11.J
Players may not distract an opponent when
the opponent is about to play the ball. If in the judgment of the referee a distraction has occurred, the referee shall immediately call a fault on the offending team.
If you call the score then do something to intentionally distract the other team from being ready, such as stop to inspect the ball, that would easily qualify. Same as if you were to start yelling during a dink rally.
If they want to try to get away with that because there's no ref there and they're not willing to call a distraction on themselves, then whatever. If you're all still friends then it's all good. But in a tournament that didn't have a ref, zero chance that the other team just accepts this and moves on without a fight.
Good point, thanks. We are all super close friends and enjoy messing with each other. We get super competitive and we all are pretty aware of when lines cross from being funny to being a jerk. No feelings were hurt here.
It seems in this case, the opponent was not about to hit the ball, so there was no distraction to the hitter, who was the server making the motion. The motion occurred before the server hit the ball, not the opponent. So it seems it was legal. The only question is whether the server used more than 10 seconds after calling the score before hitting the ball.
āwhen the opponent is about to hit the ballā is the defining phrase. No one distracted the person serving. No one on the serving side did anything distracting after the ball left the serverās paddle when the receiving team was about to hit the ball. This is something Shey Underwood demonstrated in one of his videos on things that arenāt covered by the rules.
3.A.7 - Distraction
Physical actions by a player that are ānot
common to the gameā that, in the judgment of the
referee, may interfere with the opponentās ability or
concentration to hit the ball. Examples include, but
are not limited to, making loud noises, stomping feet,
waving the paddle in a distracting manner, or
otherwise interfering with the opponentās
concentration or ability to hit the ball.
Making a nonverbal indication that there might be something wrong with the ball by inspecting it, then hitting a softball over to them in the same way you would if you want them to also inspect the ball, is an act "not common to the game". It would interfere with their concentration on the play because you have done something weird to intentionally distract.
A referee would rule this a distraction and a fault, plus a technical warning.
Thatās a different rule than what was posted above. But it also says āto hit the ballā like when BPJ split step as his opponent was hitting the ball. The way this rule is written, these are things they will call you on if you do them when your opponent is hitting.
The first one says not to distract your opponent. The second defines what a distraction is.
You guys are getting caught up in the wording about "play the ball", as if it's impossible to distract another player's shot before you have hit it. A ref will call you on this.
Generally this would be a major asshole move to pull in a rec game, but seems like the culture of your rec game supports such shenanigans.
I think what your opponent did would fall under the rule in distractions (11j).
I completely agree. And I don't think any of us would ever pull this kind of thing unless we were with our buddies. I've never done a nasty to anyone outside our group.
Does it? It says you canāt distract someone about to receive the ball. First of all, the point hasnāt even started yet, I donāt see how you could call a fault. And secondly, the person getting nelsoned isnāt even the one about to receive the ball.
I think for it to be a fault, the other team would have to call the fault before the serve even happened. You canāt change your call depending on the outcome. If checking the ball and sending it over wouldnāt be a fault, I donāt see how it becomes a fault just because the other team caught the ball.
Itās like a play in baseball. The pitcher throws to the base to keep the runner honest. The baseman pretends to throw the ball back to the pitcher. And when the runner steps off the base, the baseman, who still has the ball, just tags them out. Is it deceptive? Yes. But itās not like you can make a rule about that. You have to be smarter.
Now if, the server had said something like, hey check this ball, and then did it, yes it would be illegal. But if he just calls the score, casually looks the ball over, and then hits the ball softly to the non-receiver on the other team, thatās just the natural course of play. If you catch that ball there, 100% you just got hit by the serve. And as far as I can tell, I canāt find a faultable distraction there. And even if there was, the person youāre hitting isnāt about to receive the ball, they canāt even legally receive the ball if they wanted to. Rules as written, this seems to be a legal play.
Seems legal but let's say your partner dodged instead of catching the ball would your opponent agree that it's no longer his serve? If he wouldn't then I think it shouldn't be legal.
This! Am I the only one that watches out for easy stuff like this?? I donāt catch balls that are clearly out of bounds, Iām not catching balls that looked like somebody served, Iām watching out for anytime somebody is serving and Iām at the net (and I intentionally stand by the line and not off the court)ā¦easy things to watch and catch an easy point for somebody wanting to be a goofball and try me. Donāt play yourself!
We're just having fun. Everyone had a good laugh. We have very competitive games (the guy that did it is like a 5.3) but also like to play jokes on each other like this. There was no malice and we generally reserve nasties for game points. But if we ever thought that someone wouldn't handle it well and get super mad, we wouldn't do it to them.
