A new Casebook entry has been developed following multiple inquiries submitted to USA Pickleball regarding rulings on physically altering the flight of the ball after contact. The entry is expected to be published soon and is currently ready for rollout. It clarifies that a fault occurs when a player intentionally attempts to alter, or successfully alters, the flight of the ball after a single contact.
SCENARIO 1: During a rally, the ball bounces on Team A’s end of the court very close to the net. Player A1 reaches their paddle under the ball and hits it upward and parallel to the net as their only play. As the ball rises above the height of the net, Player A1 (or their partner, Player A2) blows air at the ball, or fans it with the paddle, hat, or other object, causing it to change direction and land on the opponents end of the court. May a player further alter the flight of the ball after it has been struck by that player or their partner?
RULING 1: No. A player may not physically attempt to, or actually physically alter the flight of a ball in play after it has been struck. Any attempt to physically influence the ball after it has been hit constitutes a fault, regardless of whether the ball’s flight is successfully altered.
COMMENT 1: A player’s ability to alter the flight of the ball ends when the ball is legally struck with the paddle. Any subsequent action to alter the flight of the ball is the functional equivalent of a double hit, which violates Rule 10.D and is a fault under Rule 10.D.1. If the player’s partner alters the flight of the ball, the action is the functional equivalent of the ball being struck by both partners and is a fault under Rule 10.D.2.
SCENARIO 2: During a rally, the ball bounces on Team A’s end of the court very close to the net. Player A1 reaches their paddle under the ball and hits it upward parallel to the net as their only play. As the ball rises above the height of the net, one of their opponents, Player B1, blows air at the ball, or fans it with the paddle, hat, or other object, preventing it from crossing the plane of the net to Team B’s end of the court. Is the act of altering the flight of the ball on the opponent’s side of the net legal?
RULING 2: No. Similar to Scenario 1, altering the flight of the ball in this manner is the functional equivalent of striking the ball.
COMMENT 2: Player B1 commits two faults. First, a fault is committed by altering the flight of a ball that remains on the opponents’ side of the net. This is a violation of Rule 13.I.1.a because the player has physically altered the flight of a ball on their opponent’s side of the net. Although neither the player nor any equipment physically crossed the plane of the net, the player’s actions effectively reached across the net and altered the ball’s flight while it remained on Team A’s side. In addition, because the action is treated as the equivalent of a volley, Player B1 also commits a non-volley-zone fault under Rule 11.A.1 by altering the flight of a ball in the air, a volley, from their non-volley zone.
Comments can be sent to :