Displaying 51 - 100 of 582

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
438July 13, 2022Darla

All lines are IN, including the NVZ line. It's *in* the non-volley zone. All lines are *in* the area that they are defining. That line is defining the NVZ, so it's *in* the NVZ. Again, all lines are in. If the ball hits the NVZ line on a serve, it hit *in* the kitchen, so it's a fault (it's not "out").

320July 9, 2022William

All of us have experienced score calls that are impossible to hear (or not made at all) and serves delivered before we are ready. Holding up a hand to signal a coming serve, and speaking the score clearly before beginning the service motion would be excellent additions and not a hardship. Minimally, those steps should be highly recommended under the heading of good sportsmanship. Saying the score twice is too much to ask.

275April 21, 2022Keith

All players need to be responsible and wear eye protection. A rule will not stop getting hit in the head or any other area of the body.

290July 21, 2022Joey

Also touching on Michael's case... Due to the referee's angle, making the NVZ "in" would make it harder for a referee to call a short serve (which is the referee's responsibility). So, you've made the referee's job harder.

286July 6, 2022Beth

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).

360July 6, 2022Beth

Although it makes sense that any ball that isn't functioning as it should could be replaced when a player brings it to a referee or opponent (soft, cracked, out of round). No harm in making the rule more general (degraded or damaged?)

100June 25, 2021Jameson

An opponent calling a line fault could be an opportunity for a redo. Having had to call an opponent on a line fall before, I do feel like I need the power to call an opponent on it. I’m also OK just having it be a redo of the serve. It was a pretty close line fault, and I watched it happen for three service before I called them on it.

The other option could be some kind of warning system, first warning second warning, fault.

The more I think about this rule the more complicated it feels, I can see avenues for gamin the system on both sides

521July 11, 2022Michelle

And without guidance as to which ball is being played, are you supposed to bring 5 shirts every time you play to find one that doesn't camouflage the ball??

291April 23, 2022Rick

Another change trying to destroy the uniqueness of the sport. Anybody playing had to start at the beginning and figure things out, and we did, making us a member of the pickleball community that we love

521July 11, 2022Carol

Any object on the court, including apparel, that is the same color as the ball can make it more difficult for the opponents to discern the object of focus (the ball) during play. I support a rule that prohibits players from wearing apparel or carrying objects (i.e. paddles) that are the same color as the ball.

389July 24, 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

513June 23, 2022Anthony

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.

77June 26, 2021Bill

As a referee, I do not want the responsibility for determining if a medical time-out should be granted. I've had no medical training. I don't want to be in a position to determine if an ambulance is needed. Leave the medical decisions to the trained medical personnel.

526July 9, 2022Walt

As a TD, I asked a player change their shirt or accept a forfeit. They changed to the 'free' tournament shirt. I also list clothing color restrictions in pre-tournament instructions sent to all players in sufficient time to pack the appropriate clothing before they travel to the tournament. This rule should eliminate the problem.

536July 9, 2022Melody

As many have said there are many challenges with this rule. It puts the responsibility of player position on the referee and not the player. As already stated, the player currently has the ability to ask, which would prevent any player out of position error. What I would like to add is that this proposed rule change will add confusion. As we know already, not all players hear the ref call the score. This happens for many reasons, they are thinking about strategy, the environment has a loud atmosphere, or they just do not hear it. With the proposal of calling the score twice, there may be confusion, was this the first time the score was called? Was it the second? How will they know? Will they now ask was that the first score call? Or the second? It will slow the game. It will also add undue strain on referee voices. Our voice boxes are already stressed with projection and longer and longer referee days. As others have said, this will put an additional burden on the referee and will impact if referees choose to continue refereeing under this proposed additional requirement. I am not in favor of this proposed rule change! Melody Woodsum

561July 14, 2022Chuck

As Michael stated "Additionally, this would go against the ingrained patterns of millions of people who for decades have called "out" as communication in every other sport played." This proposal is too specific as to what a player needs to do and will cause more confusion and end up causing a bigger problem.

342June 20, 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?

