Failed. This is not perceived to be a problem that needs a rule change to solve. Referees or players would not immediately call the score in this situation because the player is not seen to be ready.
Failed. An ATP, along with the frequent defense of an ATP, are some of the most exciting shots in pickleball. The team who has to defend an ATP has often made strategic errors that set up the ATP for the opponent. Why should their opponent be restricted from making a great shot at that point?
Failed. There are already expectations the server has to wait for the receiver to be ready and call the score so that they can hear. Also, that players will accommodate hearing impaired players. It is not appropriate to require this for all play.
Failed. The committee wants the Head Referee to be able have this right, to allow an appeal to be rescinded. Players should also be able to change their mind quickly about their appeal.
Questions About Service Sequence and Player Positions
Passed
Partially approved. The 4.B.8 proposed wording is approved. The 4.B.9 proposed wording has failed. That proposed is unnecessarily wordy. There is not a perceived issue with dealling with these scenarios currently. Referees currently allow a stoppage of play when a player CORRECTLY identifies a player out of position or an incorrect server.
1) Where did 39 feet come from. 2) This is just recommendation, what happens if you can't meet it? 3) Rules out a lot of existing venues. 4) Failed. Recommended height (19ft) is already recommended in the USAP construction manual.
Failed: 1) Unenforceable 2) Impractical to expect all players to have complete control over where their shot goes. 3) There are many trainers who teach effective, safe ways to respond to lobs
Recent Comments