Rules Rule: A Desperate Plea to the Racquetball Community

Admittedly, I have many pet peeves. Too many. For example, I have a vitriolic reaction anytime someone says “ATM Machine.” (“ATM” stands for “automated teller machine,” so someone saying “ATM Machine” is effectively saying “automated teller machine machine.”) Also, people in my parking garage at work who take more than sixty seconds to back into a parking spot. No amount of morning coffee prepares me for this annoyance.[i] 

My good friend and fellow racquetball aficionado Mark McClanahan would tell me that I should not “sweat the small things” in life. Mark is right, as he usually is (just don’t tell him I said so). 

Nathan Ellmo

I will work on following Mark’s advice. In the meantime, there are two things I frequently hear from fellow racquetball players and referees that drive me bananas. Fortunately, USA Racquetball encourages referees to avoid these pet peeves of mine (otherwise, I would not be able to get away with writing this article). So to all my fellow racquetball players, referees, and fans I beg, nay, implore you to please avoid the following.

“Avoidable Hinder!” USA Racquetball amended its Rulebook over twenty years ago to remove the phrase “avoidable hinder,” replacing it with the phrase “penalty hinder.” Specifically, Rule 3.15 specifies the many ways in which a player can commit a penalty hinder. Conversely, Rule 3.14 describes the “replay (i.e., no fault) hinder.”

The problem with the term “avoidable hinder” is that it implies that an act that is accidental or unavoidable cannot result in a penalty. Not true. Take, for instance, Rule 3.15(d), which advises that a penalty hinder occurs when a player “moves in the way and is struck by the ball just played by the opponent.” Nothing in Rule 3.15(d) requires the referee to determine that the offending player could have avoided moving in the way before assessing a penalty. Indeed, it is entirely possible that a player had little choice but to move in the way (e.g., the player accidentally tripped and fell into the path of the ball) and still receive a penalty hinder.  

Perhaps a better example is Rule 3.15(a) which says that a penalty hinder occurs when a player “does not move sufficiently to allow an opponent a shot straight to the front wall as well as a cross-court shot.” Frequently, defensive players jump to “clear the path of the ball.” Even then, the Rule says a referee should “visualize the projected path of the ball to determine if the ball would have traveled along a path direct to the front wall and would have made it to the front wall.” Many times, players have no choice but to either (a) jump, or (b) risk getting hit by the ball. Even if the defensive player jumps, a referee could still determine that a penalty hinder has occurred. In this situation, the penalty can be unavoidable (e.g., the defensive player simply could not jump high enough) yet still result in either a point or side out (the possible penalties).

In preparation for this article, I exchanged several emails with former National Rules Commissioner and racquetball legend Otto Dietrich. As many of you know, in addition to being a fantastic human being, Otto is a treasure-trove of valuable racquetball information. Otto explained to me that USA Racquetball removed term “avoidable hinder” because it was “not inclusive enough.” This is precisely the point:  penalty hinders can be avoidable acts, yes, but they can include other acts as well.

Otto Dietrich

Otto often describes penalty hinders as occurring “when [a player] does something that he didn't have to do or else fails to do something that he could have done and a hinder results.” In future Rules Rule! articles, I will be exploring the ins-and-outs of the various ways penalty hinders can occur.

“I know the rule, but I am just used to saying ‘avoidable hinder’ and it’s habit now.”

As someone whose kids regularly ask, “what was it like growing up with the dinosaurs?” I am painfully familiar with the notion of “it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks.” The problem is that racquetball is a sport handed down generation-by-generation. If racquetball’s veterans cannot use the correct phrase, the younger generation will learn the incorrect terminology, thus perpetuating the problem. It is incumbent upon us, the older generation of players, to teach the young players the correct term. 

“Possible Game/Possible Match.” Imagine this. You have trained for weeks for your local club championship tournament. You are in the tie-breaker of the finals. It has been a back-and-forth game but you find yourself down 10-7. You are trying to stay mentally strong. Then the referee calls down “TEN SERVING SEVEN, POSSIBLE GAME, POSSIBLE MATCH!” As if you did not feel enough pressure already, you are now being reminded by the referee of the consequences of losing the next rally. Further, the referee’s comments change the previously-established rhythm of the calls used every other time during the match, such as “three serving four.” Otto says he has even seen serving players commit errors at match point—such as serving too soon—because of the referee’s comments.

And for what? What benefit does a referee add by declaring “possible game” or “possible match”? Presumably the players are well aware of how many points are necessary to win a game of racquetball (because they are familiar with Rule 1.5 which says that the “first two games of a match are played to 15 points . . . Then a tiebreaker is played to 11 points”). A referee would never say, “five serving six, possible short serve” in anticipation of a potential short serve. Why do it for a potential game-ending point? 

Otto makes another great point:  “Did you ever notice that this same (no special such declaration) technique is also used in tennis where match point at ‘The Championships, Wimbledon’ (its official title, by the way), for instance, is called by the referee just like all other scores during the match, e.g. ‘Forty, Thirty’ with no special embellishment!”

USA Racquetball and I strongly encourage referees to simply call the score before a game point the same way a referee would call any other score without adding “potential game” or “potential match.” 

National Rules Commissioner Joshua Jones welcomes questions from members and will respond timely along with occasionally featuring a few in USAR’s Serving Up the News. Write to Josh at rulescommissioner@usaracquetball.com, and you may see your questions in a future issue of this newsletter!

[i] Also, not using a coaster on my wood coffee table. Also, when my kids cannot seem to pick up their dirty clothes off the floor or put away their dirty dishes. Also…