Rules Refresh: The Fine Line Between Momentum and a Distraction

By Mark Peifer, USA Pickleball Certified Referee; Past Chairman, USA Pickleball Rules Committee

Question:

A player hits a ball that has bounced near the right sideline in the Non-Volley Zone. Their momentum carries them around the net post and completely onto the opponent’s side of the playing surface, but without touching the opponent’s court. Instead of immediately returning to their side, however, they continue running around the outside of the court, make two left turns, and eventually return to their own (left) side. During all of this, their partner continues the rally.

Why isn’t this automatically a distraction fault?

Answer:

Crossing the net plane in this situation is not, by itself, a fault. The player’s momentum from the shot carries them beyond the plane of the net, which is permitted by Rule 13.I.1.

The important language in the rule is:

“A player may cross the plane of the net immediately after hitting the ball. The allowance to cross the plane of the net only applies while executing the current strike of the ball and for continuation associated with the current strike of the ball.”

The phrase, “continuation associated with the current strike of the ball,” is the key. A player’s natural follow-through and momentum are protected. However, once that continuation has ended, the rule no longer provides any special protection for the player’s subsequent movements.

Running around the outside of the court, making two turns, and moving behind and then to the side of the opponents is no longer reasonably characterized as continuation associated with the original shot. At that point, the player’s conduct must be evaluated under other rules.

The applicable rule is the definition of a distraction:

“Distraction. Physical actions by a player that are not common to the game and interfere with the opponent’s ability or concentration to hit the ball.”

The referee should ask two questions:

1. Was the player’s conduct a physical action that is not common to the game?
2. Did that conduct interfere with an opponent’s ability or concentration to play the ball?

If the answer to both questions is yes, the referee should immediately call a distraction fault. The referee cannot wait until after the rally has ended and then decide that a distraction occurred.

This certainly fits the distraction definition; it was a physical action by a player and it is not common to the game to run around the outside of the court on the opponent’s side of the net.

The open question is whether that uncommon player movement interfered with the opponent’s ability or concentration to hit the ball.

If the referee determines that the conduct did not rise to the level of a distraction, the behavior could still warrant a technical warning for unsportsmanlike conduct as authorized by Rule 22.B.10.