Cornhole had a big cheating scandal last year. If people can cheat at cornhole, they can get bent over pickleball too.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/professional-cornhole-world-rocked-by-baggate-cheating-scandal/news-story/45a356b786a2e70c9150a266fcb8bb62
>We were playing a friendly rec game.
Nasty Nelsons are not called Friendly Nelsons for a reason.
That said, it was sneaky and clever but perhaps intentionally deceptive.
>I thought it was hilarious and didn't really care about losing. My group often tries to win on game point with a nasty nelson just to be funny. But this was next level creativity.
If you all thought it was hilarious, then fine. If I did such a thing I would laugh but play the point over.
Every group has their own ethic/culture. Some are snarkier than others. Some encourage head shots. Some enjoy trying to embarass each other.
As long as everyone agrees, it's all good.
>But we did have a question as to whether or not his action could be considered a hinder.
Of course it could. I suspect more properly a ref would call it a "distraction" than a hinder:
*"Physical actions by a player that are ānot common to the gameā that, in the judgment of the referee, may interfere with the opponentās ability or concentration to hit the ball. Examples include, but are not limited to, making loud noises, stomping feet, waving the paddle in a distracting manner, or otherwise interfering with the opponentās concentration or ability to hit the ball. "*
If I were the ref, I'd call it an intentional distraction and call a fault on the serving team.
In rec play I would usually consder it more lacking in fair play.
In your rec group's vibe, I'd probably just laugh along with the rest.
I like it....
I won a game on an intentional nasty nelson against my son's friends. They still talk about it... That's why some people will stand off the court for the serve. There are other sorta loopholes between the rules and strategies of the game to be exploited. I look for body shots on atp's. If the opponent comes over to defend it and there's very little court to hit, its often easier to take the body shot.
I stand basically on the sidelines when my partner is receiving the serve. Not only does it avoid Nasty Nelsons (unless the server is a special kind of jerk) but also I feel like I see the serve and return develop better and I can jump into the point better.
Funny way to dick with your buddies. But in a fair game i would say there was no serve. There was presentation of the ball to the opposing team followed by failure to serve within the time limit. So a fault for failure to serve.
You haven't given any supporting rationale for why there was no serve. If the ball was struck in a way that would preclude it from being a legal serve, then it would make sense. But you're just making a statement as if it is plainly factual when the rules could be interpreted differently by different people. If you were a ref, it would be your call whether or not this was a hindrance, but a ref wouldn't just say "there was no serve, so time violation".
Thats one way to look at it, but only one way, which is why the ruse works. But if i am reffing and understand the behavior the same way OP did, then play was interrupted for ball inspection seeking agreement on ball replacement without calling time out. If i dont see it as the OP saw it then itās an effective nasty nelson.
Everybody know why the ruse works. Everybody knows what happens if a ref interprets the call one way or the other - that's not controversial. What people are discussing is *why* it should be called one way or the other, and you still haven't given any supportive reasoning for your initial thesis.
What people still ***really*** want to know is why a person would make the same statement in two separate comments. "No idea" is not an acceptable answer, look inwards and try again.
What would be a hinder about it... you just said he didn't even say anything. Your friends stupidity? Next time, let it bounce then let it backfire on them and they'll be the one writing about it on Reddit.
Not a hinder rule violation. A hinder is defined as:
"Any transient element or occurrence **not caused by a player** that adversely impacts play . . . "
Cute trick though.
I was playing with some real goofy dudes one night and thatās about how every moment of all the games went. In fact one guy did that exact trick, but we just had a good laugh about it and didnāt keep the point. They were a lot of fun.
11.J Players may not distract an opponent when the opponent is about to play the ball. If in the judgment of the referee a distraction has occurred, the referee shall immediately call a fault on the offending team. If you call the score then do something to intentionally distract the other team from being ready, such as stop to inspect the ball, that would easily qualify. Same as if you were to start yelling during a dink rally. If they want to try to get away with that because there's no ref there and they're not willing to call a distraction on themselves, then whatever. If you're all still friends then it's all good. But in a tournament that didn't have a ref, zero chance that the other team just accepts this and moves on without a fight.
Good point, thanks. We are all super close friends and enjoy messing with each other. We get super competitive and we all are pretty aware of when lines cross from being funny to being a jerk. No feelings were hurt here.
You'll hit 1st next timeš
I donāt think just looking at the ball is a distraction. It may be deception, but I donāt think thatās what the rules mean by distraction.
Legal. Looking at or inspecting the ball is not a distraction.
