Interference - Direct Access
Published: 19 May 2006 - 13:49 by rbrowne7
Updated: 12 Nov 2010 - 22:11
Subscribers: Log in to subscribe to this post.
Hi Rita - This is my first submission since joining. It's about time I had a proper answer to this question as many very experienced players Ibelieve are still getting it wrong. The scenario - Lets say the striker is just behind the service box on the backhand side and drives deep, meanwhile the incoming player instead of being set on the T to cover all shots is getting a bit tired and he is back from the T and basically just as deep as the guy that just struck the ball. the incoming player makes a B line for the ball which he could easily have got to, however the striker instead of allowing unobstructed direct access has in fact stepped backwards towards the centre of the court and totally blocked the incoming player. Can this be a No Let - because thats what I got the other night? We all know the incoming player is supposed to be camped on the T however, the point I'm making is that the guy that struck the ball must move somewhere else, either towards the front wall or back wall not just back into the incoming player. If the striker was a wake up he would straight drop or boast rather than play long. Lets hear some replies thanks!
How to add images to Members' Forum posts and replies here...
Replies...
Please Note: The most recent replies are now at the top!
From dalziel - 12 Nov 2010 - 22:11
From missing_record1 - 07 Jun 2006 - 23:27
From raystrach - 07 Jun 2006 - 09:01
just picked up on this post. i would add one more point to rita's answer.
did the player create his/her own interference?
a common way of doing this is that they go the wrong way initially, then they have to change direction to get to the ball. if this results in interference - no let, even if they could have got to the ball.
From rbrowne7 - 19 May 2006 - 14:33
From rippa rit - 19 May 2006 - 13:57 - Updated: 19 May 2006 - 14:16
Here is the WSF Rule 12 - Interference link
Here is the Line of Reasoning from the WSF Idiots Guide to the Rules
Here is the link to the WSF Rules FAQ Forum
I guess the crust of your question is -
- was it accidental interference, and/or created by both players?.
- at the point of interference could a winning return have been hit?
- did the striker clear the ball?
- did the incoming striker make every effort to get to the ball?
- did crowding occur?
- could the player have got to the ball in spite of the interference?
DON BALL on the WSF Forum and wait a few days for his reply to appear. Take a good look as there may be similar instances answered already on the forum.
Remember, a player can only get to the T area of the court, provided they have hit a shot that allows them to take up that position. It is not a players right to naturally take up that spot.
Hope this is informative.
Sorry, only members can post replies on this and all other Members` Forum items.
Support Squashgame
Support us here at Squashgame.info! If you think we helped you, please consider our Squash Shop when purchasing or make a small contribution.
Products Now Available
US Squash Shop
Testimonials
" Ray&Rita, of course You ARE the saints, even with the fee paid to you that I am happy to pay, as I do believe that the knowledge is the most valuable good on earth. "
Sorry, logins temporarily disabled
We hope to see you back soon when we launch our updated site.
raystrach,
I believe the example you give is not a case of created interference and therefore a let would be the correct decision. Guideline 11 of the rules clearly states that being "wrong footed" is not created interference.
http://www.ceepol.com/squashreferee/referee_guideline11.htm
I'm aware this thread is over 4 years old now! Hey, forgive me... i'm a new member and just catching up. :)
Back to top