Displaying 1 - 50 of 582

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
34July 5, 2021Bill

... unless the player can clearly see that the ball contacted the court outside the line.

371July 13, 2022Marsha

"Am I the correct receiver?" is a valid question. Players ask this when they are lined up diagonally from a player who has the ball to serve but the player asking the question believes the player with the ball is not the correct server. I have had many players ask this question and they have not been confused when I answer "no"; they have never changed positions. The question and "no" answer does usually tip off the serving team that something is amiss with their positioning or sequence, so then the player with the ball will usually ask, "Am I the correct server?"

342July 11, 2022Kevin

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

Don't let lawyers write rule books.

277April 10, 2022Darla

"Out" is a perfectly good word for partner communication. This is the epitome of the complaint we hear about trying to control the minutiae of the sport. It's up to the players to *stay in the game* until the ball is dead. Play until the rally really ends -- don't support a team stopping play because one partner used a perfectly good and descriptive word to tell the other partner not to touch the ball.

40June 30, 2021Kevin

0-0-Start or 0-0-2 makes no big difference to me but I would not suggest the team serving first get 2 serves. It's like grade school when you pick teams. Do you want first pick or next two. This lessens the advantage of the team that serves first. If the first team were to get 2 serves it gives a bigger advantage to them.

320July 13, 2022Scott

1 & 2 I agree with are fine. #3 calling the score twice seems a bit much. Most people don't like calling out the score once.

7July 5, 2021Don

1. Why have a rule if it has no teeth? (Disagreement equals replay).
2. Guideline is inconsistent with broken/cracked ball rule. For a broken/cracked ball if all players don't agree, rally stands. With 13D1b, if all players don't agree, then replay. Inconsistent.

513June 20, 2022CHRIS

1) ELIMINATE ALL SIDE OUT SCORING, AS SOME ONE WHO HAS PLAYED BOTH WAYS, RALLY SCORING IS WAY BETTER. SIDE OUT SCORING CAUSES MATCHES TO GO WAY LONGER THEN THEY SHOULD.
2) HAVE ALL MATCHES PLAYED TO 21, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WIN BY 2 POINTS, FIRST ONE OR TEAM TO 21 WINS.
3) ELIMINATE ALL TIME OUTS, PLAY SHOULD BE CONTINUOUS, INSTEAD ALLOW FOR TWO CHALLENGES PER GAME ON LINE CALLS OR OTHER CALLS EXAMPLE DID THE OPPOSING PLAYER STEP ON THE KITCHEN LINE, AND AS SOON AS A PLAYER OR TEAM REACHES 11, THERE SHOULD BE A TWO MINUTE INTERVAL TO DRINK FLUIDS. COACHING IS ALSO PERMITTED DURING THE INTERVAL.
4) SWITCH SIDES DURING THE INTERVAL IN EVERY GAME, THAT WAY NO ONE GETS STUCK ON A TERRIBLE SIDE AND WHICH CAUSES THEM TO LOSE A GAME. ALL GAMES SHOULD BE EQUAL, AND MAY THE BEST PLAYER WIN.
5) DURING DOUBLES PLAY UNDER RALLY SCORING EACH SIDE GETS ONE SERVE, THE UMPIRE WILL ONLY HAVE TO CALL THE SCORE AND NOT WHO'S SERVING.
6) IN THE EVENT OF EXTREME HEAT AND HIGH HUMIDITY, THE UMPIRE NEEDS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALLOW PLAYERS TO TAKE FLUIDS, JUST DON'T TAKE A BREAK TO BREAK ONE PLAYERS MOMENTUM. THIS SHOULD BE DONE DURING A CHANGE OF SERVES.

536July 7, 2022Brett

4.K. Needs revising but not sure how this was completely addressed.

The March 14, 2022 Handbook 5.A.4 and 5.A.4.a, allows for answers to specific questions be answered such as “Where am I suppose to be positioned?” We can say the Left/Right side. Etc…

I respect that rallies should be determined by play and not by errors as addressed in this rule. There is a certain amount of player responsibility to know the rules and that includes the ability to know proper server/position/receiver. By approving this new rule we are now interjecting the referee into the Game/Match.

