Displaying 1 - 12 of 12

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
925March 30, 2023Stan

There is precedence in the rules to allow for water breaks that do not impede the flow of the game (Officiating Handbook 5.G.b - Allow players to quickly hydrate and towel off between rallies or when there is an interruption in play that does not require their attention).

Many other sports (including MLP) allow for sideline coaching in between plays.

One argument for allowing coaching during a game is that it can enhance the learning experience for players, especially for those who are new to the sport.

Coaching during a game can provide players with immediate feedback on their performance and allow them to adjust their strategy and technique accordingly. This can help players to improve their skills and develop their understanding of the game more quickly than if they were relying solely on their own observations and analysis.

Additionally, coaching during a game can help to level the playing field between more experienced and less experienced players. If experienced players are allowed to coach others less experienced during a game, it can help to bridge the skill gap and create a more competitive and enjoyable experience for all players involved.

Furthermore, allowing coaching during a game can also create a more social and collaborative atmosphere among players. Players can work together to develop strategies and improve their gameplay, which can foster a sense of camaraderie and teamwork.

However, it's important to note that not all players may agree with allowing coaching during a game. Some may argue that it disrupts the flow of the game and takes away from the individual challenge of playing. Some may say that it also could create an unfair advantage for players who can afford a coach.

In summary, coaching during a game can provide players with a range of benefits that can help them improve their skills, develop effective strategies, and maintain a positive attitude both on and off the court.

925April 10, 2023Walt

I might have read the proposed change incorrectly. It appears to ban all coaching, including during time outs and in between games.

925April 24, 2023tom

I would probably support this change. It happens all the time and is often difficult for the referee to deal with. Most spectators don't even know this rule so we're out there trying to teach them the rule while officiating the match. Also, friends who do know the rule oftern coach quietly or clandestinely. There's so much noise out there anyway, what's a little more?

925April 28, 2023Bill

From watching MLP, I like the idea of allowing coaching during play. The only thing I would like to add that may happen is spectators of a match may begin to take out their frustrations with the match on the referee. Even though I agree coaching will add more fan involvement, I don't want to see it come as a bad experience for the referee. The referee should still be able to issue a technical warning or technical foul if the fans of a team were not coaching their team, but taking out their frustrations of the match on the referee.

925May 2, 2023Georgeann

Why not make it like tennis where when they’re on the court there’s no coaching at all?
If coaching is allowed, who do we draw the line with? Just their coach or spectators?

925May 2, 2023Chuck

I would support coaching, but only between rallies.

925May 2, 2023Mary

While it sounds like a good idea to allow coaching as we think about the details and logistics it may open up more questions and process change than we think. Therefore, it may not be prudent to move ahead with this until there is time to think all this through. Here are a few questions/scenarios (I'm sure there are more):
1. If a team does have a someone to coach them and they are playing on a landlocked court where 3 sides are other courts and only one side is available for the public to sit, how would the team in the back of the court get the coaching between rallies?
2. On a Ref call someone suggested having the 'coach' walk onto the playing surface/court between points to give coaching to the team that is the back of the landlocked court. Alternately the team could walk to the coach. However, both of those scenarios will certainly interrupt the flow of the game and could be used in lieu of taking a time-out if the opponents are on a roll scoring points.
3. In addition, how much time between rallys would be allowed for the coaching? Is it a longer amount of time for one team vs the other if the court is landlocked? Will the Ref have to time it? What if it is taking too long? Fault? TW?
4. If a Coach or a spectator calls 'out' immediately after the ball hits the ground but before the player/team makes a line call, could that influence the call that the player/team makes on that ball? Would we have to limit coaching until after the outcome of the rally is determined? So what is the point that the outcome of the rally is determined? When the ref says point/second server/side out? Do we have to wait to see if the other team appeals or says they are not appealing? Maybe allowable 'coaching' between rallys excludes line calls? Are there other types of coaching that should be excluded?
5. Coaching between rallys adds time to each game/match thereby elongating already long days at tournaments. Would there be a limit to the amount of times coaching can occur? 10-15 seconds after each rally adds up quickly. Coaching probably won't happen after each rally but does it need to be limited?

925May 9, 2023Howard

With crowds growing, it's often difficult for a referee to determine where the coaching came from and sometimes, to whom the coaching is directed. Also, coaching from the sideline isn't always an advantage as it may often be confusing or disruptive to a player. I believe that coaching outside of a timeout period isn't necessarily an advantage or disadvantage - it really can be either. Therefore, the biggest issue to me is this: does coaching outside of a time out disrupt the flow of the game/match? As a referee, I'd rather use my discernment to manage the flow of the game, rather than to determine whether coaching occurred or not, outside of allowed times. Also, since we are allowing smart watches on the court, players that wear them may or may not have an advantage, as they can receive coaching via the watch at any time. This is not ours to monitor per se, and adds to the list of reasons why the referee has less and less control over coaching outside of a time out period. Let's focus on keeping the flow of the match at a good pace, and if coaching slows that down, it can be addressed. Please allow coaching as this rule change request indicates.

925May 15, 2023BOB

Some wording should be added to prevent coaching from the referee, since the proposed wording would, in theory allow this. Maybe that should be addressed in the Officiating Handbook...

925May 15, 2023Norman

Great idea. It's very hard to try to look for and detect coaching while trying to ref a match effectively.

925May 31, 2023Marsha

The current coaching rule is difficult to enforce as coaching can be virtually impossible to detect, especially if there is a concerted effort to do so inconspicuously. Cheering spectators are becoming more prevalent at pickleball tournaments, most of whom are not aware of the coaching restriction, which further complicates control of coaching statements. Plus, communication is sometimes made in foreign languages and the referee has no idea of what is being said. Referees can become focused on trying to detect a coaching violation and detract their full attention from the play action on the court. Another shortcoming of the rule is that a spectator who has no affiliation with a player can subject the player to a technical warning. If a player is fully locked into a match or the environment is noisy, any comments from spectators will likely not be noticed by the player and have no impact on the play. Even if a player hears coaching, the player must be able to apply the information to benefit from it.

Since it is difficult to control what spectators spontaneously shout during a match, no penalty against players should be tied to spectator comments. However, control can be applied as to when players can seek coaching, advice, or other conversation. To alleviate the coaching dilemma, a rule should be added to Section 10 stating that players may converse with spectators only during time-outs. Spectators should be allowed to speak/shout at players between rallies as long as the communication is one-way, brief, and non-offensive. If a player wants to carry on a conversation with a spectator or prolong listening to a spectator (which may or may not involve coaching), the player should be required to take a time-out. The referee should be empowered to call a time-out against a player who engages in communication with a spectator between rallies. (A verbal warning can be issued on the first occurrence.) If the player has no time-outs, a technical warning should be assessed against the player.

925May 31, 2023Melody

I do not believe the coaching rules should be changed. Part of pickleball is the mental ability to identify what shots to hit to the opponent, to also identify the opponents weakness. It is also a mental part to identify our own errors as we play. Allowing more coaching will take the game of picklebsll to who can afford a coach or who can afford the better coach. Yes it can be hard to catch all coaching but it should be contained to TO or between rallies. I also agree that some courts set up do not allow equal access to coaches on both ends of the court. So allowing more coaching may actually favor one team at critical times in the match. It will also slow down the flow of the game and impact the length of a tournament match.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment