Revised proposed 6.C.11. "Players may overrule a partner’s line call, their own line call, an officiating team’s line call, an opponent's line call, or a final "IN" ruling/decision to their own disadvantage."

The first part covers immediate reversals of OUT calls. The final clause covers OUT calls that are discussed or appealed to partners, opponents, or referees, becoming "IN rulings", decisions that can be overturned to OUT. CALLS and RULINGS are different. Ideally 6.C.11. would cover both.

Throughout Section 6, initial Line Calls are OUT calls made on one's own court. OUT calls can be overturned to IN by a partner or by appeal to the opponents or referee. The results of these proceedings are referred to in the rules as RULINGS or DECISIONS. There is much confusion over the term "ruling", but it has an established meaning in the rule book.

6.C.1. "....A call made by the opponent can be appealed to the referee for a final “in” or “out” DECISION."
6.C.5. "....If the referee cannot make a clear call, the outcome of the opponent’s RULING will stand...."
13.G.1.g. "Challenging the referee’s DECISION or RULING ...."
13.J. "When the referee’s RULING or DECISION is incorrect, the RULING will be reversed...."
Dictionary def of RULING: "a DECISION of someone in authority, such as a judge."

6.C.11. (fka 6.C.12.) was initially created to allow overrule of line calls and final decisions to a player's or team's own disadvantage. However, the rule is most often cited to support the practice of calling one's own shots OUT on the opponent's court. Though the original 2025 proposal using "IN RULING" was submitted to clarify that the rule applied only to overrule of final decisions, the term "IN RULING" was construed to apply to a shot's "implied IN" status, where no call being made, one would be allowed to immediately call there own shots OUT on the opponent's court.

Though it seems good sportsmanship, many object to this application of 6.C.11., noting that line call assignments are clearly delineated and the current process of appeal to opponents is adequate. Others note that 13.D.1.a. already allows calling faults on oneself. In discussions about quizzing the line caller's partner, Mark P. posted the following:

Mark: "And yes, the team that has the responsibility to make the call can appeal to their opponents or the referee to satisfy their responsibility in Section 6 to get the right call. But that is them initiating the request for help. That is decidedly different than me offering the unsolicited 'help'."

Mark: "Also important: this isn’t about restricting communication—it’s about assigning responsibility. The team on the side where the ball landed owns the call."

Another reason using 6.C.11. for unsolicited far court OUT calls is not intuitive is that it depends on a concept of "implied" or imaginary IN calls, which can then be overruled to OUT. Implied unvoiced IN "calls" are not yet supported by the rule book. An additional issue with using 6.C.11. is that it bypasses the entire line call Section 6. When a player takes control of the far court line call, even if all the other players disagree with his OUT call, there's no remedy to appeal or correct the call. That's why I included overruling an "opponent's" call of OUT made on one's own court. Receivers would have the final say on the call, one they didn't choose to yield to the team striking the ball. The receivers can overturn the OUT call to IN, to their own disadvantage, meeting 6.C.11.'s purpose.

A simpler way to settle 6.C.11. confusion would be to add far court line calls of OUT to line call assignments. They are notably absent in 6.C.1. and 13.D.1.c.. I have submitted proposals for this to be added to these two rules. If they pass, it will no longer be necessary to use 6.C.11. for far court OUT calls. It will be perfectly clear it's an accepted practice.

The current rules already address what this proposed change is trying to achieve.

A player who hits a ball that goes out on the opponents’ end of the court may call their ball out, per Rule 6.C.11., which states “Players may overrule a partner’s line call, their own line call, an officiating team’s line call, or an “in” ruling to their own disadvantage.” When an opposing team does not call a ball out, by rule it is “in”. Hence, it’s an “in” ruling, which may be overruled by the player who hit the ball out.

Furthermore, lines calls are extensively covered in Section 6, but readers miss that there is one aspect about calling your own ball out that is specifically covered in Section 13.D. In fact, the title of 13.D. is “Player Line and Fault Call Responsibilities”, emphasis on “Line”. And immediately following the title, one finds the rules for “Non-Officiated Play”, with the first rule , 13.D.1.a., stating “… players are expected to call any type of fault on themselves or their partner as soon as the fault is committed or detected”. The title specifically mentions “line and fault”, and the rule specifically states “any type of fault”, which includes lines. (And the section “13.D.2. Officiated Play.” has similar rules and wording.)