Banner Space for Sale on This High Traffic Site

home - logo

Avoidable hinder interpretations

Home

Racquetball dictionary

Advertising


Home

Click here for an authoritative description of the avoidable hinder by Otto Dietrich, National Rules Commissioner.

Subject: Re: Avoidables and Hinders
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:00:27 GMT
From: (Jordan Kahn)

Answer 1, "What is an Avoidable": Actually it is called an Avoidable Hinder,
which is a hinder that is not replayed, but instead, the rally is awarded to
the player who was hindered. Almost ALWAYS to the hitter.

Answer 2, "What is a Hinder". A Hinder is just a replay of the last rally, for
safety reasons, or instances where a player had to stop their swing because
they may hit an opponent with the ball or racquet, or if the ball broke during
play.

Some Hinders are Avoidable, due to the nature of the situation, like preventing
an opponent from a chance to return a shot. Failure to move out of your
opponent's way would be an example of an Avoidable Hinder.

For further rules, see the Official Rules at the United States racquetball
Association website at…
http://www.usra.org/usra/pub&ref/Rulebook.htm

What other rules should you be aware of? Heck, I have no idea what you already
know, browse the rules and check out this site for more help…
http://www.usra.org/usra/pub&ref/01rules.htm

Don't forget to ALWAYS wear eyeguards and a wrist thong during practice and
play.

Good luck and have a safe fun time,
Jordan

--
Subject: Avoidables and Hinders
From: "Keith

What is an "avoidable" and a "hinder"? I know the basics to the game but
not sure about rules like these. Also, what other types common rules should
I be aware of?





Subject:              Re: Avoidables: the rule (Jeff, take note)

        Date:              Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:02:48 GMT

       From:              "Otto Dietrich" 



Hey Steve



Please note that as used in the rule, the wording is that it "INCLUDES"

(implying that it is NOT limited to) an open, offensive shot!



Otto



OTTO E. DIETRICH

President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present

National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998

Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present



"Steve" wrote in message

> Here's the rule:

>

> http://www.usra.org/pub&ref/rules/rule3.htm#3.15

>

> Note that (b) DOES specifically mention impeding an open, offensive shot.

>

>

> Steve F

> Team E-Force

> Steve (SEFSTRAT)

> webpage:  http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html








Subject: Re: Avoidable Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:38:35 GMT From: "Otto Dietrich" Well, I agree in part. You stated: > A great example: Player A hits a GREAT pinch. Player B dives for the shot way > up in the forecourt, makes a spectacular save, and hits the ball to the front > wall. Player A holds up--a safety holdup--because player B is on the floor and > it's just too close. Is the opponent in the way? Is he in the line of a straight-in or cross-court pass? Does he prevent his opponent from getting to the ball? If those conditions are present, then it's (quite likely) an avoidable. Not present, then deadball hinder. "Diving" and "a player on the floor" does NOT by itself constitute an AUTOMATIC AVOIDABLE situation. There has to be interference! Subject: Re: Avoidable Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:38:35 GMT From: "Otto Dietrich" Well, I agree in part. You stated: > A great example: Player A hits a GREAT pinch. Player B dives for the shot way > up in the forecourt, makes a spectacular save, and hits the ball to the front > wall. Player A holds up--a safety holdup--because player B is on the floor and > it's just too close. Is the opponent in the way? Is he in the line of a straight-in or cross-court pass? Does he prevent his opponent from getting to the ball? If those conditions are present, then it's (quite likely) an avoidable. Not present, then deadball hinder. "Diving" and "a player on the floor" does NOT by itself constitute an AUTOMATIC AVOIDABLE situation. There has to be interference! > By definition, a safety holdup because a player is on the floor is virtually > always an avoidable hinder---because ANY shot is a clearly offensive shot! What defination are you referring to? Only true if it actually "hinders" or "impairs" the other player! > Note that player B made a GREAT save, and it ewas not the fault of that p[layer > that they could not get out of the way. Avoidable nonetheless. But in a sense it WAS his fault--since he elected to leave his feet and thus reduce his "post shot" mobility! Otto OTTO E. DIETRICH President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998 Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present Otto OTTO E. DIETRICH President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998 Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present
Subject: Re: Avoidable hinder Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:37:28 -0500 From: "Otto Dietrich" Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: alt.sport.racquetball Hi King You commented: > I believe that an "Avoidable hinder" should be re-named. > The term "Avoidable hinder" leads one to the conclusion that if the > hinder was accidental, or avoidable, then a replay hinder should be > called. > This is particularly misleading to newer players that are not very > familiar with the rules. > The Avoidable hinder should be re-named to..... > > "Offensive hinder" > > What do you think? Consider the meaning of term "avoidable" as it applies in racquetball--it simply means that there is something that a player could have or should have done that would have caused there to be NO hinder at all. So if that criteria applies--either intentionally or accidentally--then it is an avoidable hinder. If you read the avoidable hinder rule, you'll see that the concept of "offensive" (as in shot) is NOT part of it! Nevertheless, there are some circumstances under which an evaluation of the offensive opportunity denied is a factor to be taken into account. I won't go into that here, but suffice it to say that if you intentionally block my attempt at the ceiling shot, it's an avoidable hinder even though the ceiling shot is NOT an offensive shot! Linda's comments were correct about the history of the term and I don't expect there to be any momentum to change the term unless something great is proposed. Unfortunately I don't think that "Offensive Hinder" is that great! Anyway thanks for the thoughtful suggestion! Otto OTTO E. DIETRICH President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998 Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present
Subject: Re: Question on avoidable hinder Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 09:35:27 -0500 From: "Otto Dietrich" Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: alt.sport.racquetball Hi Alex A real interesting scenario! Obviously one of those judgements that's in the gray area where no rules or even a concept can be applied and be 100percent the right call every time! That said, let's consider a few issues: It Scott had hit the "chest high" ball that Steve gave him on a line directly to the point where Scott was, would the ball have been at a height that (extended) would have reached the front wall? Or would it have skipped BEFORE it reached the front wall? If the angle isn't right, then no hinder of any kind can be called on THAT basis. One other factor to consider--did Scott's actions/presence only 4 feet in front of Steve create a "distraction" that affected Steve's shot? If so, how much? Remember, sometimes there can be a real distraction, but other times, what appears to be a distraction is actually just a big choke--an over anxious player who's so eager to take the "advantage" just given to him that he simply blows the shot! So, there really is no definitive answer on this issue! Judgement MUST be applied. Experience helps, but this hinder is clearly "on the border line" and you'll ultimately have to lean one way or the other! This is one of those times when having linejudges MAY produce a better outcome because 3 people, not just one, make the decision! So, how would I "lean"? Well, based solely on your description (I really would prefer to SEE IT myself) I think that there was enough doubt to NOT call it avoidable--replay the rally! But that's just one person's opinion! Hope that helps! Otto OTTO E. DIETRICH President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998 Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present "Alex Glaros" wrote in message news:3876FFDC.ADE397AA@no_spam.com... > I was refereeing a B match. > > Steve dove against the right wall and hit a hard, chest high drive along > the right wall. > > The receiver, Scott, got there on time, behind Steve and was starting > to hit a cross court pass to the back left side of the court; an > offensive shot. The ball was chest high. Steve was still flat on the > floor 4 feet in front of him. The ball would have went over Steve's > flat body. > > Scott had a 50/50 chance of hitting the pass so it wouldn't come off the > back wall. If it came off the back wall, Steve would have had time to > scramble to the ball and hit it.m If it didn't bounce of the back wall, > Scott would have won the rally. > > Was this an avoidable hinder? > > (1) I thought the offensive shot that Steve was taking away from Scott > had to be kind of a plum, easy-to-put-away shot. This was trickier > because it was coming back so hard and high and against the right wall. > > (2) Scott had what seemed reasonable room to hit the ball because the > ball was so high and Steve was so low. But it kind of looked like a > real avoidable because Steve was directly in front of Scott. > > Thanks! > > Alex Glaros
Subject: Fwd: Help with the jump/hinder question... Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:43:42 EST From: Crater FYI ________ In a message dated 2/19/00 7:18:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, ottod@worldnet.att.net writes: << Subj: Re: Help with the jump/hinder question... Date: 2/19/00 7:18:55 AM Pacific Standard Time From: (Otto Dietrich) To: Garry Hi Garry As I told the original poster who e-mailed me directly about this, the National Rules Committee has discussed this specific issue and decided that it the defensive player jumps high enough (entire body about the height of his knees when standing on the floor) and at the right time, then it is a "deadball" hinder (replay the rally)! The troubling issue here is that this player "moved" into the "straight-in" lane and therefore aggravated the situation. In other words, it's sort of intentional! Generally, I'd call this NOT avoidable, but I'd really like to see it and find out what my "on the spot" impressions would be. Hope that helps! Perhaps it's time to get the National Rules Committee involved again! Otto OTTO E. DIETRICH President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998 Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present ----- Original Message ----- From: Garry Carter To: Otto Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Help with the jump/hinder question... > Hi Otto, > > I suspect that you have read the NG post regarding setting up in front of the > offensive player then jumping as he takes his shot. I've had to address this > question several times at referee clinics and at tournaments. How do you deal > with this situation? Any addition insight would be greatly appreciated. > > Sincerely. > > Garry Carter > California State Rules Commissioner > Subject: Re: Help with the jump/hinder question... Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 10:17:20 -0500 From: "Otto Dietrich" To: Garry Carter Hi Garry As I told the original poster who e-mailed me directly about this, the National Rules Committee has discussed this specific issue and decided that it the defensive player jumps high enough (entire body about the height of his knees when standing on the floor) and at the right time, then it is a "deadball" hinder (replay the rally)! The troubling issue here is that this player "moved" into the "straight-in" lane and therefore aggravated the situation. In other words, it's sort of intentional! Generally, I'd call this NOT avoidable, but I'd really like to see it and find out what my "on the spot" impressions would be. Hope that helps! Perhaps it's time to get the National Rules Committee involved again! Otto OTTO E. DIETRICH President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998 Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present ----- Original Message ----- From: Garry Carter To: Otto Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Help with the jump/hinder question... > Hi Otto, > > I suspect that you have read the NG post regarding setting up in front of the > offensive player then jumping as he takes his shot. I've had to address this > question several times at referee clinics and at tournaments. How do you deal > with this situation? Any addition insight would be greatly appreciated. > > Sincerely. > > Garry Carter > California State Rules Commissioner >
Subject: Re: Help with a jump/hinder question Date: 16 Feb 2000 17:35:39 GMT From: (Jordan Kahn) Norm, great question, but your opponent is correct in this situation. The "Avoidable Hinder" is the correct call, before, during or after the shot, based on the official rules of what you described. Unfortunately, many players still think they can block a hitters shot if they leave an alternative shot- wrong! The hitter must always be given the straight-in shot as well as the cross-court shot to the opposite backwall corner. You admitted… "opponent is going for a dtl forehand shot (he's right handed) I (you) anticipate this shot as he is swinging and move over to cover the shot. I (you) jump a good vertical jump. He hits the shot high and hits the back of my sneakers with the ball." You just described moving into a position that would block your opponents shot, which is a "Avoidable Hinder". The rules generally benefit the hitter, as in your situation. So yes, I would agree with your opponent. You may be thinking about a "screen" ball, when the hitter waited to see if their shot was good or bad before calling a screen. That the hitter can not do. The screen must be called prior to the hit. But a screen ball is not a "hinder", it is a screen. The correct call in your case would be the "Avoidable Hinder" call, which occurred by you before your opponent hit their shot. Since you violated the "hinder" rule before the ball was hit, your opponent could argue that your rules violation occurred first, thus play could have been stopped before is return. This is like a server hitting a lob serve that was "short", but stepped out of the service zone and into the "safety zone" before the short serve hit the floor. Since the ball was still in play when the server moved out of the service zone, a safety zone violation (sideout) occurred first and is the correct call, even though the ball landed as a short serve. Like your situation, once you block your opponents shot, play should stop, and depending on offensive opportunity, your opponent awarded the rally. Just because your opponent does, or doesn't hit you, it does not mean it is not an avoidable. Jordan --- Subject: Help with a jump/hinder question Here's the situation My opponent is going for a dtl forehand shot (he's right handed) I anticipate this shot as he is swinging and move over to cover the shot. I jump a good vertical jump. He hits the shot high and hits the back of my sneakers with the ball. He says this is an avoidable hinder IF he hits me with the ball because I took away his down the line shot. Then he says IF the ball doesn't hit me it is a good shot for him and is playable. So what's the ruling on jumping. Granted, I was in the lane but I did give a high jump. He hit a high shot that hit my sneaker. Norman Patterson

Subject: Re: Jumping and avoidables
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:15:10 GMT
From: "Otto Dietrich"

Hi Robert

Here are quick answers to your questions:

"Robert wrote in message

> What's the call for the following situations?
>
> Defensive player realizes he can't really get out of the way of his
> opponent's shot, so he jumps, offensive player returns the shot and the
> rally continues. No harm right?

So far, that's right. Not only no harm, but also no hinder of any kind!

> What if:
>
> 1. The defensive player didn't time the jump right and the ball hits
him.
> Is this an avoidable hinder? Let's assume the shot was a down the line
> pass.

OOPS! That's an "AVOIDABLE"! Not intentional, but still avoidable!

> 2. The offensive player holds up for safety. Defensive player says
hey,
> I jumped. Is this an avoidable hinder?

It depends! How high did he jump? Did he time it right? Could he have
moved rather than jumped? I'd really have to see it before I (or anyone
el\se for that matter) could express an reasonable opinion on this.

> The rule is "Failure to Move. A player does not move sufficiently to allow
> an opponent..."

That's very right too!

Regards,

Otto

OTTO E. DIETRICH
President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present
National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998
Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present>
>


Subject:
Re: Help With A Call...
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:11:48 GMT
From: "Otto Dietrich" <ottod@worldnet.att.net>

Hi Chris

You asked:

> What happens when your opponent hits the ball almost right back at
> themselves. The two players are very close to each other now, they don't
> touch, but person that hit the ball is standing slightly in front of the
> person "trying" to return the shot. As the ball comes closer, it seem
that
> the ball is going to hit the person that hit the ball, BUT at the last
> moment, they side step, and the ball hits the other player.

First, hitting the ball back at yourself, while it may be advised by some
coaches, also generally puts the person who hit it at a risk of being called
for an avoidable hinder.

Secondly, in the situation you described above, the person who was hit with
the ball was (apparently) also the person whose turn it was to hit the ball.
Thus, since his view of the ball was "blocked" by his opponent standing
right in front of him, the right call IS a HINDER.

Third, what kind of hinder is it? Well, in this instance, there is probably
very little if any time for the player in fron to move out of the way. So,
the "avoidable" criteria depends on how good a shot was taken away from the
player who was hindered. The more likely that the shot not taken would have
been a "winner", the more likely that the hinder is "avoidable". This, of
course, is a very "gray" criteria (no real clear answer), so the ref has to
rely on his judgement and just hope for the very best.

One last thought--just to make this point clear. The person on defense (who
just hit the ball), CANNOT be hindered in such a situation! The person/team
on defense must not touch the ball or else they are subject to losing the
rally.

> According to what you guys said before, the player that got hit by the
ball
> loses the rally, despite that they did not have a fair chance to hit the
> ball.

Not exactly, what I said was that if the person who "hit the ball" gets "hit
by the ball" that he hit, then he loses the rally! That's a lot different t
han what you apparently thought I said!

Have a Happy New Year!

Otto

OTTO E. DIETRICH
President, United States Racquetball Association 1998-Present
National Rules Commissioner 1988-1998
Member of National Rules Committee 1982-Present