Comment view

Disagree. You already get a second serve by your partner serving again.

I agree with the idea of TW/TF resulting in the removal (or additional in some cases) of points. I would add to this that we remove the verbal warning though. You have 3 strikes and then a game or match forfeit.

I think we need to look at removing the spin as an advantage in the serve in steps rather than trying to jump to little/no spin only. A good first step might be no aided spin allowed. This would eliminate spinning the ball off the paddle or off another body part. A server could still flick the ball in their hand to generate some spin, but this does not create as much of an advantage.

If you remove the phrase "after the serve" and leave in "while the ball is live/in-play", you still have the same rule though. Taking this out and calling a fault for flicking a ball off the paddle for a serve would also introduce the side effect of having a fault called while the ball is no live/in-play which was changed in 2021 to simply when faults were called.

I like this change and how it allows the referee a little leeway in getting the game back going. If this is not the desired result, maybe move the warning back to 20 seconds to allow players more time to get back to the court. On hot long days, it tends to take players a little longer to get back on the court.

Just like to say I agree with this rule change! I can tell you in other sports with more mature rule books this is the case.

Are large group had tried rally scoring and, with the exception of 2 people with physical limitations, do not how rally scoring changes the game. We are asking that the USAP keep side out scoring as the official recommended scoring methodology with rally scoring as an alternate methodology.

For empirical data sake: In the recent past, portions of our group were watching MLP. The matches were even being discussed with some excitement. After trying rally scoring, our viewership of MLP seems to have stopped, and there are no longer any discussions of the matches when we meet.

Truthfully, I believe that many would abandon the USAP for, either another standards group, or would use it own set of rules as we plan our future tournaments.

With the current Mrs caused by the various pro tours and the IFP, this is something that should be handled very carefully.

Ridiculous. Does not make sense.

When an opponent hits an overhead to me, I crouch very low, with paddle in front of my face, to play defense.

If I get hit: is that the smasher's fault?
PLEASE!!!

This comment is AFTER reading most of the comments so far. People need to act like adults and stop being poor sports. Most sports do not allow head targeting. Point being: yes, sometimes you will accidentally hit someone in the head. Too bad. The point is to help you learn to be more accurate. And, as far as the cheating to 'move their head to get hit' well, that's pretty ignorant but you have a point. Some people don't have sportsmanship and will do anything to win.

The rules implemented for 2022 are sufficient regarding spin serves. Players impart spin on the serve with their paddle that makes their serve difficult to return. Spin imparted with a single (unaltered, unassisted) hand isn't any more difficult to return than a paddle-spun ball. Although some players are developing one-handed spin serves (and posting how-to videos on how they execute such) rarely, in my experience is the one-handed spin any more effective than a good paddle-spin. Additionally, as cited by the rules committee when implementing the 2022 changes, there is always some spin when a ball is dropped from the hand; how much is spin is too much? Adding this rule will require a referee to determine a player's intent to spin and whether the spin is more than 'normal' spin. For these reasons, the current rules regarding one-handed spin should not be changed.

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.

Although it is important for players to call the score loudly enough for opponents to hear, this is an unnecessary change. Just as in officiated play, if a player is having difficulty hearing the score call they should ask their opponents to adjust either the volume or how they call the score (e.g. using hand signals rather than just verbal signals).

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.

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

No need to change the rule impacting all players when it is just a few that struggle with understanding it. The receivers should be watching their opponents when they're about to hit the ball. They should know whether "out" was a line call or player communication. They should never stop play if they're not sure.

Many times the losing team does not stick around to sign the scoresheet.

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

New players do have to learn how to call the score but most 'get it' rather quickly. No need to change the rule and make all of ever-growing number of experienced players change their game. As with any sport, those new to the game need to learn the rules. 0-0-2 is a pickleball "brand"

I agree that players should be able to ask "Am I good?"

Today, players often ask "Correct server/correct side?" all in one question but, referees can only respond "No" if only one part of the question is wrong - which just leads to more questioning and confusion and frustration on the part of the players. Referees should be able to respond to both scenarios ... to satisfy what they know the player is asking.

Agree with adding verbiage to 4.B.8 for non-officiated play (allowing players to ask their opponents the same questions).

4.B.9 is fine as written but should include verbiage for non-officiated play.

Disagree with this proposed change. Although it may be true that referees give the benefit of the doubt when serves are borderline illegal, allowing a replay shouldn't change their call (if they didn't see a fault, they shouldn't call for a replay.)

The existing service rules should not be eliminated and a fault should be called when they are violated. Replays slow the game down.

I don't disagree with the intent of this change but, if a player steps outside the imaginary extension of the sidelines and centerlines they are not stepping onto the Court, based on the definition:

3.A.3. Court – The area inside the outer dimensions of the baselines and sidelines.

I agree with Tom, no need to change the term. People are hindered by balls, flying insects, officials, etc. and they will still call them hinders regardless what the rulebook says.

I think referees should have the authority to make a player change apparel if they deem the apparel distracting. Some TDs don't like to get involved and more players are wearing shirts, shorts, shoes the color of the ball.

There are equipment standards and paddles are sent for testing/approval before they begin manufacturing them. USA Pickleball defines the standards for all pickleball equipment -- this does not belong in the rulebook.

I disagree with this suggested change. After speaking to the on-court referee and the player, the head ref should be able to make a decision that he/she deems is in the best interest of both players and the game given his/her assessment of the situation.