369July 23, 2022Duby

As to how much spin is too much. It’s very obvious when one is imparting spin on purpose. If a ref can’t figure that out maybe he should not consider referring

536July 6, 2022Jim

At the end of a multi day tournament, especially in a noisy venue, a referee’s voice is often stressed to extreme. This proposed rule change would more than double the audio demands placed on the referees. This rule change would place physical demands on the referee that likely will prevent many referees from being able to complete a tournament and/or commit to a ref schedule similar to today. This proposed rule change does nothing to improve the player experience and certainly diminishes the experience for the referee.

283July 27, 2022Tim

Bad idea! This would allow players to jump into the NVZ as long as they hit the ball before landing. I see no reason to change this rule.

277May 10, 2022Jim

Bad idea. Current rule is fine

277June 26, 2022geoge

Bad idea. We've been saying "out" as communication BEFORE the bounce for many years and a wholesale change is both unnecessary and disruptive to many. It is the quickest, clearest way to say DONT HIT THAT BALL when time counts. Anything said before the bounce is communication. Simple.

498June 24, 2022Walt

Be careful what you ask for (the Head Referee.) Actions have consequences. It would probably take longer than 1 minute at many venues for the Head Ref to get to the court and be longer than a standard time out. I think the rule is fine as it is and may actually limit calling for the Head Ref if it were changed as proposed.

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

103June 25, 2021Jameson

Beginners do not “need” to learn more than one serve. I know many seniors that seem to prefer drop serves so they should be allowed to continue. People can pick a serve and do what they like.

I learned 002 when I was a beginner and I didn’t find it confusing. I find it less confusing than 00start. Rule book should allow both.

20June 2, 2021Stan


Saw on Facebook that you are taking feedback on the Drop Serve. Here's my view from each perspective:
Player - LOVE it. It has helped me and many others overcome the yips. It also relieves some legality anxiety because the focus is just on dropping the ball where it can be seen by the returner. The bonus is that it gives players an option to mix up their serving game and have more fun and grow confidence.
Instructor - LOVE it. I introduce pickleball to a lot of beginners and many of them have never had any racquet sport experience. The Drop Serve is easy to explain, show, and execute. The beginners and novice players that I have worked with find it simpler and more user-friendly. That builds their confidence and adds to the fun.
Referee - LOVE it. I watch the drop for no propulsion and then go to the feet to ensure no foot fault. Less to analyze and my focus is even sharper.
Giving players some options is a good thing for the game. I have not seen any unfair advantage caused by a player using the drop serve. It's fun, it's easy to learn, and it's fair. Let's keep it!

Hope all goes well in Indy this weekend and look forward to seeing you in Hoover next week. Safe travels!

Stan Brown
Birmingham, AL

103June 25, 2021Walt

Bouncing the ball to serve is an insult to our wonderful game. I can’t imagine who would suggest such a rule. This is not little league baseball and is embarrassing for me to even watch. We have a player with only one arm. The only way he can serve is by dropping the ball. This is the only time dropping the ball on a serve should be allowed.

513July 13, 2022Stan

Call it a "provisional" option for TD's to utilize in sanctioned tournaments. Data and feedback could then be gathered to determine what value rally scoring added to the tournament experience for players, referees, and volunteers.

291July 9, 2022Thomas

Calling first or second as a service indicator can be just as confusing as 1 and 2. There is no benefit especially for experienced players. Please decline this proposal.

277July 13, 2022Jerry

Calling the ball out is more of an issue to the team receiving the ball. It causes the receiving team to relax, and most likely not return the ball. On the other hand, the team that hit the ball to the receiving team should already to be on the defense for a return ball, therefore no harm, no foul.

536July 6, 2022Chuck

Calling the score twice is totally unnecessary. Over time, players that are out-of-position will get used to hearing the score called twice and will still end up out-of-position.

Regarding the proposed new rules 4.D.2, 4.D.2.a, 4.D.3, 4.D.3.a, I disagree completely with the idea of the referee making sure everyone is in their proper place before starting play. I don't want to sound harsh, but this is part of learning the game. Players who have had a problem with this situation typically have not read the rule book and/or had not received instructions on how to play the game very well.

