Fault or No Fault?

During the most recent pickeball tournament I competed in (before COVID-19 caused the world to shut down), there was a play that seems to have sparked some controversy in regards to if it is a fault or not. This link will show you the play in question, followed by a slow motion replay. What do YOU think? Did I commit a Non Volley Zone fault or not?

Side note: nobody thought it was a fault during this tournament. It was only after this video went public that I started getting comments form people saying I shouldn’t have gotten the point. I figured this could be a good learning tool for folks not totally familiar with the NVZ rules.

I say yes it was a fault. It looks like your paddle was over the nvz when you came down on your knees.

Hi Sandy.

I’ve heard quite a few people say that my momentum took me into the kitchen after hitting the ball and that it was a fault. However, if you re-watch the video you’ll see that the ball bounced before that happened. Once the ball bounces, it doesn’t matter if my momentum or any part of me ends up in the kitchen. There are still arguments out there that a fault occurred after my shot that took me to my knees, though.

You are absolutely right!! I was just watching you and not the ball before you hit it. That is why I am not a referee :smiley: Thanks for pointing that out!

Don’t worry about it, the video is actually quite deceiving. A LOT of people didn’t catch that the ball bounced before I hit it, LOL.

1 Like

Whether or not Black T’s got the point really depends on what USAPA rules say about NVZ encroachment. Indeed their rules are surely geared towards “standing” encroachments (a player lunges-in to return a dink or very short-lob/cross-lob) because a high % of players entering the kitchen will still be on their feet. Thus in cases (like this one) where a player falls into the NVZ hands-first (with feet still-out), waters get murkier.

If USAPA isn’t keen on sharpening up the NVZ encroachment rule to include “non-standing” players, then perhaps all they need to do is re-write the existing rule to consider a player’s SUPPORT POINT closest to the net, as being akin to a standing player’s “feet”.

Since USAPA will accept a ball that was legally struck OVER the kitchen (so-long as said-player’s feet are OUT) then IMHO the kneeling player’s shot in this video WAS totally legit. This player’s most-forward support point (his knees) WERE outside the NVZ and thus same rules ought to apply as-if he was standing in the same place.

I’m going to wager that the Black T’s player who is under-scrutiny, left himself sufficient room when running toward the kitchen, to insure not only that his feet would stay-out if he fell forward, but that his KNEES would also be out if his fall led to a kneeling position. I’m not sure if a Level 4.0 would instinctively think of s’thg like that, but it’s quite possible (indeed all reading this would now-know!)

Cheers

WIP