The Screen Call
When does a court hinder result in stoppage of play? Sounds obvious, although it
depends on which set of rules are applicable. The Mile High WPRO stop held recently at the Denver Athletic Club offered divisions with three sets of rules – WPRO, CPRT and amateur. Kudos to Deb Beldring and her tournament staff for managing these differences and running a great event. Although the majority of rules as defined by the USAR are applicable to all divisions, there are a few variations that make each of the professional tours unique. Examples of the variations include the number of games, point total, and the duration of timeouts. However, these modifications usually have little impact on the rally.
In this article I want to address a subjective topic that is relevant to all divisions and the rally – the screen call. Enclosed in a 20’ x 40’ court, it is inevitable that one player (or team) will impair another player’s view of the ball. The screen call was designed to provide remedy to the receiving player or team when their view is obstructed by another player. Note the defensive player is not entitled to a clear view of the ball, and therefore, cannot receive a screen call. The subjective nature of the screen call makes it more difficult than one would think. First, let’s take a look at the definition of a screen as detailed in the official rules of racquetball:
Any ball rebounding from the front wall so close to the body of the defensive player that it prevents the offensive player from having a clear view of the ball. (The referee should be careful not to make the screen call so quickly that it takes away a good offensive opportunity.) A ball that passes between the legs of a player who has just returned the ball is not automatically a screen. It depends on whether the other player is impaired as a result. Generally, the call should work to the advantage of the offensive player.
There are two critical elements of a screen described in the definition – proximity and impairment. It is essential that both elements are met to award a screen call. It is plausible that the ball may pass very close to a player without impairing the receiver’s view. Although this situation may warrant a hinder call, it is unlikely to warrant a screen call. Similarly, there will be instances where a receiver may not have a clear view of a ball, although it does not rebound close the opposing player(s). Again, a screen call is unwarranted since only one element exists. Regardless of the point in the rally the potential infraction occurs, the receiving player is eligible for a screen call only when impaired to a clear view of the ball after the ball has passed close to the body. The rule of thumb when referring to “close to the body” is approximately the length of a racquet – 22”. This is not an absolute, nor is it possible to precisely measure when balls move so quickly.
The screen call is seen most often during the serve, although it can be used at any time during a rally. Referring the screen call during the serve, Rule 3.9(i) states, “The receiver is obligated to take up good court position, near center court, to obtain that view.” Screen serves usually occur on drive serves, although they may be warranted for jam or ‘Z’ serves. Normally, ‘Z’ serves do not result in screen calls with the possible exception of balls passing in front of the server. The drive serve line, also known as the three foot line, demarks a zone where drive serves are automatically considered a screen, and therefore, a fault serve. Rule 3.6 explains that a server may not initiate a service motion in the three foot zone and drive serve back through that zone. However, in one questionable scenario, a server stands in the drive serve area and serves a foot in front of his body. Although the ball passes relatively close the server, the receiver has clear view of the ball from the point it is struck. The correct call – no screen serve.
As noted above, the screen call should not be made so quickly as to negate a good offensive opportunity. As part of my pre-match routine, I usually brief players on my policy for calling screens. I prefer to allow players to return all but the most obvious screens with the understanding that players keep the shot they elected to take. Players that desire a screen call should raise their hand while continuing play until the referee concurs. Referees are empowered to make screen calls, although they must rely on their vantage point. Just as it is important for players to assume proper court position, it is equally important for referees to assume proper positioning to make the correct calls.
The screen serve is considered a fault serve and may result in a sideout if it occurs on the second attempt. For divisions that use the one serve rule, players called for a screen serve on their first attempt are offered a second and last opportunity. For screen calls during the rally, the result is a replay of the rally according to rule 3.14(a). However, when a player moves across an opponent's line of vision just before the opponent strikes the ball, a penalty hinder should be awarded. Also, when a player hits a ball that rebounds back where he is standing, the offensive player is then entitled to an offensive opportunity. Any attempt to make an offensive shot that is disallowed due to the closeness of the opponent should result in a penalty hinder. A screen should be called when the offensive player has no ability to see and react to the ball. As a side note, the ball must be retrievable in order to obtain a screen call.
