OK maybe I was wrong to think you were joking.
You are correct . Most people assume it means all round
I was referring to
Aspect Ratio of pips
The maximum limits for slim and wide pips was set at the Birmingham BGM in 1977.
For a rubber to be called a wide pips (ITTF calls it "out") it must have an Aspect Ratio less than
0.89
For a rubber to be called a slim pips (ITTF deceptively call it "long") it must have an Aspect Ratio less than
1.3
This was the setting between 1983 & 1998
Starting with 1999 , the maximum aspect ratio for slim pips was reduced from 1.3 down to
1.1
This is known as the
1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Massacre (of choppers)
The aspect ratio of pips is a dimensionless number . It is the value obtained by dividing the pip length (ot height) by the pip width (or diameter).
The maximum allowed pip length for any pips is 2.05 mm after 202 (it was 2.00 mm between 1977 and 2024)
So if you divide 2.05 by 1.1 this gives the minimum required pip width for slim pips which is 1.86 mm. The pip width cannot be any less PERIOD for any pips on ITTF's LARC
If you divide 2.05 by 0.89 this gives the minimum required pip width for slim pips which is 2.30 mm. The pip width cannot be any less to qualify as wide pips
So I hope this makes it clear as to why you cannot use the terms short and long pips , because the maximum allowed pip length for any pips is the same PERIOD. The difference oly come come the width of the pips NOT the length.
Of course traditionally the wide pips were shorter. But you cannot use the short pips and long pips definitions because it is (intentionally) misleading.
Why ? Because
all long pips were banned in
1977 at the Birmingham BGM by setting the maximum allowed pip length for any type of pips at 2.00 mm