In general, I disagree with the concept and methodology of what is being proposed in this rule change. I feel it will have more unintended consequences than what they are intending to solve.

521June 30, 2022Michael

Change the rule that TDs can ask a player to change based on color alone. Offensive clothing is one thing, but color alone should not be grounds for TD input. Nor should there be a rule governing such. Players need to concentrate. If you don't, then learn. If your eyes have trouble discerning different colors, get stronger prescription glasses, or polarized glasses.

16June 26, 2021Bill

Changing ends too often only causes more delay in tournaments. It also creates more confusion for players to line up in their correct positions.

444July 14, 2022Marsha

Coaching by spectators during times other than time-outs has become more prevalent during tournaments. Many spectators do not know that coaching is only permitted during time-outs and may say something, advertently or inadvertently, during play that could coach a player. Trying to detect illegal coaching while refereeing a match distracts the referee's full attention from the play. For some court configurations, it is virtually impossible for a referee to detect conversation and communication between players and spectators. Often illegal coaching comments and signals made by spectators are not even heard or seen by the players, especially when there are crowds and noise. Even if heard or seen, it is incumbent upon the player to execute the advice for it to potentially be of any benefit. There have also been instances of spectators unscrupulously “coaching” the opponents of players they support in an effort to have a technical warning called against the opponents. In such situations, the opponents have no control or defense against such actions. Should players be penalized for unsolicited actions by spectators that neither they nor referees can prevent?

Speaking from experience in refereeing MLP events where coaching is allowed, not having to worry about coaching during play is a big relief to referees. USA Pickleball should consider allowing coaching by spectators any time the ball is not in play, provided it does not interfere with continuous play or unfairly disrupt the opposing team. Spectators who fail to abide by the coaching rules would be subject to removal from the match by the tournament director.

85July 5, 2021Don

Completely disagree with this entire concept. The current plane of the net rules allow for understandable crossing of the plane with certain limitations. A hard question is this: Why should a player be allowed to use the opponent's court space to aid in their shot? Stay on your side until you comply with the current rules of when you can cross. Crossing the plane rules are not hard to enforce especially when you have a straight line visual aid being the net as a guide. If these rules are removed, this will open a pandora's box of arguments concerning distractions.

63July 17, 2021Mary

COORDINATOR PLEASE NOTE: I tried to change Rule ID to 63 re: Rally Point Scoring (RPS) but form would not let me change the No. 7. (Mary - Victoria, BC)
My comments re: RPS are: I would like to see Pickleball move to rally point scoring as the standard primarily because to me it seems more fair for whoever wins a rally to receive a point.

526July 13, 2022Stan

Curious, are we talking only solid color shirts, shorts, skirts, leggings, etc.? Seems striped, checkered, tie-dyed, etc. clothing that includes the ball color in the design could also be deemed "inappropriate" or "distracting" to the opponent. As a sports official for many years, one of the most irritating burdens placed on us was being the "uniform police." I am not in favor of creating a rule to ban certain clothing, and I'm most definitely not in favor of making a referee enforce such a ban. Leave the current practice "as is" and up to the TD.

20July 10, 2021Dave

Disagree wholeheartedly on the top of the paddleface issue. The idea is to prevent players from serving sideways. Sidewinders are legal in baseball, not pickleball. The upward swing is what makes picklball unique and allows all people of any level to play and compete. Anything that even remotely appears to be sideways should simply be illegal. Way to close to the waist. Most recreational players cannot even return those serves. Wow, that is fun and enjoyable. Most people that get 4-5 points on serves almost always win. Wow, that really makes the game fun to play. Not. If we allow all these people to push the envelope then we might as well quit playing pickleball and go back to playing tennis. I don’t even know how you can hit a ball that is below the waist with the paddleface above the break in the wrist. Appears to defy physics. A ball below the waist is below the net and must be hit in an upward motion, no matter how imperceptible, or it will not clear the net.
The introduction of the drop serve really screwed up the game of pickleball and opened up a Pandora’s Box that will never be closed. Get rid of it.
This guy’s suggestion that the original rules of serving should remain in effect for all serves (especially the drop serve) is right on the nut. And the comment that “the previous statements do not apply” (bullet number four under the section on serving in the alternate rule book) has got to go. The ensuing confusion will never go away. I didn’t appreciate the cheater who misinterpreted that statement to mean that he could serve anyway he wanted on the drop serve (including above the waist) getting nose to nose with me and spitting in my face.

