Displaying 1 - 6 of 6

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
342May 28, 2022Ross

Never had an issue with the prior rule, but this is fine as well.

342June 8, 2022Tom

I disagree with this proposed rule change. Understanding of the current teminology is implied and not difficult to understand. In 9 years I've never seen this as an issue.

342June 19, 2022Mike

As some have stated, they have no problem with the current rule, because its meaning is implied. Rules shouldn't leave their meanings to what they may imply, or what someone may infer. They should be make to codify and clarify, which the rule doesn't do now. There is a post going around now on the PB forum where people are stating the rule, and others are saying that the ball hit them in the knee and went over, and their knee was below their wrist. If you want to keep the current rule, I suggest the change to "Distal to the wrist." However, why is the wrist excluded when it is part of the hand?

342July 6, 2022Beth

Rule is fine as written it applies only to hands that are in contact with the paddle at the time the ball is struck and correctly defines hand as the portion below the wrist. The wrist is not part of the hand it is a joint that connects connects the hand to the forearm ... the words "excluding the wrist" opens the door for other interpretations.

342July 6, 2022Brien

The actual medical/science term should be "distal to the wrist" .

342July 11, 2022Kevin

"Depends on what the definition of is, is" Bill Clinton

Don't let lawyers write rule books.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment