I have two shot and want to know which one is hinder?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Eyr5pgX7g


here is another hinder from the back wall


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KrhIjfgss

IMHO,

First one is a very marginal hinder...the guy was a little out of position..and didn't really aggressively pursue the ball. I'd have given a replay hinder on it....but I'd be hard pressed to allow a penalty hinder on that one.

The second one is pretty easily a replay hinder form the outside looking in. I think the non-hitter got very close to the ball and probably hindered clear view of the ball. Now the hitter appears to have just conceded that he didn't set up properly, or got a bad bounce, and thus gave up the rally anyway....which is his call.

In the first video, the opponent was in the hitters way, if the ball was “playable” off the back wall.

If the ball was not playable off the back wall, the shot was a good pass shot, with no chance for a possible return, even though the previous hitter was in the path (way) of the hitter.

In the second video, the ball takes a “bad bounce”, but the previous hitter made no attempt to “move away”, so this is a Hinder, and a possible Penalty hinder. If the non-hitter (previous hitter) saw the bad bounce, they would have likely made an attempt to move out of the way. A Hinder (Penalty Hinder) does not need to be an intentional act. The second video is a good example of how NOT to play, and ASSUME but not KEEP EYES on the ball at all times. If you want to ASSUME, and not KNOW (keep eyes on ball), you risk assuming WRONG, as in the second video, where the non-hitter makes not attempt to move out of the way.

BTW: The second video would have likely ended with a Hinder, if the non-hitter made an attempt, since the hitter was also off-balance. But another call, Penalty Hinder, could also be made on the non-hitter, because they made no attempt to move out of the way, even if the hitter would have still been off-balance! The hitter only needs a “chance” for a possible return. The type of Hinder will ususally depend on the actions, or inactions of the non-hitter.

I'd say possible replay hinders on both.

Jordan -- how would you cite a penalty hinder on #2?

In #1 -- it looked like the player in gray backed in to the path of the hitter on his way to the ball and there was a pretty clear stutter-step. No idea if the player would have normally been fast enough to reach the ball before it got to the back wall or if the ball was hittable coming off of the back wall.

In #2 -- looked like a likely visual interference, although hard to tell from the video whether that is how the hitter always tries to hit that shot (don't think so, but you never know) or whether it was difficulty seeing the ball that caused the awkward hit attempt.

Matt

mdhills wrote:

I'd say possible replay hinders on both.

Jordan -- how would you cite a penalty hinder on #2?

In #1 -- it looked like the player in gray backed in to the path of the hitter on his way to the ball and there was a pretty clear stutter-step. No idea if the player would have normally been fast enough to reach the ball before it got to the back wall or if the ball was hittable coming off of the back wall.

In #2 -- looked like a likely visual interference, although hard to tell from the video whether that is how the hitter always tries to hit that shot (don't think so, but you never know) or whether it was difficulty seeing the ball that caused the awkward hit attempt.

Rule 3.15 Penalty Hinder

(c) Blocking. Moves into a position which blocks the opponent from getting to, or returning, the ball; or in doubles, the offensive player who is not returning the ball hinders or impedes either defensive players’ ability to move into a position to cover the pending shot that comes into play.

(g) View Obstruction. A player moves across an opponent's line of vision just before the opponent strikes the ball.

In Video #2, at about the 8 second mark, the non-hitter knows the ball will hit the back wall, but instead of watching where and how the ball actually bounced off the back wall, the non-hitter just assumed, but assume wrong.

If you watched the previous shot (about 6-second mark), you will notice the ball hits the front wall, then the side wall, then the back wall – all on a fly!

An experienced player would understand the front-side wall combination would cause a wild bounce.

An unexperienced player would not know this in advance, but would make an effort to move out of the way.

Any level player, who did not “watch” where the ball hit the back wall, could only “guess” that the ball would bounce more to the right side (or straight back to front wall) as it would normally do.

But when you take your eye off the ball and “guess”, you also risk guessing wrong, and being in the way of your opponent who is playing the ball.

In this case, the non-hitter was lucky his own shot didn't hit him in the back, off the back wall!

Watch this again a few times and you will see what I mean.

Basically, this is like having a “easy set-up” off the back wall, and having your opponent slowly move between you and your view of the ball, just before you attempted to hit the ball (see Rule 3.15 g).

Just because your opponent did this by accident doesn't mean it wasn't their fault. They have an obligation to make an attempt to move out of the way, and can still be penalized if they make no effort, or even made an effort, but still prevented you from the return shot.

I think it is funny how everyone has a different view on this. They are both without a doubt hinders!! The first one is a hinder because if the guy wasnt in the way he might have been able to cut the ball off. He had to run around the guy to try and play the ball!! The other thing is he most stop and call the hinder right then and there!! He cant see if he can hit the ball off the back wall and if not decide it was a hinder. It is a replay hinder. The easiest way to tell if it is an avoidable hinder is if it was a setup. The first one is not a setup!! The 2nd one is without a doubt a penalty hinder, any ball off the back wall is considered a setup and the guy trying to hit the shot cant even see the ball because the guy is in the way!! No wonder the guy isnt set up on the ball!! I would call that a penalty hinder if I was the ref in a tournament!!

Jordan

(c) Blocking. Moves into a position which blocks the opponent from getting to, or returning, the ball; or in doubles, the offensive player who is not returning the ball hinders or impedes either defensive players’ ability to move into a position to cover the pending shot that comes into play.

(g) View Obstruction. A player moves across an opponent's line of vision just before the opponent strikes the ball.

In Video #2, at about the 8 second mark, the non-hitter knows the ball will hit the back wall, but instead of watching where and how the ball actually bounced off the back wall, the non-hitter just assumed, but assume wrong.

If you watched the previous shot (about 6-second mark), you will notice the ball hits the front wall, then the side wall, then the back wall – all on a fly!

An experienced player would understand the front-side wall combination would cause a wild bounce.

An unexperienced player would not know this in advance, but would make an effort to move out of the way.

Any level player, who did not “watch” where the ball hit the back wall, could only “guess” that the ball would bounce more to the right side (or straight back to front wall) as it would normally do.

But when you take your eye off the ball and “guess”, you also risk guessing wrong, and being in the way of your opponent who is playing the ball.

In this case, the non-hitter was lucky his own shot didn't hit him in the back, off the back wall!

Ok I am the "one" on the way (anyway), yes I assume the ball will be more to the right. I did not turn around and look is because I had a very "bad experience" before don't want to go more detail (because it HURT)

It is a wild bounce and I did not expect it, I did move out the way. LOOK carefully I have to move to left hand side for the ball to pass me and move back to the right again (WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE BALL).

BTW I want to re-ask the question:

If you are the ref what call will you make.

In the first video it's an obvious replay hinder, although the hitter didn't help himself by his penguin butt response.

In the second vid, it looks like the hitter had good view of the shot's geometry and was really the victim of a jam from the unexpected bounce. Just because the non-hitter wasn't where he should be doesn't make a hinder automatic, bonafide obstruction has to occur. I'll take the hitter at his word that he wasn't hindered. But if I were a ref . . . this was a big enough snafu that I would have to call a replay hinder.

jad9594 wrote:

BTW I want to re-ask the question:

If you are the ref what call will you make.

For this situation, you answered your own question.

You did not watch the ball, and made the wrong assumption where the ball would bounce, when it was your opponents turn to hit a return.

You made no effort to move out of the way, and could not, since you were unaware where the ball was.

At this point, when you are between the ball (path) and the hitter, I would stop play (call a hinder).

I would explain this was a Penalty Hinder, since the non-hitter made no attempt to move out of the way.

My way of calling Penalty Hinders may be a little different than most, since I may be able to foresee situations and make the call sooner than most referees (from experience).

I will stop all rallies whenever a safety problem occurs, as soon as possible.

Your situation wasn't a safety concern, as far as the video looked, but it was so blatant since it only required the non-hitter to watch their own shot and move slightly out of the way.

Instead, the non-hitter was worried about court position, and positioned in the balls path!

There was NO CHANCE for this non-hitter to be “in danger” of getting hit by the opponent, since the hitter was in front of (mid court) and not between the back wall and the non-hitter, so there is NO EXCUSE for not watching the ball.

At this point, even if the hitter didn't have a set-up, and just a “chance”, I would still call the Penalty Hinder against the non-hitter for not watching the ball and yielding the right-of-way (Rule 3.15 g).

But, at the same time, if the hitter had just a “chance” and the non-hitter made an “attempt to move”, I would only call a Replay Hinder.

If the hitter had a set-up (as seen in video) it doesn't make a difference if the non-hitter did, or didn't make an attempt to move out of the way.

My Way of Determining the Type of Hinder Call

For any Hinder to occur, the hitter must make an effort to return the ball, and have a “chance” for a return.

Penalty Hinders:

Whenever the non-hitter prevents the hitter from hitting a “set-up” shot.

Whenever the non-hitter had time, but made no attempt to move out of the hitters way during a “non-set-up” shot.

Replay Hinders:

Whenever the non-hitter had no time to move, or attempted to move out of the way, but prevented the hitter from hitting a “non-set-up” shot.

FWIW, my memory is that in the second vid the non-hitter did make a quick flick glance back to the ball over his right shoulder, and he did step from left to right in reaction to where he thought the ball was coming from. No, it wasn't enough. At this level of play and with the doubt of the bad bounce I would have split the difference and called replay.

the first video, I call a redo. I remember I post this situation before.

http://www.meetandplay.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6770

The 2nd video: I wasn't on his way of hitting the ball, and he is jam by the unexpected bounce (Control Freak). for sure I screen the ball when it took a wild bounce but I was not on his way hitting the ball (to the front wall).

I'm with Jordon on this one. I think both are potential penalty hinders.

In the first video, the non-hitter moves into the path the opponent needs to take to get to the ball. If the ball is playable off the back wall (hard to tell from the video) and the guy has the skills for that to be an offensive shot, I think a penalty hinder might be possible. The condition that makes this a possible penalty hinder is the extreme negligence of the non-hitter of moving into the obvious path. The non-hitter was in a fine position moments after hitting the ball, but the inexplicably wandered back and to the left and created the hinder situation. It might not matter if there was an offensive opportunity or not in this case, since it was more of an active-hinder on the non-hitters part.

In practice, I would probably only give a replay hinder in this first case though, since the hitter never really made an honest effort to get to the ball. Incidental contact on the way to the ball is not an automatic hinder if there is ample time for the hitter to recover from the contact and still get to the ball. The hitter can't simply stop play on first contact and expect a penalty hinder, when there would have been ample time for him to still get setup on the shot.

In the second case, this seems like a strong case for a penalty hinder to me. I don't see a bad-bounce occurring, the ball seemed to play fairly true off the back wall. I see the non-hitter moving inexplicably to the left and screening what is a clear offensive opportunity. The hitter didn't get jammed due to a bad bounce, they got jammed because they couldn't see the ball coming off the back wall to know how to setup on it properly. It's a small miracle the ball didn't hit the non-hitter. The hitter would not have been able to see the ball at all until it popped over the guys shoulder. Again, this is like the first situation, in that the non-hitter actively turned the situation into a hinder by their careless actions.

He had time on both - lazy - replay at the most.

... if he would have rolled the ball he wouldn't want a replay

I would have call both hinders and replayed them.

The first one, you just started to move backwards into his path at the ball.

The second one you moved to the left and right into the path of the ball, instead of moving to the right and letting him have a clear view. I am surprise the ball didn't hit you off the backwall.

You might want to work a little on court awareness and positioning. Doesn't look like you are watching the ball all the time and thus getting into some bad positions.

lionel_101

I am surprise the ball didn't hit you off the backwall.

Don't be surprise :) it is call Spider-sense

Spider-Man's "spider-sense" manifests in a tingling feeling at the base of his skull, alerting him to personal danger in proportion to the severity of that danger. It appears to be a simultaneous, seemingly clairvoyant response to a wide variety of phenomena. Though the exact mechanism of this ability is unknown, his original spider-sense clearly has at least two aspects in addition to sensing potential or immediate danger

:lol:

Hello guys, been away for some time now, just getting back. Anyway, it is a good place to start for me in resurrecting older threads..lol

I agree with the people who said the first hinder might be a penalty hinder. The non-hitter blocked the path of the hitter trying to get to the ball. Of course, it also seemed like he wasn't trying that hard to get there either so I most likely would just give him a replay as a ref. For me personally, I am betting that I could have played that ball anyway even with the incidental contact on the way to retrieving it.

For the 2nd video, I am with mdhills, I would be hard pressed to give a penalty hinder for that situation, especially for the sections Jordan posted (c and g). For (c) the hitter never even attempted to move toward where the ball was so obviously the non-hitter didn't block him from getting to it. It looked more like the hitter set his position as he too was "assuming" where the ball was going to bounce to. That's what it looked like and then he was screened from seeing the ball for a moment as the ball bounced basically over the right shoulder of the non-hitter. The non-hitter, as badly as it was, nonetheless did try to get out of the way at least a little bit. As Jordan said he should have watched the ball though and made a better attempt...

As for (g), I don't feel the non-hitter actually walked in the hitter's line of vision either. If you keep watching the video over and over and pause it a bunch too, the non-hitter was moving to the left to get out of the way when the ball sort of hopped over his right side AFTER which he then hopped back to the right. He didn't hop back over until the ball already passed. It almost seems too that the hitter, since he might have assumed where the ball would end up, was not in very good position either.

The bad thing about this situation is it could be really difficult to see what actually happened if you were reffing and only got the one-time viewing of the sequence of events. Personally, I would probably have given the hitter a replay at least for being screened but I would be really stretching to give a penalty hinder for video 2. That's just me though...it is so hard to know without being there and seeing it happen in person...

mpengle

Hello guys, been away for some time now, just getting back. Anyway, it is a good place to start for me in resurrecting older threads..lol

I agree with the people who said the first hinder might be a penalty hinder. The non-hitter blocked the path of the hitter trying to get to the ball. Of course, it also seemed like he wasn't trying that hard to get there either so I most likely would just give him a replay as a ref. For me personally, I am betting that I could have played that ball anyway even with the incidental contact on the way to retrieving it.

For the 2nd video, I am with mdhills, I would be hard pressed to give a penalty hinder for that situation, especially for the sections Jordan posted (c and g). For (c) the hitter never even attempted to move toward where the ball was so obviously the non-hitter didn't block him from getting to it. It looked more like the hitter set his position as he too was "assuming" where the ball was going to bounce to. That's what it looked like and then he was screened from seeing the ball for a moment as the ball bounced basically over the right shoulder of the non-hitter. The non-hitter, as badly as it was, nonetheless did try to get out of the way at least a little bit. As Jordan said he should have watched the ball though and made a better attempt...

As for (g), I don't feel the non-hitter actually walked in the hitter's line of vision either. If you keep watching the video over and over and pause it a bunch too, the non-hitter was moving to the left to get out of the way when the ball sort of hopped over his right side AFTER which he then hopped back to the right. He didn't hop back over until the ball already passed. It almost seems too that the hitter, since he might have assumed where the ball would end up, was not in very good position either.

The bad thing about this situation is it could be really difficult to see what actually happened if you were reffing and only got the one-time viewing of the sequence of events. Personally, I would probably have given the hitter a replay at least for being screened but I would be really stretching to give a penalty hinder for video 2. That's just me though...it is so hard to know without being there and seeing it happen in person...

Thank you Mpengle, I agree with you at the point the "he too was assuming".

I will said all the racquetball player "assume" the shot or should I call it predict ? or is a joe vs pro thing?? when pro do it is ok but when joe did it er..... is assume!!!

I do respect all the opinion from the member here (specially to John), as well as the player (the guy with "cute" hat in the video).

jAd