Displaying 1 - 10 of 10

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
389May 28, 2022Ross

6.D.7 is clearly needed. It really got our club thinking about "Did I see it out or am I just hoping it was out?" So we need that language in some form. "Seeing" is more understandable than "exists" even though I understand the point that is being made.

389June 8, 2022Tom

I disagree with this proposed change. The intent of the current rule is, I believe, to encourage good sportsmanship. There is simply no way to be perfect about some line calls. We, as players should not call a ball out unless we are 100% sure. Referring to the authors scenario, we should not call a ball out that we did not clearly see. And yes, I sometimes defer to my opponent, realizing that I have now lost my rights for that line call. Moreove, we get to know players and they get to know us. Some players develop a reputation as a "stingy" line-caller. Some have a reputation as generous. And that reputation follows them.

389June 15, 2022Mike

Additionally, a singles player would not be able to call an out ball out a majority of the time. I have many pictures illustrating this. Is there a way of submitting pictures? Also, this is a rule that was misinterpreted from tennis, where a mark is often seen, and the rule was devised primarily for clay courts. The rule was something like, "A space must exist between where the ball lands and the line." That's much different than, "See a space between the line and the ball as it bounces." By creating this rule, you've made it illegal to call a ball that is 6 inches or more out, out, depending on where you're standing. Once again, singles players would be forced to play those balls. I also have pictures illustrating this. And the clincher is that players have to follow this rule, but refs don't?! I've questioned the head of the rules committee and the head of the refs, and both have said this was instituted because refs are unbiased and it would keep the cheating to a minimum. This shouldn't be the basis for a rule that must be followed by one group of people and not another. It should be the rules committee's responsibility or duty to police morality. If people are going to cheat, they're going to cheat. And nobody follows this rule anyway. Our brains are capable of interpolating and processing data without having to see a "space between the line and the ball as it bounces."

6.C Is a perfectly worded and sufficient rule.

389June 19, 2022Tyler

I agree that some ambiguity exists on the two rules, however, I would propose that consideration be put forth for what constitutes the out-ball. In soccer/football, the ball is not considered out of play until the entirety of the ball is no longer in the field of play. The field of play is a vertical field of play, so the boundary lines extend vertically: if the edge of a ball is "touching" the virtual,vertical line, it is still in play. Players are not required to adjudicate whether the contact point is entirely off the field of play. Instead, you watch for whether space is visual between the edge of the ball and the line.

In a sport where the majority of players are making their own line calls, teaching players to watch for the space, rather than to speculate whether or not the ball touched the line or not is more defensible. While this would effectively expand the field of play by 1-inch due to the end of ball determining in vs. out, it is negligible to allow a better (albeit still imperfect) bright line test for in/out calls.

The amendment therefore, would be to 6.C.A. that the entirety of a ball must be outside the line to be an "out ball."

389July 6, 2022Beth

Because player's perspective is rarely ever perfect (a view down the outside edge of the line) requiring they clearly see space between the line and the ball keeps them from guessing. The rule should stand, as-is

389July 9, 2022William

What about when the ball hits right next to the line, covering part of the line, but not actually touching the line? It will often appear "in" depending on where you are on the court, especially if you are the person who hit the ball. Here is a link from the USPA on this issue:

https://usapickleball.org/what-is-pickleball/how-to-play-old/basics/judging-ball-in-or-out/

Sort of gives a mixed message. Probably should be addressed in giving guidance.

389July 11, 2022Kevin

I whole heartedly agree that this rule should be changed. It is ridiculous to have such a significantly different rule for what is out and what you can call out. The reason for having definitions for what is in or out is to level the playing field. It doesn't really matter exactly what the definition of the "out" ball is as long as everyone is using the same definition. I understand the desire to use the "have to see a space" criteria to eliminate the occurrence of in balls being called out. The net effect of this rule is to widen the gap between "honest" line callers and the "In case of doubt, call it out" (ICODCIO) crowd. Is the ICODCIO player really going to change their calls because of this rule change or will they simply get the benefit of more "IN" calls from their opponents?

The geometry of the game is such that a ball can be clearly out of bounds but there will be no space visible to the player. If the line is between the player and the ball the rule is workable. An example of this would be making a crosscourt call on the opposite sideline. Any time the ball is between the player and the line the ball itself will block visibility of any gap between the line and the ball. This comes into play most of the time when returning deep serves or if you are pulled out wide of the sidelines and the ball is between you and the sideline.

How does this apply to short service calls? If I don't see a gap between the kitchen line and the ball can I call a fault since the ball is "in" the kitchen?

This rule is unenforceable by the referee so they cannot close the gap between the "Honest" or "ICODCIO". An example would be a deep serve that is just outside the baseline and the player is playing deep. Serving team appeals. The ball was out and the referee can see from their point of view that the ball is out. However, it is also obvious that the player could not have seen a gap between the line and the ball and therefore is in violation of the line calling rules. Is the referee supposed to call a fault because the line calling rule was violated?

If you take it a step further let's say the referee "believes" the ball caught the line but did not see it clearly enough to overrule the call. According to the referee handbook the referee cannot overturn a player's call unless they clear see the ball in. Although it is true that the referee doesn't have to see that gap to call it out they still have no way to enforce a situation where the ball is out but the player is in violation of the rule if they call it out. In reality the fact that the referee has a lower "burden of proof" to make an out call makes the situation worse.

Is anyone aware of any calls made by any referee in any tournament since this rule was adopted last year where the referee has determined that the ball was out but the player making the call violated the "see the gap" rule? As a referee if I made this call what step would I take to enforce the rule? Loss of point, technical warning, technical foul, a letter in their permnent file or ???? I am willing to bet the answer to this question is no. The rule is clearly unenforceable and therefore should be struck. The rule increases the disparities in line calling between honest and dishonest line callers and therefore should be struck

389July 15, 2022Sam

The rule as is works and not sure the change would solve the problem the proposer sees.

389July 23, 2022Mike

Anyone and everyone who plays Pickleball has and will continue to call a ball out without seeing a space between the ball and a line. Get real!! This was a ridiculous rule and is not enforced nor is rarely possible to accomplish. A ball can be easily out without seeing a space between the ball and the line. Our current system of rules cover the out calls sufficiently. Please get rid of this impossible rule

389July 27, 2022Tim

Do not make this change. Under the scenario that was provided, we are allowing the person with the absolute worst view of the play to make the call.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment