Two Championships, Lots of Rule Questions

February was chock-full of national championship events. First there was the USA Racquetball National Indoor Championships held February 11-15 in beautiful Tempe, Arizona. Then there was the USA Racquetball National High School Championships held February 25-March 1 in St. Louis, Missouri.

I had the privilege of attending both events—the former as a volunteer helping to run the tournament desk and the latter as a coach of one of the high school teams competing in the tournament. Throughout both events, several players, coaches, and spectators asked me for rules clarifications. I jotted many of them down with the goal of being able to share the questions and answers with everyone.

Below are some of the rules issues that came up during the two events.

Order of Service in Doubles

During the Indoor Championships, a referee asked me if the players could alternate the order of service in doubles. The answer is “yes.” Under Rule 4.2(a), “Either partner can serve first each time the team steps in to serve.”

For example, presume that during a women’s doubles match, Annie Sanchez serves a rally that results in a handout. Then, Naomi Ros (Annie’s doubles partner) serves, and the result is a side out. Later in the game, Annie and Naomi get the serve back. At that point, it is perfectly legal under Rule 4.2(a) for Naomi to serve first followed by Annie. In fact, Annie and Naomi can keep alternating who serves first throughout the remainder of the game.

Of course, under Rule 4.2(a), “The referee must make certain that neither partner is allowed to serve again after that partner has previously lost a rally while the team is serving.” Some have argued that allowing teams to alternate the order of serve puts too much pressure on referees—who are already tasked with monitoring several things at once—to keep track of the order of serve. I can certainly see that point of view. But unless and until Rule 4.2(a) is changed, the rules allow doubles players to alternate the order of serve. 

“Handout” vs. “Half-Out”

During the High School Championships, almost every player refereeing doubles matches used the term “half-out” rather than “handout.” The term was used when the serving team lost a rally, to indicate that it was time for the second player on that team to serve.

Technically, the USA Racquetball Rulebook uses the term “handout.”

Is this the most critical rules clarification? Certainly not, but it is still important for referees across the country to use the same terminology to avoid confusion.

Overhead Serves and Screens

At the Indoor Championships, I was asked whether an overhand serve—more frequently used in outdoor events—can be a screen serve. Screen serves have been a hot topic lately. For a detailed analysis of the components of a screen serve, check out the February 2026 Rules Rule! article found https://www.usaracquetball.com/news/2026/february/20/rules-rule-the-problem-with-a-z-serve.

Rule 3.9(i) does not specify what types of serves (e.g., drive, overhand, lob, etc.) can be a screen, meaning any type of serve can—in theory—be a screen serve. However, I have a hard time imagining that a well-executed overhand serve would or should be called a screen. This is because the first component of a screen serve under Rule 3.9(i) requires the ball to pass “so closely” to the serving player that it prevents the receiving player from having a clear view of the ball. The point of an overhand serve is that it does not pass closely to the serving player.

So a well-executed overhand serve will not likely be a screen serve.

But then again, who amongst us hasn’t messed up an overhand serve?

“Possible Game” and “Possible Match”

At least 100 times during the High School Championships I heard referees use terms such as “possible game” or “possible match.” In fact, when I explained to one of the referees that she should not use those terms, she became confused, explaining, “I thought it was required?”

It is not required. In fact, referees should never use terminology such as “possible game” or “possible match.” When calling the score, referees should simply state the score (e.g., “fourteen serving eleven”) and nothing more.

For a more detailed explanation of why these terms should not be used, check out the July 2025 Rules Rule! article found: https://www.usaracquetball.com/news/2025/july/19/rules-rule-a-desperate-plea-to-the-racquetball-community.

Contact and Hinders

Oh boy, this one was controversial. Coaches and players at the High School Championships asked me several questions about what should happen when a player makes contact with his or her opponent during a swing. This can get complicated, so let’s break it down into the types of contact.

First, there is backswing contact. Under Rules 3.14(a)(5) and 3.15(b)(1), any racquet or body contact that occurs on the backswing or on the way to just prior to returning the ball, which impairs the hitting player’s ability to take a reasonable swing, is a hinder. If the contact is unpreventable, the referee may call a replay hinder. Otherwise, it should be a penalty hinder.

Second, there is stroke interference. Under Rule 3.15(b)(2), whenever there is contact during the racquet’s forward movement “up to and until the point” that the ball leaves the racquet, a penalty hinder should be called.

Third, there is follow-through contact. This occurs after the ball leaves the racquet and then the racquet contacts another player. Under Rule 3.15(b)(3), this would “normally” not be a hinder of any kind for either player. However, exceptions can occur. For example, suppose that Robbie Collins is standing just a few inches from Thomas Carter, as Thomas is swinging. Mid-swing, Thomas realizes he is about to hit Robbie and alters his swing. By no fault of his own, Thomas still hits the ball and then hits Robbie.

In my view, that is still a hinder. First, consider the wording in Rule 3.15(b)(3) which says that follow-through contact is not “normally” a hinder. This is not a normal situation where contact is made well after the ball has left the racquet. This is a situation where a player altered his swing to avoid catastrophe, yet still ended up making contact with the player after the ball left the racquet. Second, Rule 3.14(a)(7) says that any “other unintentional interference that prevents an opponent from having a fair chance to see or return the ball” can be a replay hinder. In my scenario, Thomas should still benefit from a hinder call even though the ball left his racquet before the contact occurred.

Who Should Call Hinders?

Several referees during the High School Championships operated under the belief that a player must stop playing and ask for a hinder before the referee can call a hinder.

No!!

Nothing in the Rulebook indicates that a player in a refereed game must stop play and ask for a hinder before the referee may award a hinder call. Instead, it is the responsibility of the referee to stop play if he or she sees a hinder occur.

For example, if Grant Williams commits a hinder that prevents Ayan Sharma from having a fair chance to hit the ball, the referee should immediately stop play and call for a hinder—whether that is a penalty or replay. The referee should not expect Ayan to stop playing and ask for a hinder and should not let play keep going.

This point is so critical that I intend to devote an entire upcoming article to this issue.

Screens During Rallies

Most players know that screens can be called on a serve, but many do not know that screens can be called during the rally as well. Under Rule 3.14(a)(4), a screen during a rally occurs when the ball, having rebounded from the front wall, passes “so closely” to the defensive player that it prevents the offensive player from having a clear view of the ball. If that happens, the referee should call a replay hinder.

Here is the situation that occurred during the last day of the High School Championships.

Player A was standing in mid-court, just past the Service Zone. Player B was in the back of the court, a few feet in front of the back wall. Player A hit a pinch shot into the front left corner. Player B did not immediately react, and only started running to the ball when it was too late. Player B asked for a screen, arguing that he could not see the ball.

In this situation, the referee should not call a replay hinder for a screen ball. Screen balls under Rule 3.14(a)(4) require that the ball pass “so closely” to the offensive player. The rule is not intended for situations when a player simply does not see the ball. Here, Player A’s shot was a pinch shot into the front left corner while he was standing behind the Service Zone. Because the shot did not pass closely by Player A, no screen should be called. Instead, Player B needs to put himself into a better court position to see where Player A’s shot was going.

If you did not see your question answered here, please email me! I am always looking for new topics for Rules Rule! articles. For example, I know that many are still confused about what a drive serve violation is, and I intend to address that question next month!

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