There are many scenarios that make the screen call a debated issue in competitive racquetball. The CRA encourages all players to attend a local rules clinic to improve their understanding of the rules and the on-court applications during matches. For additional questions regarding the screen call, or to schedule a rules clinic, please contact David Stone at Dave@coloradoracquetball.com.
Penalty Hinders
Without exception, the penalty hinder is the most debated call in racquetball. Perhaps this is the reason why most players and officials avoid the call and simply choose to “do it over.” Players abide by other rules religiously, while dismissing the penalty hinder as a discretionary call that is only used in the most egregious situations, if at all. The most common argument is “the infraction was not intentional.” Others will argue that “I gave him plenty of room to hit the ball.” This article will attempt to dismiss the myths associated with penalty hinders and endorse a position where players view this call as a means of ensuring safety and fair play.
Section 3.15 of the Official Rules of Racquetball outlines the circumstances under which a penalty hinder would be warranted. For example, the loss of apparel during the rally should justify the call since it creates an impediment on the court. Similarly, a player that fails to allow an unimpeded swing is usually guilty of a penalty hinder. However, other reasons for a penalty hinder are more subjective and require further examination. It is important to note that the rules clearly state, “A penalty hinder does not necessarily have to be an intentional act.” The argument about intention should be dismissed at it has no bearing on whether a penalty hinder should be called. As a side note, this misnomer is one of the main reasons why avoidable hinders were more aptly renamed penalty hinders.
Another popular objection to penalty hinders is the perceived requirement for the offensive player to have an “offensive shot.” The term “offensive” is ambiguous, inducing different interpretations based on individual experience and skill level. This requirement is conspicuously absent from the official rules, although it has been addressed by Otto Dietrich, the longstanding National Rules Commissioner for the USAR. A clearly offensive shot should elicit a penalty hinder under the right circumstances, although it is not an absolute requirement. More discretion should be given to whether the offensive player had a reasonable shot and if the defensive player was obstructing a required shot. Otto has affirmed this position in several opinions offered through his popular segment, “What’s the call?”
Most penalty hinders are a result of court position or the exchange of position by players. A common argument against a penalty hinder is that a player is allowed more than enough room to hit the ball. However, rule 3.15 (a) explains that a player must be allowed a shot straight to the front wall, and a cross-court shot that rebounds to the rear corner farthest from the hitter. If the defensive player fails to move, thereby restricting availability of either shot, a penalty hinder is warranted. It is not necessary for the offensive player to strike the ball for a penalty hinder to be awarded. The defensive player should be aware of his position and inclined to give the offensive player the call in order to preserve safe play. It is in the defensive player’s best interest to allow the call when warranted so his opponent will not feel it is necessary to hit around him. This posture of sportsmanship initiated by the offending player should promote a safer game.
Blocking an opponent’s access to a ball is also grounds for a penalty hinder. Contact between players, especially in doubles, is expected. Whereas inadvertent contact usually results in a replay hinder, intentional contact by the offensive player resulting in a distinct advantage could prompt a penalty hinder. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the offensive player to yield position after hitting the ball, thus giving access to his opponent. Players that hit the ball back to themselves are often guilty of this infraction, and should not be rewarded by an opportunity to replay the point.
There are other situational issues that may affect the call of penalty hinder, such as diving and jumping. Players caught on the floor after diving that clearly obstruct a required shot are guilty of a penalty hinder. However, players jumping to avoid a required shot may not be guilty – it is discretional based on the height of the shot, and the height and timing of the jump. Doubles play introduces more factors for consideration, but do not change the underlying premise of a penalty hinder. It is easier to think of a doubles team as one unit for the purpose of rule interpretations.
As previously mentioned penalty hinders are subjective and require a good understanding of rules and court positioning. It is important to note that the difference between replay hinders and penalty hinders are often minor, hinging on the discretion of the players or official. The CRA recommends that players consult the official rulebook (available on the CRA website), and attend a local rules clinic for case studies. Meanwhile, consider the benefits of extending a penalty hinder call to your opponent – you will find the game is safer, and encourages improved court position.
Certification
As an avid fan of all racquet sports, I watched the 2011 US Open tennis championship marveling at the number of calls that are made correctly. Granted, they have several line judges, a chair umpire, and a “spot shot” instant replay system to decide appeals. The chair umpires are confident and knowledgeable as indicated by the disputed hindrance call against Serena in the women’s finals. Despite the pressure of the moment, the chair umpire made a correct call on a rarely enforced rule that parallels a penalty hinder call in racquetball. Not only was Serena unacquainted with the rule, the long-time tennis commentators were unfamiliar, relying instead on confirmation from the head official.
Given that racquetball matches are typically officiated by only one individual, this incident begs the question, “How well do racquetball players know the rules?”
Most tournament players believe they are well versed in the rules of the game. Yet, not every call is as simple as “skip” or “point”. Let’s explore a few scenarios to see how you would make a call if you were officiating. Questions may offer more than one correct answer; the correct answers are provided at the end of the article.
1. In the middle of the first game of a match, a player requests that the game ball be exchanged for another ball. No express reason is given for the request. What is the correct course of action?
a. Since the match has already been initiated, no change of ball is allowed unless broken.
b. The ball change should only be authorized if both players consent.
c. The ball can be changed with one player’s request, but only if the official approves.
d. The referee may exchange the ball at the request of the one player.
2. A few points into the first game, the receiver notifies the official that the server is wearing illegal eyewear. Upon inquiry, the server explains to the official that the frames are typical prescription, but that the lenses are plastic. Upon consultation, the referee deems the eyewear illegal. What is the correct call (or calls)?
a. The official should give the server a warning about the risk associated of playing with illegal eyewear and notify the tournament director of the warning.
b. The official should assess a timeout and require the server to obtain legal eyewear.
c. The official should assess a technical warning and require the server to obtain legal eyewear.
d. The official should assess a technical foul, deduct a point, and require the server to obtain legal eyewear.
3. During a match using line judges, the server hits what appears to be a splat rollout, but called a “skip” by the referee. The offensive player appeals the call and both line judges extend a “thumbs down” signal. What is the correct call?
a. The referee should award a sideout since both line judges extended a “thumbs down” signal.
b. The referee should replay the point since all officials do not agree on the call.
c. The referee should reverse the call and award a point to the server since the shot was irretrievable.
d. The official should replay the point since both line judges disagree with his call.
The questions above highlight some of the random situations that arise during tournaments. So how did you do on the rules quiz? How do you think your next referee did on the quiz? Would you tend to show more respect to the referee’s calls if they were certified to be knowledgeable of the rules? Would you support a program that develops referee competency?
Many have already responded with a resounding “yes”. Based on this feedback from CRA members, the board has implemented a Referee Certification Program designed to increase knowledge of the rules and improve officiating. The goal of the program is to increase player confidence in officiating matches and provide reassurance to players that referees are well qualified.
The Referee Certification Program developed for Colorado players closely mirrors the National Certification Program. This program will ensure players are well qualified to referee matches by meeting the following standards:
1. Attending a formal rules clinic.
2. Passing a written test.
3. Refereeing 10 matches, both singles and doubles.
4. Passing match assessments by a qualified assessor.
The referee certification will be good for 3 years with an abbreviated renewal process. Certification will provide the confidence necessary to competently referee a match. Additionally, the certification will carry added benefits at various tournaments. Discussions are still pending on how to reward those who take the initiative to obtain certification.
The CRA would like to hear your ideas on possible incentives to obtain certification. Please forward any ideas you may have to Dave@ColoradoRacquetball.com or Rballcoach@gmail.com. The CRA board expects to start the incentives at the State Doubles Championships in November.
Referee certification is primarily aimed at improving tournament matches, but will also have a positive effect on recreational play. The CRA encourages all players to pursue certification, especially those who are sponsored or competing in tournaments. Rules clinics will be held at most tournaments and at selected venues throughout the year. League Directors are encouraged to promote certification with their players by scheduling a clinic during league play – please e-mail Dave@coloradoracquetball.com to schedule.
Remember – players should not criticize officials without demonstrating that they Know the Rules!
