Rules Rule: A Shout-Out to Otto Dietrich: “What’s the Call?”

Undoubtedly one of the most rewarding aspects of being USA Racquetball’s National Rules Commissioner is the questions I receive from members asking for rules clarifications. Racquetball is, at its core, a straightforward sport: two (or four) players, one ball, a 20x40 space, with the goal of hitting it back and forth against a wall. Simple, right?

Yet, the number of different scenarios that have been presented to me for rules interpretations is astounding (in a good way!). Before taking this position, I had never considered the number of different situations that could occur on a court and how those scenarios must be interpreted under the rules. It is truly fascinating to read the emails from members with odd scenarios, asking “what is the correct call,” and trying to apply the rules in those scenarios.

In that spirit—and to pay homage to the days when Otto Dietrich answered “what’s the call?” questions from members—below are some recent questions I have received from members.

Q.  A server, after checking the readiness of the receiver, stops her pre-service preparation and drops the ball in the same fashion as her other prior service motions.  The server then begins the motion of a serve, including bouncing the ball, then does not move the racquet toward the ball, rather she grabs the ball after the bounce and stops the service attempt. We have a player who routinely spins their drop and many times after the drop, the ball spins back towards their body so close that they cannot initiate the swing because the ball spins back too close to their body.

A.  To address this scenario, there are a couple of rules that we need to consider. First, Rule 3.3 says that a service motion “is defined as any continuous movement that results in the ball being served.” Then, Rule 3.10(d) says that “any movement of the racquet toward the ball during the serve that is non-continuous and done for the purpose of deceiving the receiver” is a balk or fake serve, resulting in an out serve. That rule further clarifies that if “the referee believes that no deceit was involved, the referee has an option of declaring it ‘no serve’ and having that serve replayed without penalty.” And then Rule 3.17(a)(8) would allow a referee to call a warning or technical foul for anything he or she considers to be "unsportsmanlike" behavior. 

In this situation, it sounds like a player is spinning the ball to begin the service motion and often finds that the spin is not to her liking (because, the ball spins back to the server such that it prevents her from being able to hit the ball cleanly). The referee would likely determine that the service motion began under Rule 3.3. However, the referee would be within his or her discretion, under Rule 3.10(d), to rule that no deceit was involved thus allowing the server to attempt the serve again.

However, if a referee determines that the server is trying to deceive the receiving player or gain an unfair advantage, the referee may give a warning or technical foul under Rule 3.17(a)(8). 

Q.  During a rally, Player A1 hits a shot that is close to Player A2. Player B1, who is behind Player A2, is hoping that the ball hits Player A2 before calling a hinder. Player B1 would prefer getting an automatic point rather than having to replay. Is that okay?

A.  Much of the answer to this question depends on whether this is a self-officiated game or a refereed game. If you read my April Rules Rule! article, you know that USA Racquetball encourages referees to stop play immediately when a hinder occurs. Thus, in this situation, if the referee sees that Player A2 is hindering Player B1 from being able to see or make a shot, the referee should immediately stop play and call a hinder (whether that be a replay or penalty hinder). The referee should not wait to see if the ball hits Player A2.

Given the way this question is worded—that is, because Player B1 is trying to make a call himself/herself—my presumption is that this occurred during a self-officiated game.

Section D of the USA Racquetball Official Rulebook—which discusses self-officiated games—requires good sportsmanship and honesty from the players. In that spirit, I encourage players in self-officiated doubles games to not try what Player B1 did in this scenario. That is, if Player B1 believes a hinder occurred, he/she should call the hinder immediately and not wait in hopes the ball hits Player A2.

But let’s unpack this scenario a little more. In self-officiated games, Rule D.4 says that players who are hindered must “immediately” call a hinder. Also, Rule 3.14(a)(4) says that a replay hinder for a screen ball occurs when the ball passes “so close to the body of the defensive player that it prevents the offensive player from having a clear view of the ball.” And, under Rule 3.14(a)(6), a safety hold-up occurs when any player is about to “execute a return” and must stop to avoid causing injury or hitting another player.

Therefore, in this situation, to determine if what Player B1 did was legal or not, we must ask ourselves when the hinder occurred and what kind of hinder it was.

If this was a screen ball hinder, Player B1’s actions were not legal. This is because the hinder occurred when the ball passed “so closely” to Player A2, meaning that Player B1 should have “immediately” called a hinder when the ball passed “so closely” to Player A2 and not have waited to see what the result was (as in, would it have hit either Player A1 or Player A2). However, if the hinder was a safety-hold up, Player B1’s actions might be legal. This is because the hinder does not occur until Player B1 is ready to swing at the ball, and must stop to avoid hurting or hitting anyone—and, of course, by that time the ball will have passed by Player A2.

Bottom line:  In the spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship, players should call hinders immediately in self-officiated games and not look for “gotcha” opportunities.

Q.  During a rally, a player calls a hinder.  It is a correct hinder call.  However, after the hinder call, the ball hits an opponent. My take on this is that the hinder call causes the ball to be dead and subsequent contact is ignored.  Is this correct?

A.  Let’s presume this is a self-officiated game, as the players appear to be making the hinder calls themselves versus a referee making the calls.  

This is an interesting question that is not entirely clear from the rules. Once again, let’s consider Rule D.4. That rule says that “only the person going for the shot can stop play by calling a hinder, and must do so immediately and not wait to see how good the resulting shot was.” While this situation does not fit perfectly into this rule  (because instead of seeing how good or bad the following shot was, the hindered player waited to see if his/her opponent got hit with the ball), I think it is close enough that the rules intend for the hindered player to call a hinder—and stop play—immediately. Thus, anything that happened after the hinder is null and void. 

To conclude . . .

On a personal note, this is my one-year anniversary of becoming USA Racquetball’s Rules Commissioner. I cannot thank the leadership at USA Racquetball enough for their trust in me. I cannot wait to see what the next year has to bring! 

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!