Rules Rule: You Should Leave Your Hat On

Admittedly, the name of this article is a little cheesy. But growing up, I loved watching John Belushi impersonate Joe Cocker on Saturday Night Live! And the play on words seemed just too perfect to pass up.

And yes, I am admitting to my age. Moving on...

While at the airport last month waiting for my flight to board, I received a phone call from one of the tournament directors running the USA Racquetball National Junior Championships tournament. There was a match in progress, and the referee requested a rules clarification.

What is the call when one player inadvertently causes another player to lose an article of clothing, such as a shoe, while the rally is in progress?

This seemed like the perfect segue into a short rules article discussing the various consequences when a player loses a piece of apparel or equipment during play. As always, we start with the text of the rule. Rule 3.15(i) says that “if a player loses (comes fully dislodged from their person) any apparel, equipment, or other article they brought onto the court, play shall be immediately stopped and that player shall be assessed a penalty hinder.”

However, there are two caveats. First, the referee should not assess a penalty hinder “if the loss of equipment is caused by a player’s opponent.” If that happens, a replay hinder should be called instead. Second, no penalty hinder should be called “if the last shot that was hit could not be retrieved.”

Let’s break this rule down into three hypotheticals, to show you how the rule works.

Scenario 1: The Penalty Hinder

Suppose that DJ Mendoza (the Boys 21U champion) is playing Naomi Ros (the Girls 21U champion). DJ is wearing a headband to block sweat from getting in his eyes. Apparently, DJ forgot to secure the headband, and it comes off of his head and falls on the floor while Naomi is hitting a ceiling shot.

In this instance, the referee should immediately stop play and assess a penalty hinder against DJ (resulting in Naomi winning the rally). In this hypothetical, the headband constitutes “apparel” or “other article” that DJ brought onto the court during play. Because Naomi was in the middle of hitting a ceiling shot and did not cause DJ to lose the headband, neither of the caveats to Rule 3.15(i) apply. Thus, the rule clearly says the referee should assess a penalty hinder against DJ.

Scenario 2: The Replay Hinder

Now let’s suppose that London Townsend (the Boys 18U champion) is playing Alexis Boyko (the Girls 18U champion). Supporting her favorite team, Alexis is wearing a hat that reads, “Go Flyers.” As they are passing each other on the court, London accidentally bumps into Alexis, causing the hat to fall off her head and onto the floor.

Here, the referee should immediately stop play and assess a replay hinder. Because London caused Alexis’s hat to fall to the floor, Rule 3.15(i) states that the referee should only assess a replay hinder against Alexis rather than a penalty hinder. The rally should be replayed. Of course, if London were to intentionally knock Alexis’s hat off her head, the referee could then assess a warning and/or technical foul for unsportsmanlike behavior.

But we know London, being the awesome sport and incredible athlete that he is, would never do that.

Scenario 3: No Hinder

Lastly, suppose that Grant Williams (the Boys 16U Champion) is playing Rebecca Christopher (the Girls 16U Champion). During a rally, Rebecca hits a low, hard cross-court passing shot that Grant has no chance of returning. Unfortunately, an earring Rebecca is wearing falls to the floor as she is making the shot.

In this instance, two things should happen. First, the referee should award the point to Rebecca. Recall, Rule 3.15(i) includes an exception that says that no penalty hinder should be awarded if “the last shot that was hit could not be retrieved.” Thus, even though Rebecca lost an article she brought onto the court, and Grant did not cause the earring to fall, the referee should still not call a hinder because Grant had no chance of returning Rebecca’s shot. Thus, Rebecca should win the rally.

Second, Grant’s mom, Colleen, should bake the players homemade cinnamon rolls, because Colleen’s homemade cinnamon rolls are to die for.

A special congratulations to 34 junior athletes who qualified the Junior Team USA for 2026! You can find the full list and read about these amazing athletes in the July issue of Serving Up the News.

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 article!