1) In actual fact the ITTF receives at every AGM a proposal to change the service rule. This started a very long time ago but I can confirm that since I joined the ITTF Executive Board in 1989 the ITTF AGM always had a proposal to modify or change the service rule to make it easier and clearer to implement the rule. I can recall proposals from Germany several times, from the Czech Republic, from the Rules Committee and many others. Because a change to the LAWS to table tennis requires 75% votes in favour, most of these proposals did not pass. But about two years ago, after the acceptance of the change to the 40mm ball, it seems that the members associations of the ITTF saw an opportunity to bring about more change. Also the committees and the Athletes Commission saw an opportunity to make improvements. So we started to receive proposals to change the counting system and to change the service rule already in 1999 and 2000.

2) Why did the proposal of the rule change come out?

2) In general we are all trying to improve table tennis. The 40 mm change was the first big step. Then based on a proposal by the Athletes ommission and supported by the ITTF EC the 11 points idea was introduced. Many xperiments took place and it was obvious that this was the right direction to take. Regarding the service rule, we continued to receive many proposals at the AGM for a change to make the service less dominant and easier to implement the rule. But there was no consensus between the proposing associations. I decided as President of the ITTF to form a working group, Chaired by the Rules Committee Chairman and including many prominent table tennis experts, to study the matter and make a proposal to the ITTF. Many experiments took place and we received the final proposal before the AGM in Osaka. We prepared a clear visual presentation and presented to the delegates a new alternative to the service rule. This was passed but with an implementation date of 1 September 2002, in order not to make two changes (counting system) at the same time.

3) Which arguments and tests were there for this determination?

3) The main argument is that the service in table tennis had degenerated into a "hidden" and "camouflaged" technique that was detrimental to the sport. Spectators did not understand the service complexity (general public) and it looked very bad on TV. Only table tennis experts could appreciate the service technique. In reality in all sports there is a "service" element. Originally this means that one player puts the ball in play and "SERVES" it to his opponent. This is a very "gentlemanly" way. In Tennis, Badminton and Squash, this principle has been preserved. There is no hiding of the services. Yes, the service in Tennis is more and more powerful but this is mainly physical skill, the opponent, the umpire and the spectators can clearly see what is happening. On the other hand, in Table tennis the service action developed into "trickery" and hidden technique. We had to find a way to make the service "open" and visible to all as much as possible. Then only "skill" would determine the efficiency of a service technique and not "hidden" action that

spoils the beauty of our game.

4) What does the ITTF expect from this rule change?

4) We hope that the new rule will make our sport more open, easier for the spectators to understand and easier to follow on the TV screens. It will also make it easier for the Umpires to judge. But at the end what we really want is to make our sport more popular and more enjoyable to all.

Adham Sharara

ITTF President