Answers
1. “d” - The referee may exchange the ball at the request of the one player. [rule 2.3(a)]
2. Both “b” and “d” - The official should assess a timeout and require the server to obtain legal eyewear AND the official should assess technical foul, deduct a point, and require the server to obtain legal eyewear. [rule 3.17(a) 9]
3. “c” - The official should reverse the call and award a point to the server since the shot was not retrievable. [rules B.6(g) & B.8(a)]
Ref Your Own
Have you ever lost a game of racquetball 15-17 (15 representing the opponent’s score and 17 your total score notwithstanding the multiple rallies replayed)? There is nothing more frustrating than a game fraught with dispute. In a typical game of racquetball, the vast majority of rallies are played without contention with an occasional call questioned by one of the players. In most sanctioned tournaments, referees serve as an independent official, providing some reassurance that the outcome of most rallies will be correct. However, most games of racquetball are played recreationally without the luxury of a referee.
The question for many players is how to resolve the inevitable disputes that arise during a recreational game. USA Racquetball, the governing body for racquetball, has attempted to address this issue in the 2011 USAR Official Rules of Racquetball. Section ‘D’ under the Competition Policies and Procedures tackles the subject of self-officiating. In this article, I will address the highlights of self-officiating and provide some ideas for making recreational games safer and more enjoyable.
One of the most common and easiest disputes to resolve is the score. No, you do not need to take your shoes off to count past ten. Simply ensure that the server clearly calls the score before every first serve and receives confirmation from the opponent. Confirmation may be expressed silently with a nod, or by some other agreed upon method. The continual verification of the score will help avoid those awkward moments of reconstructing the previous rallies and maintaining the pace of the game.
During the rally, it is the hitter’s responsibility to make calls such as two-bounces, skips, or carries. It is acceptable for the opponent to appeal a shot after a rally has ended to have the hitter reconsider a questionable shot. As a matter of etiquette, players should make the call against themselves when they are not sure. If both players fervently dispute the call, the rally should be replayed at first serve. If the hitter is certain of the shot, and the opponent is unsure, the outcome of the rally stands.
The receiver has the primary responsibility to make the call on the serve, although either player may make a call for a fault serve. The receiver must make a call before opting for the outcome of the return and is not entitled to play fault serves at their discretion. The screen serve call is the sole responsibility of the receiver. As outlined in rule 3.9(i) regarding screen serves, the receiver must assume proper court position near center court. It is important to note that in order to request a screen; the ball must pass closely to the hitter or partner (less than 18” is a good rule of thumb) AND impair the receiver’s clear view of the ball.
Replay hinders are normally the discretion of the offensive player or team, much like a screen serve call. Offensive players may stop play under the conditions outlined in rule 3.14(a), or elect to continue play through inadvertent contact. However, if the offensive player chooses to continue play, they cannot assert a call of hinder afterwards. When there is doubt, players should err on the side of safety - according to the rulebook, “Players are entitled, and expected, to hold up their swing, without penalty, any time they believe there might be a risk of physical contact.”
As outlined in the previous article on penalty hinders, defensive players should be inclined to give the offensive player a penalty hinder when warranted in order to preserve safe play. If the defensive player does not offer the call, the offensive player should point out the possible infraction for reconsideration. If both players do not agree that a penalty hinder occurred, the rally should be replayed. It is in the defensive player’s best interest to allow the call when warranted so his opponent will not feel it is necessary to hit around him. Sportsmanship is still an esteemed attribute and will go a long way in building rapport with your opponent.
There are certain aspects to the rules that are difficult to address when self-officiating, including: 10-second rule, signaling not-ready, foot faults, safety zone infractions and technical fouls. Recreational play does not invalidate these rules, but does make it difficult for one side to enforce against another. If a player feels like the opponent is violating one of these rules, it should be clearly pointed out as soon after the infraction occurs as possible. If there is question over the rules, players should consult the official rules for clarification.
In situations where continued disputes occur between players, efforts should be made to obtain a referee. Sometimes, a third party’s opinion is enough to satisfy a questioned call. Racquetball coordinators that manage leagues, shuttles or tournaments should be knowledgeable of the rules and, preferably, a certified referee. The CRA encourages all players to attend a local rules clinic to improve understanding of the rules and the on-court applications during matches. To schedule a rules clinic, please contact me at Dave@coloradoracquetball.com.