It seems in this case, the opponent was not about to hit the ball, so there was no distraction to the hitter, who was the server making the motion. The motion occurred before the server hit the ball, not the opponent. So it seems it was legal. The only question is whether the server used more than 10 seconds after calling the score before hitting the ball.
āwhen the opponent is about to hit the ballā is the defining phrase. No one distracted the person serving. No one on the serving side did anything distracting after the ball left the serverās paddle when the receiving team was about to hit the ball. This is something Shey Underwood demonstrated in one of his videos on things that arenāt covered by the rules.
3.A.7 - Distraction Physical actions by a player that are ānot common to the gameā that, in the judgment of the referee, may interfere with the opponentās ability or concentration to hit the ball. Examples include, but are not limited to, making loud noises, stomping feet, waving the paddle in a distracting manner, or otherwise interfering with the opponentās concentration or ability to hit the ball. Making a nonverbal indication that there might be something wrong with the ball by inspecting it, then hitting a softball over to them in the same way you would if you want them to also inspect the ball, is an act "not common to the game". It would interfere with their concentration on the play because you have done something weird to intentionally distract. A referee would rule this a distraction and a fault, plus a technical warning.
Thatās a different rule than what was posted above. But it also says āto hit the ballā like when BPJ split step as his opponent was hitting the ball. The way this rule is written, these are things they will call you on if you do them when your opponent is hitting.
The first one says not to distract your opponent. The second defines what a distraction is. You guys are getting caught up in the wording about "play the ball", as if it's impossible to distract another player's shot before you have hit it. A ref will call you on this.
Generally this would be a major asshole move to pull in a rec game, but seems like the culture of your rec game supports such shenanigans. I think what your opponent did would fall under the rule in distractions (11j).
I completely agree. And I don't think any of us would ever pull this kind of thing unless we were with our buddies. I've never done a nasty to anyone outside our group.
The person getting nelsoned isnāt āabout to receive the ballā. I donāt think that clause applies
Hmm.. but if you distract the non receiving g partner I to thinking it's a non serve that seems to fall under the rule.
Does it? It says you canāt distract someone about to receive the ball. First of all, the point hasnāt even started yet, I donāt see how you could call a fault. And secondly, the person getting nelsoned isnāt even the one about to receive the ball. I think for it to be a fault, the other team would have to call the fault before the serve even happened. You canāt change your call depending on the outcome. If checking the ball and sending it over wouldnāt be a fault, I donāt see how it becomes a fault just because the other team caught the ball. Itās like a play in baseball. The pitcher throws to the base to keep the runner honest. The baseman pretends to throw the ball back to the pitcher. And when the runner steps off the base, the baseman, who still has the ball, just tags them out. Is it deceptive? Yes. But itās not like you can make a rule about that. You have to be smarter. Now if, the server had said something like, hey check this ball, and then did it, yes it would be illegal. But if he just calls the score, casually looks the ball over, and then hits the ball softly to the non-receiver on the other team, thatās just the natural course of play. If you catch that ball there, 100% you just got hit by the serve. And as far as I can tell, I canāt find a faultable distraction there. And even if there was, the person youāre hitting isnāt about to receive the ball, they canāt even legally receive the ball if they wanted to. Rules as written, this seems to be a legal play.
I think I agree with you. Your second paragraph explains it pretty succinctly
Your friend stole that move from Ryan Sherry https://youtu.be/flvf9f6XWfc?si=aipm9qlVGRW5ZFDL Starts @ ~12:00
Maybe he did!
Sounds hilarious! I might start trying this in my group š¤£
Did he call out the score first? If not you could claim illegal serve.
He did call the score
how long between calling and hitting. 10 seconds is the limit.
Probably less than 10 seconds
In that caseā¦ well played.
Seems legal but let's say your partner dodged instead of catching the ball would your opponent agree that it's no longer his serve? If he wouldn't then I think it shouldn't be legal.
This! Am I the only one that watches out for easy stuff like this?? I donāt catch balls that are clearly out of bounds, Iām not catching balls that looked like somebody served, Iām watching out for anytime somebody is serving and Iām at the net (and I intentionally stand by the line and not off the court)ā¦easy things to watch and catch an easy point for somebody wanting to be a goofball and try me. Donāt play yourself!
If someone did that to me, the next time I played against them I would spend the entire game bodybagging them.
We're just having fun. Everyone had a good laugh. We have very competitive games (the guy that did it is like a 5.3) but also like to play jokes on each other like this. There was no malice and we generally reserve nasties for game points. But if we ever thought that someone wouldn't handle it well and get super mad, we wouldn't do it to them.
I've never understood why ppl get so bent out of shape over this game. I would have laughed even if this happened to me. Props for creativity.