Players much keep the responsibility. Detailed answers to player questions will solve this but it should NEVER be a referee’s responsibly to correct player position/server/receiver.

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.

286May 31, 2022DANIEL

A 2 second pause after saying the score? Please no! 2 full seconds is WAY too long and unnecessary.

112July 8, 2021Tim

A big advantage of this would be that BOTH TEAMS know exactly where to stand and exactly who is serving just by knowing the score.

290June 18, 2022Michael

A couple of things on this rule, which I think is a great rules change suggestion:

1. At the time of service, the NVZ isn't in play. At the time of service, the service box is in play. The lines should reflect the service box that is in play, not the NVZ that isn't, other than you can't hit it in there. But you can't hit it out either. If a service hits a line on the service court, it's good. If it contacts the court outside the line and doesn't subsequently touch the line, then it's out. This shouldn't be any different for the baseline, sideline and middle service line, than it is for the NVZ line.

2. Back to my most despised rule in all of pickleball, "Seeing a space between the line and the ball as it bounces." According to the rules, if a person cant see a space between the line and the ball as it bounces, the ball is deemed to have touched the line and is good. So a server would not be able to see a space between the ball and the line, even if the ball were many inches out. He is then within his rights according to the rules, to determine that ball touched the line, therefore a fault.

31July 5, 2021Don

A referee can always call a TW/TF after the rally has completed and this prevents a referee from inserting themselves before the rally has ended. No rush needed.

31June 20, 2021Alan

A referee can and should be able to stop play to issues a TW or TF. If a player hits a ball causing it to pop up for an easy overhead winner and the just throw there paddle towards the net, that would be an instance where a referee could stop play and issue the TW/TF. This could be looked at as the referee stopping play for a distraction also and then issuing the TW/TF. There are circumstances where stopping play and issuing a TW/TF do occur though, so I feel that taking that wording out would bring up more confusion.

52July 5, 2021Don

A referee has many tools to use when getting players back playing. The same guidelines for getting them back playing after a time-out are used after every single rally; call the score when players should be ready. This is ALL you need to control the pace and flow of the game. Remove the handcuffs and let the referees control the flow of the game. This overly punitive and embarrassing for the sport rule needs to be corrected. It is an embarrassment to everyone involved and unnecessary.

275July 25, 2022Jeff

A truly awful idea. Just imagine players trying to head-butt a ball as a way to get an easy point. If you're worried about your eyes (which everyone should, to some degree), wear eye protection. Don't push for some stupid rule that will just encourage people to exploit it.

275July 12, 2022Paul

Absolutely NOT. Wear eye protection, as the onus is on you to protect yourself. This includes eye protection, proper footwear, and playing within your ability. Don’t get into a match with players that are over your capability, such as playing with other players that hit the ball hard.

275June 29, 2022DARIN

Absolutely unnecessary. Very few people target the head and people can get out of the way.

If it's a fault on the opponent then players will just allow every lob to land on their head to win the rally.

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.

7June 25, 2021Kevin

Agree

369June 28, 2022Damon

Agree completely. The spin serves are still having the same affect as the chainsaw had, which detracts from the intent of how the game was designed, the playability to the general population, and the watch ability of the sport. Whether we need to go to drop serves only, change it to allow only dropping the ball while specifically defining no spin to be imparted, or how the exact definition needs to best be employed for enforcement I am not sure, but this definitely adversely affects the sport. As others have mentioned, it leads to a more serve-centric serve and volley game that isn't as fun to watch or play.

539July 6, 2022Beth

Agree that players should not have to use their timeouts for equipment failures however, the time should be limited and 2 minutes seems reasonable. The wording should apply for officiated and non-officiated play.

386July 6, 2022Beth

Agree that the rule should address how to handle play stoppage when a player is out of position based on a wrong score called.

567July 7, 2022Maria

Agree that this is a good clarification.

281July 7, 2022Maria

Agree that this is a good clarification. This is also potentially a good rule to put a case in the Casebook along with cases for Rules 6.D.8 and 6.D.12 (an 'Out' call while the ball is still in the air is player communication).

392July 6, 2022Beth

Agree there is some merit in adding only "or their opponents in non-officiated play" to the rule. The other words are not necessary.

277May 22, 2022Mary Ann

Agree with Judy, Darla, Jared, James, Jim! Players need to learn to focus on the game and play the rally to the very end! If you tend to lose focus because you hear the word "out", that's on you. My MXD partner is Deaf and rarely verbalize but he can say the word "out", whereas "bounce it" or any other verbage is more difficult for me to understand. Also, I myself am hard of hearing and "OUT" is very easy to hear. When people make these sorts of rule changes, they need to keep in mind other players who might have hearing difficulties. USAPA, please make sure to keep in mind the Deaf community when changing or adding rules based on audible sounds and/or visual cues.

536July 7, 2022Maria

Agree with Pam, Beth, Doug, Chuck, Shannon, Donn, Jim, the last 3 sentences of Vicki and the last 2 Paragraphs of Randi. Not much more I can add except that some of the reasoning for Rally Scoring is to shorten the matches....this will just elongate them. In addition, the players should be held accountable for being in the right position - bad enough some players ask us before almost every serve. Do not approve these changes.

273May 10, 2022Aleta

Agree with Rick. Most players I know do not want rally scoring.

570July 6, 2022Beth

Agree with Stan, no need to change the rule. ATPs are defended frequently by players anticipating the this and moving into position to defend.

405July 12, 2022Kevin

Agree with taking Physical out. Disagree with changing player to opponent.

570July 14, 2022Chuck

Agree with the others, there is no need to change the rule. ATPs are defended frequently by players anticipating this and moving into a position to defend against it. This is one of the unique features of the game that definitely needs to be kept.

291May 28, 2022Ross

Agree with the proposal, but it is not critical. We all struggled through the initial scoring concept, as brief as it was. So darn-it, all those future players should have to go through that as well. Or maybe not. "4-2-second" is fine. 4-2-2 is faster to say. Either is fine.

406July 6, 2022Beth

Agree with the proposed change

517July 6, 2022Beth

Agree with this change.

550July 6, 2022Beth

Agree with this recommendation. Additional reasoning...since the server now can begin their motion while the score is being called, the receiver often has no time to stop play for a wrong score before the ball is struck.

572July 6, 2022Beth

Agree with this suggestion. A short description of officiated play and referee roles/responsibilities would be a good add to the 'overview' section of the rulebook.

334May 28, 2022Ross

Agree, but not critical. For our club this is not an issue. If the comment that Referees are reluctant to call is really true, then I agree it should be a replay. Defer to our top referees on this one.

325July 6, 2022Beth

Agree.

360May 28, 2022Ross

Agree. Degraded and soft are examples of what the referee or group consensus in non-officiated play should determine in addition to cracked and broken.

488July 13, 2022Stan

Agree. Including this in the players' pre-tournament email/briefing will be helpful for them to understand that their action will have a consequence.

581July 7, 2022Walt

Agree. It clarifies the intent of the current rules.

550July 9, 2022Walt

Agree. Not sure if the sentence should end with: the result is a fault "against the receiving team."

336July 6, 2022Beth

Agree. Since the 3 out of 5 format was added to 12.B it should be added to this rule as well.

39June 21, 2021Marsha

Agree. “Non-volley zone” is a misnomer.

399May 28, 2022Ross

Agree. But not critical. I have not seen an issue with this in practice. However the text proposed provides clarity.

35June 25, 2021Jameson

Agree. Post is part of the net. With the change in Let rules last year a fixed part of the net should be ok to hit if the ball lands in.

360June 12, 2022Tom

Agree. This seems reasonable. But perhaps instead of "degraded, soft, broken, or cracked," simply say "degraded," which could in essence, cover everything.

290June 20, 2022Ron

All lines are "in" now, including the NVZ line. It is "in" the NVZ so much that we even call it the NVZ line. "in" only indicates the state of the ball but not whether it is "good" or not. If that line was good on the serve then the NVZ would only be 6'10" and we would have to change that rule plus then you would be able to step on the line during a volley!

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment