New Front Court Hinder/Avoidable Hinder Picture Examples.
Jordan Kahn
http://members.aol.com/Jordanisra/frontcourthinder.html
Read my suggested ON COURT EXAMPLE (at the bottom right page website column) to
try with a partner to determine what is or isn't a Hinder or Avoidable Hinder
for you and your friends.
This is also a great teaching drill to explain shot selections!
Jordan
PS. Perhaps this could help educate some of those closed-minded
one-rule-fits-all-players believers.
At least this post had no "" marks ;)
--
Subject: *avoidable* argument
From: "Schwanny" sch...@srt.com
Date: 1/12/04 12:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <1004f09...@corp.supernews.com>
had the pleasure of reffing a tough open match today where a situation
generated some heated debate - i'd like some clarification if you could
stomach another rule interpretation...
player A finds himself way up front after hitting the ball, player B (also
set up in the front court) has to just find the front wall and he'd win the
rally as B was waaayyy out of position. player B is NOT in the "straight to
front wall" lane, nor is he in the "crosscourt-corner" lane, but on the
return player A's shot hits B in the leg. i called for a replay. player A
argues that B was out of the play entirely, wouldn't be able to return any
shot that made it's way to the front wall, and that B took that shot away.
line judge affirmed that position, called for an avoidable. after some
debate, player B acquiesces and asks me to give A the point, overruling my
call. "it's your move, seargent...what do ya do?"
Joe Argentina
> OK, I made a quickie webpage showing the FRONT COURT Hinder / Avoidable Hinder.
>
> http://members.aol.com/Jordanisra/frontcourthinder.html
>
Well, I looked at the very nice web page, but I think you're
completely wrong in saying that the ball represented by the blue line
in your diagram is a penalty hinder. Let's break down the avoidable
rule and see if any part of it applies:
Rule 3.15 AVOIDABLE HINDERS
An avoidable hinder results in the loss of the rally. An avoidable
hinder does not necessarily have to be an intentional act. Dead ball
hinders are described in Rule 3.14. Any of the following results in an
avoidable hinder:
(a) Failure to Move. A player does not move sufficiently to allow an
opponent a shot straight to the front wall as well as a cross-court
shot which is a shot directly to the front wall at an angle that would
cause the ball to rebound directly to the rear corner farthest from
the player hitting the ball. Also when a player moves in such a
direction that it prevents an opponent from taking either of these
shots.
(Joe) We agree that this is not pertinent. The straight and
down-the-line are available to "H".
(b) Stroke Interference. This occurs when a player moves, or fails to
move, so that the opponent returning the ball does not have a free,
unimpeded swing. This includes unintentionally moving in a direction
which prevents the opponent from making an open, offensive shot.
(Joe) This is not pertinent. "H" has a full and unimpeded swing.
(c) Blocking. Moves into a position which blocks the opponent from
getting to, or returning, the ball; or in doubles, a player moves in
front of an opponent as the player's partner is returning the ball.
(Joe) This is not pertinent. "H" has gotten to the ball, unimpeded.
Plus, "R" is stationary.
(d) Moving into the Ball. Moves in the way and is struck by the ball
just played by the opponent.
(Joe) Not pertinent. "R" is stationary. Did NOT move in the way of the
ball.
(e) Pushing. Deliberately pushes or shoves opponent during a rally.
(Joe) Nope.
(f) Intentional Distractions. Deliberate shouting, stamping of feet,
waving of racquet, or any other manner of disrupting one's opponent.
(Joe) Nope.
(g) View Obstruction. A player moves across an opponent's line of
vision just before the opponent strikes the ball.
(Joe) Nope.
(h) Wetting the Ball. The players, particularly the server, should
insure that the ball is dry prior to the serve. Any wet ball that is
not corrected prior to the serve shall result in an avoidable hinder
against the server.
(Joe) Nope.
(i) Apparel or Equipment Loss. If a player loses any apparel,
equipment, or other article, play shall be immediately stopped and
that player shall be called for an avoidable hinder, unless the player
has just hit a shot that could not be retrieved. If the loss of
equipment is caused by a player's opponent, then a dead-ball hinder
should be called. If the opponent's action is judged to have been
avoidable, then the opponent should be called for an avoidable hinder.
(Joe) Nope.
OK. So nowhere in this rule is the following statement supported:
"If the ball could not have been returned, based on the speed,
placement of the shot and position of the player that was hit, an
Avoidable Hinder is called."
Joe Argentina
Philadelphia
pds
the rulebook unless he moves into the ball on purpose. If the shooter can't
manage a winning shot in that example he doesn't deserve the point.
"Jordan Kahn" <jorda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040113020703...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Jordan Kahn
allowing a Cross-Court Return! The rulebook only stated "Straight-In" returns!
Did that mean players wouldn't have an "Avoidable Hinder" called against them
for blocking the Cross Court path?
If it was "legal" then, why isn't it now? Or was it just a flaw in the
rulebook?
Let me try to explain the Rulebook should NEVER be taken literally for EVERY
rule, since there are some possible contradictions to some of the more complex
rules, like Hinders and Avoidables. Especially when unique positioning or added
players (doubles) occurs.
The NEW page below shows THREE different court positions of the same shot.
http://members.aol.com/Jordanisra/3hinders.html
Notice that the last two examples ARE just Hinders, because this occurs on a
"PINCH" shot.
The first example IS A AVOIDABLE, because it was a pass shot that could not
have been returned (assuming the hitter got hit at a speed that was not to soft
or too high).
This can easily be determined by seeing how hard and where the ball hit the
player.
But during a PINCH shot that hits a player, it is more difficult to determine
if the player who got hit could have made a return, since a pinch CAN SOMETIMES
be played off the front wall or off the side-front-side combination, if hit too
hard OR too high.
The page below is the original example with only the front court example PLUS a
3d-player example.
http://members.aol.com/Jordanisra/frontcourthinder.html
I DO UNDERSTAND why some of you disagree with my reasoning, simply because "it
is not in the rulebook".
But does that mean I can play with two racquets, since that is not in the
rulebook either?
The spirit of the rules for safe and fair play should never be compromised by
rules created to cover similar, but different circumstances.
Jordan
RCS111
I am going to reply to your post below. Not to try and change your mind on the
position that you have taken, but for those readers who may not be sure what is
the correct rules interpretation in this case.
I have inserted several comments.
Ross
>Subject: Re: New Front Court Hinder/Avoidable Hinder Picture Examples.
>From: jorda...@aol.com (Jordan Kahn)
>Date: 1/13/2004 8:53 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040113215310...@mb-m03.aol.com>
>
>At one time, the rulebook NEVER mentioned anything about the non-hitter
>allowing a Cross-Court Return! The rulebook only stated "Straight-In"
>returns!
>
>Did that mean players wouldn't have an "Avoidable Hinder" called against them
>for blocking the Cross Court path?
(Ross) Having played for over 30 years, no, in the old days avoidables were
not called when you blocked a cross court shot. In fact, I can't remember
avoidables ever being called. Maybe Bo could help us out here.
>
>If it was "legal" then, why isn't it now? Or was it just a flaw in the
>rulebook?
>
>Let me try to explain the Rulebook should NEVER be taken literally for EVERY
>rule, since there are some possible contradictions to some of the more
>complex
>rules, like Hinders and Avoidables. Especially when unique positioning or
>added
>players (doubles) occurs.
>
>The NEW page below shows THREE different court positions of the same shot.
>
>http://members.aol.com/Jordanisra/3hinders.html
>
>Notice that the last two examples ARE just Hinders, because this occurs on a
>"PINCH" shot.
>
>The first example IS A AVOIDABLE, because it was a pass shot that could not
>have been returned (assuming the hitter got hit at a speed that was not to
>soft
>or too high).
>
>This can easily be determined by seeing how hard and where the ball hit the
>player.
(Ross) We've covered this 'assuming' business in previous posts. My question
to you is that as a player hitting the ball in your first example, which is the
best shot to hit? Using your ratioinale it seems to me it would be your first
example. You have two chances to make it a good shot. One, is to pass the
player and two, is to hit him. Works either way. Aren't you in conflict here
with your emphasis on safety?
>
>But during a PINCH shot that hits a player, it is more difficult to determine
>if the player who got hit could have made a return, since a pinch CAN
>SOMETIMES
>be played off the front wall or off the side-front-side combination, if hit
>too
>hard OR too high.
(Ross) Why can't I 'assume' it couldn't have been returned? Where is the cut
off? Ten feet from the front wall? How about thirteen and a half feet?
>
>The page below is the original example with only the front court example PLUS
>a
>3d-player example.
>
>http://members.aol.com/Jordanisra/frontcourthinder.html
>
>I DO UNDERSTAND why some of you disagree with my reasoning, simply because
>"it
>is not in the rulebook".
(Ross) You are asking for serious problems if you allow each referee the
choice of adding their own interpretation to the rules. It is a given that not
every situation will be covered, but there should be an existing rule that is
used as a basis for dealing with a particular situation. In your example, in
my opinion, there are none.
>But does that mean I can play with two racquets, since that is not in the
>rulebook either?
(Ross) I would say that is covered by the rules shown below.
"Rule 1.2 DESCRIPTION
Racquetball is a competitive game in which a strung racquet is used to serve
and return the ball."
I think most people would agree that this rule would preclude the use of two
racquets at the same time.
>
>The spirit of the rules for safe and fair play should never be compromised by
>rules created to cover similar, but different circumstances.
(Ross) I believe your position on this goes against the spirit of safe and
fair play. You are, in a sense, rewarding a player for hitting another player.
In the interest of safety, perhaps an avoidable should be called on the player
hitting the ball. I believe in squash there is such a provision on balls that
come off the back wall (off of the side wall).
>
>Jordan
Self
jorda...@aol.com says...
>Let me try to explain the Rulebook should NEVER be taken literally for EVERY
>rule, since there are some possible contradictions to some of the more complex
>rules, like Hinders and Avoidables. Especially when unique positioning or added
>players (doubles) occurs.
<eyebrow raised in expectant Spock-like mode, awaiting clarity and logic to
ensue....>
SeanO
Didn't you mean to say:
<eyebrow "raised" in expectant "Spock-like" mode, awaiting "clarity"
and "logic" to ensue....>
seems somewhat more "in-line" with this thread, no?
bo
the cross-court angle. Although most players did so, there were some
who would deliberately take it away on a consistent basis. Very few
avoidables were called. Two choices against this type of player were
to hit enough good pinches and splats to force the receiver to cover
more to the center, or to blast the receiver hard enough and often
enough to carve out a little more room. Both strategies were used
effectively enough that not many people tried to take away the
cross-court all the time. I think the current rule immensely improves
the quality of play and ease of making the avoidable call.
bo
rcs...@aol.com (RCS111) wrote in message news:<20040113234924...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
soccer
opponent serves a high nick lob serve or any serve that comes into the
center of the back court. What becomes an avoidable or just hinder?
The opponent either stands in the way of the front wall(in center
court) which is an avoidable so i hold up, but what if the opp is just
to the side of where the ball is. He barely gives you the front wall
but does and gives a corner towards back left hand corner, but doesnt
give you shot to other corner where you would like to shoot. The opp
is leaning in on the shot trying to jump on a down the line, so if off
a bit hes got it. That is why going to other side is better shot
sometimes, but youll hit him. Holding up just gives him another chance
at a good serve. Or a drive serve crack to forehand that rebounds into
the middle ball is in front of you so tough to go DTL and easy to go
CC, but hit opp.
So what is a hinder at open level? Because every time i can nail it
maybe hit opponent but i dont and try something stupid and may get
lucky or lose point.
Another question is in doubles I play agianst someone who serves to
the backhand side( righthanded) and he serves about six to eight feet
from the sidewall. He intentionally tries to crack serve it but also
a jam serve to you so now the ball is behind him and im leaning
forward the only shot i have is pinch and ever so slight down line or
ceiling which has to be perfect or they have it. what i would like is
to hit is a cross court because ball is front of you and naturally a
pull but yet he is in the way, so if i hold up it is like a freebee to
try it again. It is just a pick up game so i dont want to hit him but
it is aggravating, because i feel like i am picking up bad habits of
hitting around him and going for the pinch a little off balance.
Another one is a woman in doubles who lobs or drives to the forehand
side and ball will either pop off the wall a little or a lot. She
then stands to where she can extend her arm with racquet to side wall
and either touch it or just out of reach. so a cross court is out of
the question because you dont want to hit her, so all is left is a
pefect splat down line or celing but she covers the line bc she
practically standing on it, and partner covers the splat. What do you
do. Again pick up game and i dont want to hit her, so i try to
straight kill or splat or ceiling. She never gives cross court.
Never. Then she also serves a z serve to forehand but my partner or i
could hit it early but now you have two people in the way, so i have
to wait till the ball wraps around the wall to shoot and again she's
in the way. Mind you this is open players. So it is almost done on
purpose. So in pick ups you just hold up and they do it again.
Frustrating. This is why i dont play doubles. Too many people do the
serve to the middle which is just asking for it. But i always hold
up, ecspecially when someone is hitting it hard sometimes all you can
do is swing usually results in a pull for me. so someone is going to
get nailed, but ill go for the pinch or dink instead. sometimes they
should jump but they dont.
the question is do they have to give cross court(slightly) in doubles?
even a DTL slightly off will hit her.
And it just sucks stopping every point and also asking for more room.
Jim Leveque
they only have to give you one cross court, so they can in some sense
pick their poison if you're shooting from the middle of the court.
Sounds to me like they're using your unwillingness to take your
allowed shots as a tactical advantage. Or you may be misjudging where
the correct contact location for a cross court shot is. Or they may
be accidentally or deliberately blocking your cross court.
Either way, I'd have a third party watch your game. If they agree,
then you get to play the role of enforcer of the rules. Without an
agreed upon interpretation of the rules, the game easily degenerates
into a tactical sniping affair. If you can't make them see the light,
maybe you should consider finding new partners or consider sacrificing
your body to block their cross court shots (ie, accept their version
of the rules - no cross court).
But they may not have the same moral qualms about giving you a free
tattoo that you didn't ask for.
Alex Glaros
front wall, and if the cross court opponent is camping in front court
also, waiting for your splat, this can be good:
(1) crouch way down and aim for the side wall as though you're going to
hit a pinch/splat. This will draw them both up even closer to the front
wall than they already are.
(2) hit the ball very hard on the side wall (the one your opponents are
expecting you to splat) about 3 feet from the front wall and maybe 9 feet
high, so that the ball will go "around the world" too high for them to cut
off, and die just an inch high off the back/side wall corner behind the
opponent on your side. If they can cut it off, you're hitting it too
low. The advantage of this over a ceiling lob is that it dies faster, and
its awkward path makes it harder to return with any accuracy. You are
guaranteed a weak return or sometimes even a successful pass. If your
cross court opponent adjusts by staying back, then hit the splat against
the opponent on your side.
If they are "stubborn" opponents who won't listen to you about providing
room for a cross court shot, simply serve the same serve that they serve
to you, and you stand in their way the way that they do to you. Believe
me, that's a lot more relaxing than trying to force open a closed mind.
Alex Glaros