Adz - a strike against the Ref would be the way to go with this one I reckon, oops!

Back to top

    Here's an interesting one.......

An opponent plays the ball over his shoulder and a player stops the ball behind only to be given a let. After 5 or so similarly bad calls the player gets frustrated and softly hits the ball into the middle of his opponents back. The ball was clearly travelling toward the front wall, and clearly going to be up. Should this be a stroke against the striking player or a stroke in his favour?

Note that the ball was NOT being played dangerously as the power of the shot was only just enough to reach the front wall and was played in a manner to not harm the opponent but merely show that the front player was causing interference.

I thought I'd throw up this situation to see what people's thoughts were.

ADZ

Back to top

Hi there.

All i want to say is A hits B advantange to A as he or she has direct access to ball and B moves into his or her path.

Remember Rules says the Ref has a right to call as and stop play as and when he fit.

Most of the squash fanatics, I know play golf and the embraces the rules of golf religiously. why not squash players????????

In squash only the ones losing and un sporting player cheats and starts to blame  ref, it's all part of sports.

take it in the chin and make squash enjoyable , so don't cheat and put the blame on refs on yr off days or when ur not good enough.

Cheers

Back to top

Hi Adz,

As u insisted, pls pick up yr guts and be a squash referee, and stop complaining and also open this invitation to all playing pros too.

Cheers

Edmond

Back to top

So here's a subjective decision if ever there was one. Two players are playing a match and player A strikes the ball and hits player B with the follow-through.

The referee stops play giving a stroke to player A. Why?????

Here's some of the scenarios which could have occurred and goes to support my opinion that a referee is only as good as their understanding of the game and the level at which it is played:

1. If the referee believes that contact was caused by player B crowding or encroaching onto player A and player A complains, the referee will decide to award a stroke to player A.
2. If the referee believes that the contact was accidental but caused interference to player B stopping him from reaching and making a reasonable return, a Let will be given to player B if he calls.
3. If the referee believes that the contact was accidental but caused interference to player B stopping him from reaching and making a winning return, a Stroke will be given to player B if he calls.
4. If the referee believes that contact was due to an excessive swing of player A then he will award a stroke to player B if he calls.
5. If the referee deems that the contact was accidental, and that player B had put himself into a bad position, he will give a no let decision if player B calls.

 

So in these five different outcomes, it all comes down to the referee's opinion on what is:

• A reasonable position for player B to be in
• A reasonable swing for player A to take
• The ability of player B to reach and play the next shot
• Effort by player A to allow player B to reach the ball
• Effort by player B to reach the ball

 

So yes I can appreciate how difficult a position the referee is in to make this decision in a split second, but only an experienced referee who knows both the game-play and the rules can decide in this situation.

 

From the description of the JP vs NM match, I would say that the referee's call was NOT right. Where was NM's complaint of interference? Without complaint from NM, how can the referee make the decision of Stroke? If JP had complained about interference on moving to the ball then there are threee outcomes: No Let, Let to Power or Stroke to Power. Quite simply the referee was wrong in their decision, realised it and over-ruled themself by changing their decision once they had processed the situation. I believe that if NM had NOT called and JP could have reached the ball and made a reasonable return and he HAD called, then a Let would have been the correct decision assuming that a) NM had made every effort to allow JP path to the ball, and b) JP had made every effort to reach the ball.

 

I get the impression that some referees deliberately target teams or player that they feel deserve to be taught a lesson, and all to often others will "jump onto the same band-wagon" and allow their judgement to be clouded with bias.

 

So my take on the siutation of ball hits player:

Player A strikes ball and ball hits Blayer B before hitting any walls or floor.

Was ball travelling to be a good return (e.g. not travelling into floor, out-of-court or tin)? If not then point to Player B, no further action needed.

If ball was going to be a good return:

Was A aware of B's presence and deliberately hit him? = Dangerous or intimidating play, stroke to B.

Was A not aware of B's presence and played the ball in a dangerous manner (e.g through middle of court after turning) = Stroke to B from dangerous or intimidating play

Did B move into the flight of the ball as it was travelling onto the side wall as a good shot (e.g. not into the tin)? If so, Let ball to player A.

Did B move into the flight of the ball as it was travelling as a good shot onto the front wall? If so, stroke to player A

 

That's pretty much it in the simplest of analysis. No bias, no complications. Determine the following quickly and make a judgement:

• Player A's intentions upon striking the ball (e.g. deliberate hit at B, or unknown of B's position)
• Player B's movement (did the ball strike him without him moving (see above point), or did he move into the ball)
• Where was the ball actually travelling? Directly onto the front wall? Side wall? Floor / Tin / Out-of-court?