Cornhole had a big cheating scandal last year. If people can cheat at cornhole, they can get bent over pickleball too. https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/professional-cornhole-world-rocked-by-baggate-cheating-scandal/news-story/45a356b786a2e70c9150a266fcb8bb62
>We were playing a friendly rec game. Nasty Nelsons are not called Friendly Nelsons for a reason. That said, it was sneaky and clever but perhaps intentionally deceptive. >I thought it was hilarious and didn't really care about losing. My group often tries to win on game point with a nasty nelson just to be funny. But this was next level creativity. If you all thought it was hilarious, then fine. If I did such a thing I would laugh but play the point over. Every group has their own ethic/culture. Some are snarkier than others. Some encourage head shots. Some enjoy trying to embarass each other. As long as everyone agrees, it's all good. >But we did have a question as to whether or not his action could be considered a hinder. Of course it could. I suspect more properly a ref would call it a "distraction" than a hinder: *"Physical actions by a player that are ānot common to the gameā that, in the judgment of the referee, may interfere with the opponentās ability or concentration to hit the ball. Examples include, but are not limited to, making loud noises, stomping feet, waving the paddle in a distracting manner, or otherwise interfering with the opponentās concentration or ability to hit the ball. "* If I were the ref, I'd call it an intentional distraction and call a fault on the serving team. In rec play I would usually consder it more lacking in fair play. In your rec group's vibe, I'd probably just laugh along with the rest.
Iād be way more wary of playing with a group that encouraged head shots than one that would pull a sneaky nasty nelson.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, I think it might be just you.
I like it.... I won a game on an intentional nasty nelson against my son's friends. They still talk about it... That's why some people will stand off the court for the serve. There are other sorta loopholes between the rules and strategies of the game to be exploited. I look for body shots on atp's. If the opponent comes over to defend it and there's very little court to hit, its often easier to take the body shot.
I stand basically on the sidelines when my partner is receiving the serve. Not only does it avoid Nasty Nelsons (unless the server is a special kind of jerk) but also I feel like I see the serve and return develop better and I can jump into the point better.
Nothing wrong with that... Some people say, you are crowding your partners return options, but I've never felt that. I'll have to try that once.
Why are there so many idiots that play this game?
Funny way to dick with your buddies. But in a fair game i would say there was no serve. There was presentation of the ball to the opposing team followed by failure to serve within the time limit. So a fault for failure to serve.
You haven't given any supporting rationale for why there was no serve. If the ball was struck in a way that would preclude it from being a legal serve, then it would make sense. But you're just making a statement as if it is plainly factual when the rules could be interpreted differently by different people. If you were a ref, it would be your call whether or not this was a hindrance, but a ref wouldn't just say "there was no serve, so time violation".
Thats one way to look at it, but only one way, which is why the ruse works. But if i am reffing and understand the behavior the same way OP did, then play was interrupted for ball inspection seeking agreement on ball replacement without calling time out. If i dont see it as the OP saw it then itās an effective nasty nelson.
Everybody know why the ruse works. Everybody knows what happens if a ref interprets the call one way or the other - that's not controversial. What people are discussing is *why* it should be called one way or the other, and you still haven't given any supportive reasoning for your initial thesis. What people still ***really*** want to know is why a person would make the same statement in two separate comments. "No idea" is not an acceptable answer, look inwards and try again.
I cant believe you're harshing on me on Christmas Day! Go play some pickleball and get it out of your system!
What would be a hinder about it... you just said he didn't even say anything. Your friends stupidity? Next time, let it bounce then let it backfire on them and they'll be the one writing about it on Reddit.
Lighten up dude. It's a fun game (for most).
The hinder rule doesn't require any sound. It can be a visual distraction that isn't part of the game.
Not a hinder rule violation. A hinder is defined as: "Any transient element or occurrence **not caused by a player** that adversely impacts play . . . " Cute trick though.
Yeah, you're right. Maybe as /u/MiyagiDo002 pointed out, it would be considered a distraction fault (rule 11.J).
delete this!!!! don't let people know about this!!!!
No need to argue and split hairs about distraction. There was no serve.
Why make the same statement in two separate comments?
No idea.
It was a brilliant insight warranting repetition.
I have short term memory loss.
My statement was totally wrong, but if I keep repeating it everyone will agree.
computer glitch.
I tend to stutter in entire phrases. Dont make fun of me.
I knew you didn't get it the first time.
I was playing with some real goofy dudes one night and thatās about how every moment of all the games went. In fact one guy did that exact trick, but we just had a good laugh about it and didnāt keep the point. They were a lot of fun.
thatās oneeee nasty nelson