Displaying 1 - 50 of 582

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment
536July 29, 2022George

On come on … this is asinine. Not well thought out and completely removes another advantage from a non-offending mentally prepared player/team.
Playing any competitive sport can be divided into three very distinct disciplines or parts. There is the skill part, the physicality part, and then there is the mental aspect part. How well a player or team can excel in each of those disciplines and then in combination of those disciplines is what separates winners from losers. If implemented, this rule change removes a significant portion of the mental aspect part of the game. No longer will player gamesmanship, strategy and knowledge of the rules be a relevant part of this sport. In essence, this rule change suggests that the thinking player is not as important as the physical brute.
One could use any sport as an example but let’s use football. If the offense is lined up with not enough players on the line, does the official stop play and “coach” the team by instructing them of their impending penalty? Does anyone believe that football would ever consider changing their rules so that an official would be mandated to do so? I think not. Come on, if you are lined up off sides or I can draw you off sides, then it costs you five yards. It’s an integral part of the game. It is also entertaining, adds an element of surprise and maybe, just maybe the smarter team wins. Again, skill, physicality and mental are the ingredients to success in sports.
Sorry, but this suggestion, which I can only hope that it is just a suggestion, reeks of a deliberate ‘dumbing down’ of the game in an effort to avoid calling a penalty. Let’s not take away an advantage that the better mentally prepare player may have.

369July 29, 2022John

I enthusiastically support leaving the rule as it currently stands in 2022. The one-handed spin serve has added a new dimension to the game. I've read and studied how to develop it myself and how to defend against it. Every time I play someone recreationally who has trouble with it, I offer to explain the basics to them so they can effectively defend the serve. In tournaments, it's a more competitive situation. Some people drill ATPs and Ernie's. I focus on the serve. I don't think it is devastating to my tournament opponents, but it does induce weaker returns that occasionally might translate into a point for my team.

The bottom line is that I see it as one of dozens of skills that I am working on to improve my game. It's certainly not an unfair advantage...everyone can develop it.

Please REJECT this proposed rule change.

275July 29, 2022Mark

Shouldn't players worried about eye injury just wear safety glasses instead of calling a fault?

277July 29, 2022Chuck

Solution without a problem. It is incumbent on the opposing team to stay ready to play, no matter what the conversation about the ball is by the attacking team.

320July 29, 2022G Wayne

Rule doesn't need changed. This change would just slow game down. If change is made then it should just be #1 Hold up ball.

283July 29, 2022G Wayne

Original rule should stand. This revision would complicate things to much & end up in delay of game due to arguments as to if the rule was broken.

283July 29, 2022Ern

Nope. This is a defining rule of the game.

513July 27, 2022Dick

Rally Scoring (RS) is a bad idea. It fails to deliver its alleged benefits. It fundamentally changes the game, and not for the better. Side-out-scoring (SOS) should be the only acceptable scoring system for pickleball.

First, RS fundamentally changes the game. In a typical game to 11, ignoring the occasional service ace, with SOS scoring the winning team must complete a successful third shot (drop?, drive?, lob?) 11 times to win. With RS, they must solve that riddle only 1-2 times. This favors players who want to play pickleball like tennis, relying solely on the drive. Lost is the third shot drop, an essential aspect of the game.

Second, RS proponents claim that it shortens games and reduces waiting time and increases playing time on crowded courts. The first and second statements are true, the third (and most important one) is false. RS does shorten games, without question. One claim I have heard is that RS shortens the average game time by 20%. So, courts will turn over more quickly with RS and waiting players will get back out on the court more quickly. Let's assume 10 courts, 3 hours of open court time, or 7,200 minutes of available court time. If the average game to 11 with SOS takes 15 minutes, 120 games can be played in 3 hours. And if RS games are 20% shorter, 150 games can be played in that same time. It appears the RS delivers what it promises. What is missed is the unintended consequence of shorter games: they reduce total playing time and increase time spent transitioning between games. Between games there is a certain transition time as players exit the court and new players enter. Let's assume it takes 1 minute to transition between games.That time is the same whether SOS or RS is used. With SOS, 120 games produce 120 minutes of transition time. With RS, 150 games produce 150 minutes of transition time. The total time when players are actually playing is reduced by 30 minutes.

Third, there is the claim that RS increases the predictability of the length of games, which is particularly important in formats like round robins where you want all games to end at roughly the same time. With SOS, a game can go on past 11, but with RS it is going to end at 11. That would appear to be an advantage for RS. But there are simpler ways to improve predictability without destroying the essence of the game. Simply allow the win-by-one format in round robin or pool play. Or, put a cap on a game to 11, where if you get to 12-12 or 13-13 (or some other number) the next point wins.

In summary, Rally Scoring is a bad idea. The founders of the game made Side Out Scoring, along with the Underhand Serve, the Two Bounce Rule, and the Non-Volley Zone distinctive characteristics of the sport of pickleball. Rules Committee and Board: please do not sacrifice those unique aspects of the game!

