Displaying 1 - 11 of 11

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
1834May 15, 2024Andrew

This rule will probably be controversial, but I think this would be a positive change. The primary reason to have this rule is to prevent return winners that clip the net and fall over. It's a mistake by the returning team that helps them automatically win the rally, since the serving team will be waiting behind the baseline. This rule would be easy to explain - "serve has to clear the kitchen and bounce in the correct half of the court, return has to clear the kitchen and can then bounce on either half of the court". No one will long for the good old days when they used to be able to return it into the kitchen.

1834May 15, 2024Don

This feels like a rather arbitrary new rule with no practical benefit. Two kinds of returns end up in the kitchen: well placed 'surprise' returns--either using a drop shot or sometimes taking advantage of the wind on outdoor courts--and those returns that clip the top of the net and drop in the NVZ. While conventional play often suggests keeping a opponent deep in their zone, that is not the only technique used to keep an opponent guessing about what kind of ball will be played next. Adding this rule would insert a unnecessary level of complexity, reduce strategy, and be a silly technique to rid the game of a shot that the author feels is merely unfair or unfortunate. Why create a new rule for the second shot but not the third or fourth? I'd submit that a return in the NVZ is not a stain on the game and introducing a new rule to prevent that i just not needed.

1834May 16, 2024Dennis

This rule should not be implemented because it would possibly penalize a serve that causes a weak return. Hitting a drop shot into the NVZ when your opponent is at the baseline is a legitimate strategy. Why shouldn't it be allowed on the service return? The 2 bounce rule doesn't mean that every rally can only legitimately "start" after the serving team has had a fair chance to hit the ball after the second bounce. Otherwise, it would be called the 2 bounce and 2 hit rule.

1834May 16, 2024Enrique

The author of this proposal writes in the Reasoning section “This creates a somewhat common scenario with an indefensible shot when the ball lands in the NVZ. ….. I feel this example is the most indicative of the problem since there is just no defense against a dead dink on the return of serve.” Well, the objective of every player is to hit a shot that the opponent cannot defend against and cannot return. This proposed rule goes against the essence of the game. And, by the way, there are players who do get to those seemingly indefensible shots and their play, whether a successful return or not, greatly enhances the excitement and enjoyment of the game.

1834May 16, 2024Michele

Do not support. At any time in a rally, a ball may hit net and take short or unusual bounce. That is part of the game. As is the option, which is actually risky, as it pulls the opponent up to the non volley zone, of doing a short “drop” return. This is one of those times where one with good sportsmanship just says “nice shot”.

1834May 17, 2024Donna

No. No. No. The two bounce rule makes a lot sense, but making a drop shot on the return of serve a fault is a terrible idea and merely adds one more rule to a game burdened with excessive rules. A second shot drop is not the norm, but it’s fun to take your opponents by surprise. If they’re watching your paddle, they’ll see it coming. This suggestion reminds me of people who want to make lobs illegal in games with people over 70.

1834May 19, 2024Trey

I don't support this change.
- The undefendable "dead dink" (where ball hits the tape and dribbles over) is very rare.
- Normal dink returns into the NVZ are defendable.
- Returns into the NVZ bring the returning side into a more advantageous position, which is why they aren't often employed.
- Pickleball doesn't need one more line-calling rule that will create more confusion for no good reason.

1834May 21, 2024jin

Not in support of this change. This rule is almost attempting to make it a controlled environment in which pickleball is played. There cannot be a lucky return that touches the top of the net and the ball falls in the NVZ. I have to account for a headwind to ensure that my return clears the NVZ.
There are no real reasons for implementing this rule change.

1834May 28, 2024Rich

I do not support this change. Anticipating your opponent's shot is part of the game. And the goal of the game is to his a shot which your opponent is unable to return. This seems very contrary to the objective of the game.

1834May 30, 2024Bruce

No no no.. I'm still working on the third shot drop if my second shot drops, do not penalize me, thanks.

1834May 31, 2024Bill

The only limitations on where a ball must land in the court is on the serve. After that the entire court is available to place your return. This rule is against all ability for the player returning the ball to be able to play. Sometimes on a great serve your only ability is to get your paddle on the ball and if it gets just over the net on return, you should not be penalized for making a great return.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment