Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
1779May 15, 2024Michele

Think this is a bad idea. Some “lets” are subtle and what prevents the wrong receiver that decided to go in and return the legal but short serve, & then claim it was a let. Easily abused rule. A “let” and legal (lands in the service court) but is very difficult to return, is just one of those “lucky” shots, just like balls that roll down net at other times during rally besides the serve.

1779May 16, 2024Dennis

This is technically allowed in 4.B.9.a. "If the referee or a player stops a rally in progress to correctly identify a player/position error, the rally shall be replayed. If a player stops a rally and incorrectly identifies a player/position error, it is a fault on the player who stopped the rally. If the referee stops a rally in progress and incorrectly identifies a player/position error, the rally shall be replayed."

If the wrong player receives the ball, it is a player error per 4.B.9.a and the rally can be immediately stopped and replayed, or if the rally is played out without anyone stopping play it shall stand.

This is a technical loophole of 4.B.9.a in that if a serve looks like the correct receiver won't be able to return it, the receiver's partner can reach out and hit it after it bounces and immediately call "wrong player error", and they would replay the rally without penalty, per the wording of 4.B.9.a.

1779May 18, 2024Neal

Definitely a twist that should be given consideration. It would give short fair let serves a chance at being played and might keep some intended receivers from hurting themselves. If the servers believe it wasn't a true let serve they can simply stop play as currently allowed. The tactic that is proposed is currently legal with play being continuable if the servers permit; however, poaching by the receiver's partner is treated as underhanded or illegal.

1779May 30, 2024Don

This rule suggestion is equivalent to 'allowing dogs and cats to live together"--it creates a new rule that would directly contradict another well-established rule (4.B.7 - "The correct server must serve from the correct service court, and the correct receiver must receive the serve.") in one very specific scenario. You may as well change 4.B.7 to "The correct receiver must receive the serve--but just not if the serve touches the net cord on a serve."

The ball hitting the net -and the result of this--is part of the game. In some cases, the serve that hits the net does not clear the NVZ; in others, it does. Fundamentally allowing a non-receiver to magically become a receiver in one fairly uncommon scenario makes the Rulebook more complex, not less.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment