| Rule Submission Title | 9.B.1. to emphasize control rather than motion |
|---|---|
| USAP Board Vote | Disapproved |
| USAP Board Vote Reason | The current rule is adequate. There has not been widespread misunderstanding or misapplication of the current rule. Forward movement toward the non-volley zone that transitions to parallel movement, can still be part of the same momentum from a volley and may still result in a fault. |
| Existing Rule # | 9.B.1. |
| Proposed Rule Change | 9.B.1. The act of volleying begins when the ball is struck out of the air before bouncing (volleyed) and ends when the player regains balance and full control over their volley momentum or stops moving toward the non-volley zone. |
| Original Rule Text | 9.B.1. The act of volleying begins when the ball is struck out of the air before bouncing (volleyed) and ends when the player’s movement from the follow-through action (momentum) stops. |
| Reasoning Behind Suggested Change | It is still confusing to some whether they must halt forward motion after a volley in order to prove they are no longer under momentum.
Recently seen in the Rules forum: "I have a question…If I run forward from behind the baseline to hit a low ball out of the air (volley) from the back court, and the net player immediately hits a drop dink in the kitchen, can I continue to run forward (ie 5 more steps) into the kitchen to get that ball? In this situation, there is no time for me to stop, split step, settle, and start again, and still get to that dink in time."
In the current rule, the phrase "ends when the player’s movement from the follow-through action (momentum) stops." is not precisely accurate. A volley followed by acceleration towards the NVZ likely incorporated the volley momentum, but the player can be under full control when entering the NVZ.
It is expected that players may remain in continuous motion. The distinctive behaviors that indicate a momentum condition are usually conspicuous. "Balance and control" are key words that should be emphasized to discern recovery from volley momentum.
|
| Scenarios In Which the Rules Applies | From the baseline, Player A lunges forward to play a volley, and without stopping, accelerates toward the NVZ to play a short dink. Since he had regained full control over the volley momentum, there is no NVZ fault.
Player B at the NVZ line volleys, then after teetering toward the NVZ, steps in to play a bounced dink. Since she was not yet in full control over her volley momentum, this is a fault. She may argue she had control OF her momentum, as she channeled it to her new purpose, but she did not have control OVER her momentum. She was still under its influence.
|
| Rule Book Year | 2026 |
| Rule Change ID | 2336 |
| Date Created | May 24, 2025 |
| View Comments | View Comments |
Recent Comments