So there's the challenge for you; define boosting in a way that is neither chemical treatment, physical treatment, nor any other sort of treatment!

 

[longrange]

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 that it isn't a physical treatment either, nor any other form of treatment. So there's the challenge for you; define boosting in a way that is neither chemical treatment, physical treatment, nor any other sort of treatment!

I can proudly state that I violate 2.4.7 physically treating my rubbers with my sweat every single training session. Several times an hour, actually.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

And then you've been correctly pointed out that LARC has nothing to do with sponges, but you still insist. Do you remember we are talking about boosting sponges?

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 because it is always a rubber and an attached sponge that is sent for approval. Rule 2.4.7 prohibits post-manufacture chemical, physical or other treatments to racket coverings (not just the upper rubber!), therefore you as a player cannot boost the sponge.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

I can proudly state that I violate 2.4.7 physically treating my rubbers with my sweat every single training session. Several times an hour, actually.

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.

 

[NextLevel]

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 throughout our exchange, it would appear that of the two people that apparently don't take me seriously, one actually agrees with the main tenet of my position!.

Usually I judge by whether people are liking your posts. My discussing with you is just about the last word phenomenon, your arguments are precisely the kind that most serious organizations gave up on using years ago in their ethical manuals. By this I mean that if you join an association of chartered accountants , they try to make sure their ethical instructions are practical, not deontological. Don't confuse that with taking you seriously.

 

[NextLevel]

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 boosters by players, and that therefore if a player applies booster they are breaking rule 2.4.7?

Do you acknowledge that following that rule as written would prohibit a large number of perfectly reasonable things that you and all players do that would be deemed perfectly legai by you and which you have argued are perfectly legal based on the same rule?