334July 6, 2022Beth

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.

346June 12, 2022Tom

Disagree with this proposed change. It's adding something to the rules that would happen once in 10 million matches. So, referees and players would read this, try to figure it out, discuss and ponder something that will never happen. And if it did, the referee would deal with it properly - paddles drops, ball hits paddle, player hits ball ... play on!

52June 25, 2021Kevin

Disagree with this proposed rule change as stated. Other rules have been changed to take judgement of the referee out of the game yet this rule brings back that judgement. I realize it was an embarrassing event in a recent tournament when a person served to a paddle laying on the ground but trust me, that was a warning to all players. No player will let this happen again and they will respect the 60 seconds and the 15 second warning.

The proposed new rule will be abused. It won't happen every time but when money is on the line one team will try to take advantage and delay the return to the court. If even by 5 or 10 seconds this is 5 or 10 seconds of rest you have stolen from the team who returned to play within the designated time period. If my team is the one who returns in the allotted time (60 seconds) and the other team does not then that's additional time I must stand in the sun for obeying the rules while they rest (and possibly ice our team's server).

If this rule change gains momentum I would propose 2 alternatives.
1. Keep the rule as is but increase the time out period to 90 seconds and give a 30 second warning, 15 second warning, and 5 second warning.
2. If the rule is changed then make it a mandatory technical warning (technical fault if warning already issued) for any player who does not have a paddle in their hand and ready to play when the timeout expires. This will keep the referees judgement/discretion out of the equation but still keeps the penalty reasonable for not returning at the correct time. If a team does it once then (assuming they have not already received a warning) then this is a slap on the wrist but has teeth for someone who is abuse the system.

40June 25, 2021Kevin

Disagree. 1 serve is all that is needed.

540July 6, 2022Beth

Disagree. If a player wears apparel that is inappropriate or a distraction and has to be asked to change, it should come as no surprise to them. They should have to use their own timeout to change.

25June 25, 2021Kevin

Disagree. Leave court as is.

550July 11, 2022Kevin

Disagree. Leave the rule as is. The original post implies that the opponent only has until the ball is served to correct the score. That is not correct. Once the rally is finished the score can be corrected and a determination can be made as to whether the incorrect score call affected play.

This is actually beneficial to the receiving team. If you allow the score to be challenged after the serve is struck the rules also have to state what happens if the player stops play but the score was called correctly. In all instances prior to 2022 if you stopped play and the score was found to be correctly called the team that stopped play would suffer a fault. There is not that much time between the serve and the service return. How many times have you seen the score challenged and it turns out the score was called correctly. Under the old rules it was always better to let the rally play out and not risk being wrong on your challenge. Play out the point, get the score corrected, determine if a replay is justified and move on. Players should be taught this from day one. Don't stop play to correct the score.

86June 25, 2021Kevin

Disagree. No player should be required to yield their side of the net. In fact, if were going to change the rule I would make it a fault to reach over the net in an attempt to play the ball that has backspin and has traveled back over the net without player contact. That's just a great shot.

438July 6, 2022Beth

Disagree. Pickleball in not every other sport. The NVZ line is IN the defined 7' Non Volley Zone area. The proposal would require re-lining every court and players would be allowed to step on the NVZ line when volleying. Unless the court size is changed the NVZ would then become 2" shorter which would not be a good thing unless you're one of the 7' players that can nearly reach the net from the NVZ line already.

438June 29, 2022DARIN

Disagree. The NVZ line is part of the kitchen for the receivers. Why would it not be the same for the serving team?

292June 12, 2022Tom

Disagree. It would look goofy. I can't see changing the lines on the court to accomodate this new event. This might happen in the future but I hope not.

40June 26, 2021Bill

Disagree. Most players (in tournaments) know how to serve.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment