Login | Register
 
 
Home
What Is Pickleball?
Learn To Play
Rules of the Game
Keeping Score
Play Healthy
Contact Us
 
Lessons and Clinics
6 Essential Shots
Calm & Storm
Playing Better Doubles
 
Login Help
Player Directory
Paddles-Balls-Apparel
 
 
 

 
Rule 6.C.
 
Rule 6.C. (Section 6) asks players to make a precise judgment, with an imprecise measurement tool, based on a flawed premise.
 
The psychophysics of eye/brain collaboration cannot support the level of precision described in 6.C. and yet we spend a lot of time wrangling over it. In order for the ball to be considered out or in the player must make a judgment based on the precise location of the true contact point of the ball in relationship to both time and space. Yet, hard as they may try to get it right the human eye and brain often take shortcuts or just make outright errors when it comes to observing fast moving events.
 
The perception of a moving object shifts in the direction of motion.
“The researchers therefore predicted that there should be a significant perceptual bias, so that balls that bounced on the line would be called “out” when they should have been called “in”. The data obtained confirmed the researchers’ prediction. Of the 83 points in which the referee made an error, 70 of the calls were in the predicted direction: the position of the ball was misperceived to be shifted in the direction of motion, so that the referees judged them to be out of play when in fact they had bounced on the line.”
 
In tennis they use the Hawk-Eye ball tracking system to locate the actual position of the ball. Unlike humans, with real disconnects between perceptual abilities and the physical information available, Hawk-Eye  provides a 3-D image placing the ball within a few millimeters. Even the most sophisticated tracking system has a margin of error…... while pickleball Rule 6.C. does not. Enter Section 6.D.
 
The Code of Ethics in Line-Calling Section 6.D. – 6.D.12 provides the essential principles behind line-calls. It is here we often see the least attention paid. In short, 6.D et al simply acknowledges that if there is any question….the point goes in favor of the opponent. Period. How many times have you seen one player return the ball, look to his partner and ask….was it out?” Doesn’t matter. If you have to ask it’s in.
 
Finally, the case has been made that, unlike tennis balls, a pickleball’s construction prevents it from flattening or leaving a footprint. As a result we are asked to accept the premise that the ball can only touch the ground at one point. Intuitively that makes a lot of sense. But here our intuition is probably not supported by the science. The pickleball can/does deform on impact and can/does remain in contact with the ground….leaving a "footprint." The footprint becomes more pronounced when a spinning object contacts the ground with a low trajectory. A ball that may appear to be out may have actually caught the line and all we may be perceiving is the rise of the ball in relationship to the last point at which it made contact with the surface.
 
Summary: When left to the imprecision of our visual tools the precise contact of the ball on the court surface is always a judgment, not necessarily supported by reality. USAPA rules go to great length to acknowledge this point and offer a simple approach to all line calls:  “The player, when assigned line calling duties, operates under the principle that all questionable calls must be resolved in favor of the opponent.”
 
References:
http://www.georgemather.com/MotionDemos/TennisQT.html
http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2008/11/04/you-cannot-be-serious-perceptual-errors-by-professional-tennis-referees