570July 27, 2022Tim

I disagree with this proposed change. The fact is that your wide cross court shot gave your opponents the opportunity to hit the ATP shot. So, it's your fault that your opponents gained this advantage. It's no different than saying that your opponents shouldn't be allowed to hit an overhead smash if you serve up a short lob. Also, saying that "the receiving team does not have a oportunidade to return the ball" is completely untrue. If you recognize that your opponents may try an ATP, you can position yourself to return it.

254July 27, 2022Tim

I disagree with this proposed change mostly because it encourages lopsided scores in round robin play. Let's not be so cutthroat that we always feel the need to slaughter less skilled opponents. Determining who is better comes down to the their head-ot-head matchup.

444July 27, 2022Tim

I understand the coaching issue but I like the idea of not allowing coaching at all. When I am competing, I feel that it is me (and my partner, if playing doubles) against my opponent(s), not of me against my opponents(s) and their coach(es) and anyopne else that feels the need to give them advice. At a minimum, coaching should only be allowed when the ball is not in play, as that can be distracting to the opponents.

434July 27, 2022Tim

I agree with this change and have always wondered why reaching your paddle under the net was allowed. Allowing the paddle to be reached under the net allows this play (admittedly, extremely rare!) to be done on some courts (those with nets that do not touch the ground) but not others (those with nets that do touch the ground).

361July 27, 2022Tim

I disagree with this proposed change. The court is small enough and has enough lines, already!

346July 27, 2022Tim

I disagree with this proposed change. The paddle should be in possession of the player at all times. Simply clarify that Rule 11.O supercedes Rule 11.H.

438July 27, 2022Tim

This is an unnecessary change. As a life long tennis player, learning that the serve is out if it lands on the NVZ line took all of a couple of seconds. Would it now make it legal to step on the NVZ line? We don't need to make the NVZ any smaller, even if it is by only a couple of inches.

334July 27, 2022Tim

I disagree that a fault is too harsh of a penalty for attempting to cheat. Requiring that all serves be dropped (not tossed) and that the ball must bounce before being struck will eliminate this problem.

569July 27, 2022Tim

This seems unnecessary. If the ref feels that a player is doing something deceptive in order to cheat, there are other ways to deal with that.

399July 27, 2022Tim

This should be the only way that a serve should be allowed.

502July 27, 2022Tim

This proposed change would make serving more difficult in the wind. The best way to solve this issue of spin serves is to require that the ball be dropped (not tossed) and that it must bounce before being struck.

273July 27, 2022Tim

This proposal is poorly worded, confusing, and competely unnecessary. First, rally scoring is just a bad idea. Second, the purpose of this proposal seems to be simply to make life easier for tournament directors.

582July 27, 2022Tim

This proposed change just seems unnecessary. In tournaments, the ball is provided by the tournament director and I defy anyone to show that one ball plays differently from another ball, unless one is brand new and the other has been used.

277July 27, 2022Tim

This is an unnecessary rule change. Under the proposed scenario, saying "mp" could be equally confusing. Players simply need to learn that the ball is always in play until it lands and is called out.

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.

266July 27, 2022Tim

I see the point for the desired change but am not sure that this is the best idea for that change. What simply needs to be done is to state which rule (8D or 9.C) has supremacy.

513July 27, 2022Tim

I see no reason to encourage rally scoring! All that it does is make the games, which are very short, as it is, even shorter.

367July 27, 2022Tim

I agree that there should be a minimum ceiling height for indoor tournament play but wonder how they determined that the height should be 39 ft. Whatever it is, the standard should be high enough to allow for high defensive lobs. Having said that, this rule should only apply to tournament play and most definitely not apply to all indoor facilities.

372July 27, 2022Tim

Please do not make this rule change! I'm sorry, but this suggestion is just insanely stupid. First, how can players or referees objectively decide whether a shot is a lob or just a high and soft drive? Second, it takes away some strategy from the game and simply allows those who want to/can rush the net to wantonly do so. Lobbing is the only way to slow them down. If a player is afraid of being being lobbed (for whatever reason), they should simply not come to the net overly quickly and/or play a little further back from the net.

275July 27, 2022Tim

This suggested rule change is totally unnecessary. While I guess that it is possible for a serious imjury to occur when someone is hit in the head, it has to be extremely rare. And, when someone is hit in the head, it can be as much their fault (they were off ballance or otherwise moving), as the person who hit the ball. Please do not make this change!

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.

320July 27, 2022Tim

This is ridiculous, especially calling the score twice! There are already rules that address incorrect scores or scores that are not heard.

369July 27, 2022Tim

I agree with this rule change and think that it should go further so that, for all serves, the ball must be dropped (not tossed) and bounce before being struck. As the rules now stand, you cannot hit a backspin serve unless the ball is bounced - that's unnecessarily confusing. Mandating that the ball bounce before being struck will also remove the controversies over whether a serve has been hit above the waist, with an upward motion, or with the wrist above the face of the paddle. Mandate that the ball must be dropped (not tossed) and bounce before being struck and the server can do anything that he/she wants to do when striking the ball.

290July 27, 2022Tim

This proposed change will only reverse the confusion and make some people think that stepping on the kitchen line is OK. Do not make this change.

369July 27, 2022John

The pre spun serve changes a rally based game, the game we know and enjoy, to a serve based game. The pre spun serve fundamentally changes the basis for pickleball, a game enjoying great success and growth. When comparing a game on the rise to tennis, a game on the decline, one needs to look no further than the average amount of play for an hour spent on the court. An hour on the tennis court will produce 12 minutes of actual play and a lot of ball fetching at the 4.0 level. An hour on the Pickleball court produces 29 minutes of play. A smaller court and the rally nature of the game produces this longer play time when compared to tennis. Pickleball is not a game that produces a frequent serve-and-a-miss, like tennis. Making Pickleball into such a game would require the teaching of the pre spun serve so a player could remain competitive. Many players would be unable to master the technique, such players would be very likely to quit the game since it would be very diffucult for such players to compete with those who could use the pre spun serve. Those who could master the technique would cause the game to devolve into serving contests. Why would any sport allow fundamental changes to a wildly successful game? Not all innovations are a positive. The pre spun is one of those innovations. Please outlaw pre spun serves and keep pickleball a rally based game.

320July 26, 2022mike

This rule will only make things more complicated and potentially not solve the problem, that it appears the intent is to ensure that the receiver is "ready" before the Server serves.

My guidance to new players to help prevent this is to:

A) Visually scan the court to ensure everyone is ready
B) Clearly announce the Score
C) Make eye contact with the receiver, (as the receiver give a head nod indicator you're ready)
D) Serve the ball within 10 seconds of when you called the score

If there is a distraction such as a rouge ball flying onto your court before you get to serve, start over from the beginning of this list

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.

372July 24, 2022Mike

Do not eliminate the lob on the 3rd shot or anytime. Shall we eliminate the overhead smash when two the opponents are both at the net for safety sake? Don’t make Pickleball complicated. The lob is a great shot if I can be successfully executed

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

283July 24, 2022Mike

I am against this rule change this will ruins the momentum rule and players will learn how to take advantage of change, compromising the non volley zone

320July 24, 2022Mike

I am against this change. Less rules the better and change unnecessary, an extra rule when the current rule is sufficient

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

369July 23, 2022Mike

Similar to the table tennis serve. A player should not be allowed to purposely impart spin upon releasing the ball for a serve. This is destroying the game

536July 22, 2022Patricis

Players should be responsible for their positions and may ask the referee questions related to positions. Also, this will lengthen the time of matchs and time between poonts. It seems player responsibility to understand and use the tools they have available, is lessened by this proposed change. Lastly, player positioning is part of the rules of the game for which all players and referees are responsible to implement and understand.

369July 22, 2022Scot

The biggest objection to the spin is that is detracts from the rally of the game. I’am 5 foot six and my biggest complaint that detracts from the rally of the game is anyone over 6 feet. They are hard to lob over, hard to pass, their overheads are devastating, they can reach in the kitchen and take time away from you. Why aren’t you complaining about tall
People? I use the spin serve which has taken me 10 months to learn in an effort to counter their huge advantage. You don’t see me asking for a rule change to get rid of tall people. Instead I look for ways to improve my game like the spin serve. If you would take a little time in learning the serve you will learn to counter it.
Remember how affective the around the post used to be? Now everyone is countering it.

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.

281July 20, 2022Randy

This rule is capable of several variances. For example: (In Rec play) Team A returns a shot which lands near the sideline and is immediately called out by Team B player 1. Player 2 however sees it as playable and successfully returns the shot, but both players on Team A reacted to the "out call" and severed play. Team B player 2 is asked for his opinion and he says he thought the ball was in, therefore creating doubt, but because play stopped on Team A's side of the court, this should be a replay. As in any sport, when a referee makes a call or blows a whistle, play is ended. Consequently, anytime a player calls a ball dead which results in any disruption of play, it should be viewed as a distraction and should be played over.

320July 20, 2022Randy

So now proper "Annunciation" technically becomes a Judgement Call? This is nonsensical. The score should be called as many times as necessary and the serve held UNTIL the receiving team "acknowledges" the score.

372July 19, 2022John

Ya know, if we outlaw every type of shot, no player would ever get hurt. Because there would be no players.

275July 19, 2022John

Truly ridiculous suggestion. Players everywhere have the option of wearing safety eyewear

369July 19, 2022Kyle

Unnecessary to add. Already limited by one hand uncovered. If individuals are experiencing weak returns, the server either needs to move up or the returners need to move down (in ratings).

275July 18, 2022Calvin

This rule change should not be implemented. Eye protection can be worn by any player that has a concern. This rule would also lead to more head shots as opponents would be incentivized to allow the ball to hit them to win the rally.

 Rule Change ID Submitted From Comment