With those three things decided upon then the decision can be made pretty quickly. Of course the "intentions" is subjective, as is where the ball was travelling (especially if hit fast), as is B's movment (as most people are likely to be watching the ball and not the actions of the non-striking player!).

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to put a point across which has been brought up on other threads. Namely:

THE RULES OF SQUASH ARE ABSOLUTE, BUT THEIR APPLICATION IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION IS DOWN TO THE SUBJECTIVE OPINION OF THE REFEREE AT THE TIME. A REFEREE WITH GREATER EXPERIENCE OF GAME-PLAY AT A HIGH LEVEL WILL MAKE QUICKER AND BETTER JUDGEMENTS THAN A REFEREE WITHOUT SUCH EXPERIENCE. REFEREES ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS PLAYERS WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCING AND FOLLOWING THE RULES OF SQUASH. PERSONAL BIAS SHOULD NEVER COME INTO MAKING DECISIONS.

Grrrrrr! I'm having one of those frustrated days today, especially with certain "holier than thou" attitudes.

Adz

Back to top

Hi to all who read this post,

My humble apologies, the line shd read as Conduct 17- game to Mathew for openning door without permission.

Tks n rgds

Edmond

Back to top

HI there,

The answers are there. if the hit was unintentional and the opponent moves into the flight of the ball due to his speed, Stroke to strike.

Conduct 17 for dangerous play  if the referee deems that  the striker did it on purpose or for revenge.

As for making every effort to get out of the way, the interference rule of thumb read:

0. unobstructed direct access to the ball.(striker,after finishing stroke and reasonable back swing, moves out to allow opponent)

0. a fair view of the ball( striker after stroke, must allow opponent fm from wall)

0. freedom to hit the ball( opponent must allow striker  to hit ,and not move into him or flight of the ball ,due to speed)

0. freedom to play the ball ( reasonable back swing and not crowding by opponent or vise vasa)

The referee's call was right ,Stroke to Matthew and like i said before the god of squash, who does not know the rules and wants to influence even thru he's retired, shud hv been give a conduct 17- gane to Matthew for opening door with permission. 

Also this referee shud hv been tick of by the world body and banned for future.

( Personnally i hate bad refereeing and people who cheats to win.)

Cheers

Edmond

 

Back to top

Sleave - Yeah that was a bit of a strange decision by the Ref in the first place by how you described what went on.  If some interference had occurred on the backswing I could understand that, but not on the follow through.
I think the Ref made a misjudgement in the first place for interrupting the game and then realised he should have shut his mouth.
Ref's job is not an easy one either.

Back to top

Funny thing. I watched yesterday night the match on DVD

Jonathon Power vs. Nick Matthew (Tournament of Champions 2006 Quarterfinal)...

The rally goes into the centre of the court, Power under pressure, Matthew hits the ball and with his follow-up he hits the wrist of Power. Ref immediately goes "Stroke to Matthew", then JP bursts with anger opening the door and YELLING at ref and marker that "he stopped becasue was hit into arm". Ref got scarred (Funny) and changed his decision to let. What I wanted to say? Know the rules but be willing toi break them.

Power lost anyway. Great match from Matthew

Back to top

http://www.worldsquash.org/idiotsguide.html Here is a good link for you where the rules are explained and updated for players convenience. Unfortunately, in squash, there is not a "cut and dried" approach to the rules and very much depends on the rule application. The questions of late have encroached on all of the following rules, ie Rule 9 - Hitting Opponent; Turning Rule 10 - Further Attempts Rule 12 - Interference Rule 13 - Lets Rule 16 - Injury (caused by opponent or self inflicted) Rule 17 - Conduct on Court aprice, it will be necessasry for you to read the rule interpretation over many times, and keep referring to them to increase your knowledge. This is the down side to our refereeing and unfortunately most players, including top players, do not have a complete understanding of the rules. In short, you must get out of your opponent's way; you must make every effort to prevent interference; you must not deliberately hit your opponent;you must make every effort to get to and play the ball. Unfortunately, the rules are not designed to tell a player how to play the game.

Back to top

So where does dangerous play come into this i.e continually not calling lets and hitting your opponent, is this allowed? Also is there any way to descirbe making every effort to get out of the way of interfering?

Back to top